http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042401542.html



--


By it's very nature, my sig. makes this posting 100% on topic.

"Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I posted this."

Thumper

"I don't want a pickle..."
http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws

2006 VRSCA V-Rod
2006 XB12X Buell Ulysses
2006 BMW K1200GT
2004 H-D Road King Classic
1978 Triumph T140V Bonneville
1975 Triumph T160 Trident
1974 Norton Commando Interstate
1969 BSA R75 Red Rocket III
1962 Triumph T20 Tiger Cub
1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK
1954 Velocette MAC

On Nov 10, 1:06 pm, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/04/24/AR200...

For what he's done to this country since 911, it's about time they
take that anti-American so-and-so and hang him out to dry... Kucinich,
that is -

>
> --
>
> By it's very nature, my sig. makes this posting 100% on topic.
>
> "Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I posted this."
>
> Thumper
>
> "I don't want a pickle..."
> http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws
>
> 2006 VRSCA V-Rod
> 2006 XB12X Buell Ulysses
> 2006 BMW K1200GT
> 2004 H-D Road King Classic
> 1978 Triumph T140V Bonneville
> 1975 Triumph T160 Trident
> 1974 Norton Commando Interstate
> 1969 BSA R75 Red Rocket III
> 1962 Triumph T20 Tiger Cub
> 1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK
> 1954 Velocette MAC

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:06:53 -0800, "Thumper"
<roadapple@unclewebster.com> wrote:

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042401542.html

That was Tuesday, April 24, 2007; 6:09 PM

Oh, DO try to keep up .......

It was kinda funny, actually - this week ( November 2007 )

Kucinich did his thing, call up a 'priviledged resolution'.

Steny Hoyer ( Dem whip ) tride to table it ( shut it down ) right
away.

The DEMS went along with him ( to kill it ) - until the REPUBLICANS
turned the tables on him, and voted NOT to table ( kill ) it ! Hoyer
and Pelosi kept the 15 minute vote open for over an hour, trying to
figure out what the hell to do to kill the motion.

They couldn't do it - the Republicans had them by the nuts yet again !

IOW, the Republicans said 'Go ahead, we DARE you to have an open
debate on the floor of the House, starting right here and right now,
today'.

So, Hoyer immediately moved to 'send it to committee', which means
'There will be NO debate on the floor, John Conyer's committee will
put it on their list of things to do'.

The Republicans voted AGAINST that ( IOW, they said 'No, you're not
going to bury it, we're going to have the debate right here and now'
), but the Dems fell in on party lines and voted to BURY IT IN
COMMITTEE.

Net result - every Democrat is on record having voted to A ) Table the
motion ( kill it ), and also to 'send it to committee' ( a committee
whose chairman, the Democrat John Conyers, has said he will NEVER
allow it to come up for debate, regardless of all his bullshit about
wanting to impeach Bush, which he also hasn't done ).

Every REPUBLICAN is on record as having voted 'Let's debate the
Kucinich Motion, right here right now today, in the Full House ( not
just some committee ), live on C-span.

BTW - ANY Democrat could do what Kucinich did - introduce a
'Privileged Resolution', which by the House Rules **MUST** be brought
up for a vote within 2 days. Doing this bypasses Pelosi, et al, and
NO ONE CAN STOP THEM FROM DOING IT.

IOW - any of these asshole DumbocRats who **REALLY** wanted to start
Impeachment proceedings on Bush or Cheney - can do so with one piece
of paper, and the leadership can not stop them.

However, as Kucinich found out, the DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP WILL NOT
PERMIT BUSH OR CHENEY TO BE IMPEACHED. They will not even allow it to
be debated on the Floor of the House, even though EVERY SINGLE
REPUBLICAN wanted to, and is on record voting to do it.

This is mainly because the DumbocRat leadership knows and realizes
that Bush / Cheney have done NOTHING impeachable, and the left-wing
nutters like Kucinich just want to try to use the process to change
POLICIES THEY DON'T LIKE.

They can't get the votes in Congress to do it ( or anything else ), so
they try lawyers tricks - false prosecutions, etc.

When push comes to shove, though, and someone calls their bluffs, they
fold like a cheap deck of cards, every time.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

In article <1194718459.844637.218930@50g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
oasysco <wilderkommen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 10, 1:06 pm, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote:
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042401542.html
>
> For what he's done to this country since 911, it's about time they
> take that anti-American so-and-so and hang him out to dry... Kucinich,
> that is -

The problem is, this is old news. That was back in April. Just he other
day, *Democrats* voted to send the articles of impeachment back to
committee. Republicans wanted to debate the issue on the House floor.

And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
a costly war with no good outcome?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:30:30 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:

<snip>

>However, as Kucinich found out, the DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP WILL NOT
>PERMIT BUSH OR CHENEY TO BE IMPEACHED. They will not even allow it to
>be debated on the Floor of the House, even though EVERY SINGLE
>REPUBLICAN wanted to, and is on record voting to do it.
>
>This is mainly because the DumbocRat leadership knows and realizes
>that Bush / Cheney have done NOTHING impeachable, and the left-wing
>nutters like Kucinich just want to try to use the process to change
>POLICIES THEY DON'T LIKE.

Actually, it's because the Democrats understand that the Bush/Cheney
administration in general, and the Iraq war in particular, are a major
burden to Republicans seeking election/re-election. That's why the
Democratic leadership doesn't want to see any change. Personally, I
find this disgusting, and will probably be voting against my
Democratic incumbents both in the primaries and next November.

As for the impeachability of the offenses, that's up to the congress
to decide, but certainly using false and forged evidence to launch a
war qualifies, if they want it to.

Al Moore
DoD 734

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:06:23 -0800, Alan Moore
<alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:30:30 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>However, as Kucinich found out, the DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP WILL NOT
>>PERMIT BUSH OR CHENEY TO BE IMPEACHED. They will not even allow it to
>>be debated on the Floor of the House, even though EVERY SINGLE
>>REPUBLICAN wanted to, and is on record voting to do it.
>>
>>This is mainly because the DumbocRat leadership knows and realizes
>>that Bush / Cheney have done NOTHING impeachable, and the left-wing
>>nutters like Kucinich just want to try to use the process to change
>>POLICIES THEY DON'T LIKE.
>
>Actually, it's because the Democrats understand that the Bush/Cheney
>administration in general, and the Iraq war in particular, are a major
>burden to Republicans seeking election/re-election. That's why the
>Democratic leadership doesn't want to see any change. Personally, I
>find this disgusting, and will probably be voting against my
>Democratic incumbents both in the primaries and next November.

Another fine plan by the Dumbos then, apparently :-)

I love how they love to rant about 'Bush's approval ratings
are in the tank' - yeh, the only thing lower is THEIR approval
ratings :-)

>As for the impeachability of the offenses, that's up to the congress
>to decide, but certainly using false and forged evidence to launch a
>war qualifies, if they want it to.

They'd have to prove that that was actually the case. In
fact, it was not, all the ranting and accusations not withstanding.

The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
to make a decision. That is their job.

The mere fact that you can find a CIA analyst, or an
ex-official, whatever, who weighed various things differently ( either
at the time, or later ), gave different levels of credence to things,
and perhaps ( had THEY been elected to be in charge, which they were
not ) might have come to a different decision or course of action,
does not make it an impeachable offense.

Even **IF** Bush / Cheney were WRONG, that also is not an
impeachable offense. 'Being wrong' is not impeachable. Impeachment
is not based on 'who can second-guess you a year or more later, and
come to a different conclusion (rightly or wrongly ) than the one you
made at the time a decision had to be made' or 'what evidence comes to
light years later that might have changed your mind had it been
available at the time'.

It's very very easy to second guess someone the day AFTER or
the year AFTER or 5 years AFTER a situation came up that they had to
ACT ON. That does not infer a right to impeach them merely because
your late guess is different than their timely one.




--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

<.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
news:97tbj3pqp3mk504rsag50hr8hrjcdvuici@4ax.com...
.....
>
> However, as Kucinich found out, the DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP WILL NOT
> PERMIT BUSH OR CHENEY TO BE IMPEACHED. They will not even allow it to
> be debated on the Floor of the House, even though EVERY SINGLE
> REPUBLICAN wanted to, and is on record voting to do it.
>
> This is mainly because the DumbocRat leadership knows and realizes
> that Bush / Cheney have done NOTHING impeachable, and the left-wing
> nutters like Kucinich just want to try to use the process to change
> POLICIES THEY DON'T LIKE.
>
No, it's because winning the presidency is more imortant to them and than
justice, and getting into an impeachment hearing would distract from that.
They're just as morally bankrupt as the Republicans.

> They can't get the votes in Congress to do it ( or anything else ), so
> they try lawyers tricks - false prosecutions, etc.
>
False prosecution my ass.

> When push comes to shove, though, and someone calls their bluffs, they
> fold like a cheap deck of cards, every time.
>
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Enjoyed the last 8 years? Want a change? Seems like a no brainier this
time around, as history suggests the leopard is not going to change his
spots.

See you at the polls,
Robert

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:26:34 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
<robertboltondrop@gci.net> wrote:

>
><.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
>news:97tbj3pqp3mk504rsag50hr8hrjcdvuici@4ax.com.. .
>....
>>
>> However, as Kucinich found out, the DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP WILL NOT
>> PERMIT BUSH OR CHENEY TO BE IMPEACHED. They will not even allow it to
>> be debated on the Floor of the House, even though EVERY SINGLE
>> REPUBLICAN wanted to, and is on record voting to do it.
>>
>> This is mainly because the DumbocRat leadership knows and realizes
>> that Bush / Cheney have done NOTHING impeachable, and the left-wing
>> nutters like Kucinich just want to try to use the process to change
>> POLICIES THEY DON'T LIKE.
>>
>No, it's because winning the presidency is more imortant to them and than
>justice, and getting into an impeachment hearing would distract from that.
>They're just as morally bankrupt as the Republicans.

I don't doubt either of those points, in combination with my
own. Of course, the nutters would like to see President Pelosi for a
year .......

Of course, the reality is that there simply isn't time, if no
other reason, to conduct two sequential impeachments. So - if they
impeach Cheney - they change nothing. Bush appoints someone to keep
the chair warm for a year. Contrary to the implications of the left,
the VP is not a powerful office, the President makes ALL decisions,
period. The VP does not sign one single bill, or Executive Order, or
Military order, ever ( unless the President is officially
incapacitated ). If they impeach Bush, Darth Cheney takes over, their
worst nightmare :-)

>> They can't get the votes in Congress to do it ( or anything else ), so
>> they try lawyers tricks - false prosecutions, etc.
>>
>False prosecution my ass.

What exactly was your ass accused of ?

>> When push comes to shove, though, and someone calls their bluffs, they
>> fold like a cheap deck of cards, every time.
>>
>Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
>Enjoyed the last 8 years? Want a change? Seems like a no brainier this
>time around, as history suggests the leopard is not going to change his
>spots.

There WILL be a change, at least in the first name. Sadly,
there's a chance hte last name might be Clinton again, and in that
case the President is EXACTLY what wwe had before - Billary. They are
immutably joined at the hip, politically. They wre BOTH running the
country before, and if they get in, they will BOTH be doing it again.

That is one of Clinton's worst legacies ( IF IT TURNS OUT TO
BE A TREND ) - 'The wifey is the co-President', even though she was
never elected to anything.

We will get another Career Politician, that much is certain.
the details kinda don't matter. By definition, we will get another
power-mad nutter who thinks they are going to change the world to fit
their view ( like the ones you mentioned ), who will say or do
ANYTHING to get elected, and do WHAT THE FUCK THEY PLEASE afterwords.

Given the recent options ( Goracle and sKerry ), I'm damned
sure glad Bush won. Not that I like him or want him in power, but
he's the lesser of the available evils.


>
>See you at the polls,

Polls are meaningless, except the one Big One on election day,
which is rigged not by one party or the other, but by our system and
the money that drives it, anyway.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote

> And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
> a costly war with no good outcome?

What do you mean "no good outcome"?

Dick's pals in the defense industry made a fuckin' *mint*, which is exactly
what he had in mind all along.

On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:

> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
> to make a decision. That is their job.

RICHARD B. CHENEY:

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage
war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph
4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity
and political independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney's threat of
force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force.
Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter
the law of the land.

These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national
security of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such
conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage
war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a
republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of
powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare
war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by
justifying a war with false and misleading statements and deceived the
people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the
electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined
democracy.

Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by
lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for
the Iraq war. Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false
and misleading reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the
Congress and the people of the United States.

Richard B. Cheney acted contrary to his trust as Vice President, and
subverted the constitutional government to the prejudice of law and
justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
trial.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in
violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of
powers.

Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal
theory of the "unitary executive" aimed at placing the President above
the rule of law. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial.

Article IV

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by
arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the
United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited,
if any, access to counsel or courts.

Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and
prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially
refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting
to expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of
government. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial.

Article V

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has sought to mislead the people of the United States and
the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively
releasing misleading pieces of information, threatening officials with
retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution
against whistle blowers.

Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the
identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the
front-group she worked for. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such
conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article VI

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B.
Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with
his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and
interests over those of the American people.

Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to
plan national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited
a corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.

(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task
force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil,
gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the
National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet
regularly and develop the nation's energy policy.

(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did
endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public
knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress
generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate.

(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president
allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy
industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy
adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public
trust and all ethical norms.

On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully
disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy
Policy Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the
Vice President did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry
Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability
Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the
aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>
>> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
>> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
>> to make a decision. That is their job.
>

( snip Articles of Impeachment by Kucinich )

Add another Kucinich quote "I saw a flying saucer a couple of times,
too'.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>
>> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
>> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
>> to make a decision. That is their job.
>
>RICHARD B. CHENEY:
>
>Article I

snip

Yeh, that's the same tactic the lefties use - just keep repeating the
lie over and over.

Of course, when they were offered the opportunity to preset their case
in debate, on live TV, they tucked tail and ran ....


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Nov 10, 3:34 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com>
wrote:
> In article <1194718459.844637.218...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
>
> oasysco <wilderkom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 1:06 pm, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/04/24/AR200...
>
> > For what he's done to this country since 911, it's about time they
> > take that anti-American so-and-so and hang him out to dry... Kucinich,
> > that is -
>
> The problem is, this is old news. That was back in April. Just he other
> day, *Democrats* voted to send the articles of impeachment back to
> committee. Republicans wanted to debate the issue on the House floor.
>
> And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
> a costly war with no good outcome?

Well, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated the last one.

On Nov 11, 3:05 am, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote
>
> > And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
> > a costly war with no good outcome?
>
> What do you mean "no good outcome"?
>
> Dick's pals in the defense industry made a fuckin' *mint*, which is exactly
> what he had in mind all along.

Another example of deeply analytical usenet thinking.

On Nov 10, 4:26 pm, "Robert Bolton" <robertboltond...@gci.net> wrote:

> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
> Enjoyed the last 8 years? Want a change? Seems like a no brainier this
> time around, as history suggests the leopard is not going to change his
> spots.


Does that mean you're *NOT* going to vote for GWB in 2008???? <BOGGLE>

In article <1194791676.746778.123970@o38g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
"tomorrow@erols.com" <tomorrow@erols.com> wrote:

> On Nov 11, 3:05 am, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote
> >
> > > And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
> > > a costly war with no good outcome?
> >
> > What do you mean "no good outcome"?
> >
> > Dick's pals in the defense industry made a fuckin' *mint*, which is exactly
> > what he had in mind all along.
>
> Another example of deeply analytical usenet thinking.

What part of P. Roehling's analysis is in factual error? What good has
come from the War on Iraq? What good can possibly come from the War on
Iran?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

"P. Roehling" wrote:

>"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote
>
>> And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
>> a costly war with no good outcome?
>
>What do you mean "no good outcome"?
>
>Dick's pals in the defense industry made a fuckin' *mint*, which is exactly
>what he had in mind all along.

Unless you are privy to the the vice president's thoughts it would appear
that it is now you making up facts.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

On Nov 11, 8:27 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>
> >> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
> >> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
> >> to make a decision. That is their job.
>
> >RICHARD B. CHENEY:
>
> >Article I
>
> snip
>
> Yeh, that's the same tactic the lefties use - just keep repeating the
> lie over and over.

Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
Silvers. Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.

In article <47373426.5A0B3854@nospam.net>,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

> "P. Roehling" wrote:
>
> >"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote
> >
> >> And Cheney? Just what should one do to a liar who brings a country into
> >> a costly war with no good outcome?
> >
> >What do you mean "no good outcome"?
> >
> >Dick's pals in the defense industry made a fuckin' *mint*, which is exactly
> >what he had in mind all along.
>
> Unless you are privy to the the vice president's thoughts it would appear
> that it is now you making up facts.

What's the problem with that? It's okay when Cheney does it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

saddlebag wrote:

>Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
>Silvers.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

> Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.

There's some truth!

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

Timberwoof wrote:

>In article <47373426.5A0B3854@nospam.net>,
> "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>> > Unless you are privy to the the vice president's thoughts it would appear
>> that it is now you making up facts.
>
>What's the problem with that? It's okay when Cheney does it.

I'm surprised, Timberwoof. I had not considered you one to condone vice-presidential-fact fabrication.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

<tomorrow@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1194791983.737043.195740@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
> On Nov 10, 4:26 pm, "Robert Bolton" <robertboltond...@gci.net> wrote:
>
>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
>> Enjoyed the last 8 years? Want a change? Seems like a no brainier
>> this
>> time around, as history suggests the leopard is not going to change his
>> spots.
>
>
> Does that mean you're *NOT* going to vote for GWB in 2008???? <BOGGLE>
>
I won't be voting Republican, Tim. <BOGGLE>

Robert

In article <47376D82.CFADBA6@nospam.net>,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> >In article <47373426.5A0B3854@nospam.net>,
> > "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> > Unless you are privy to the the vice president's thoughts it would
> >> > appear
> >> that it is now you making up facts.
> >
> >What's the problem with that? It's okay when Cheney does it.
>
> I'm surprised, Timberwoof. I had not considered you one to condone
> vice-presidential-fact fabrication.

Your irony meter is broken. Better get it fixed.

Anyway, it turns out that Cheney was making up facts to justify the War
on Iraq and it wasn't okay when he did it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

In article <47376DF3.3DD1CB79@nospam.net>,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

> saddlebag wrote:
>
> >Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
> >Silvers.
>
> Thanks, I didn't know that.
>
> > Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.
>
> There's some truth!

Definitely broken; possibly beyond repair. I think you need a new Irony
Meter.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

Timberwoof wrote:

>Your irony meter is broken. Better get it fixed.

No, the irony meter seems OK. Let's check the sarcasm gauge.

>Anyway, it turns out that Cheney was making up facts to justify the War
>on Iraq and it wasn't okay when he did it.

Ah, that seems to have fixed it!

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:45:57 -0800, saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 8:27 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>
>> >> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
>> >> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
>> >> to make a decision. That is their job.
>>
>> >RICHARD B. CHENEY:
>>
>> >Article I
>>
>> snip
>>
>> Yeh, that's the same tactic the lefties use - just keep repeating the
>> lie over and over.
>
>Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
>Silvers.
> Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.

Try to keep up - her identity was made public ( by a guy
named Armitage, BTW, not Cheney, who worked for Colin Powell - not
Dick Cheney ). This was all very thoroughly determined at the Libby
trial, and in the civil trial that saw Plame thrown out of court
..


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Nov 11, 4:42 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:45:57 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 11, 8:27 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>
> >> >> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
> >> >> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
> >> >> to make a decision. That is their job.
>
> >> >RICHARD B. CHENEY:
>
> >> >Article I
>
> >> snip
>
> >> Yeh, that's the same tactic the lefties use - just keep repeating the
> >> lie over and over.
>
> >Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
> >Silvers.
> > Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.
>
> Try to keep up - her identity was made public ( by a guy
> named Armitage, BTW, not Cheney, who worked for Colin Powell - not
> Dick Cheney ).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml

> This was all very thoroughly determined at the Libby
> trial, and in the civil trial that saw Plame thrown out of court

U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important
questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our
highest government officials." But in a 41-page decision, he found
Plame and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, failed to
show the case belongs in federal court.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:40:13 -0800, saddlebag <saddlebag@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 4:42 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:45:57 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 11, 8:27 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:15:40 -0800, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The P / VP evaluated the evidence in front of them, weighed
>> >> >> it, decided what to believe, what to count heavily, etc, and proceeded
>> >> >> to make a decision. That is their job.
>>
>> >> >RICHARD B. CHENEY:
>>
>> >> >Article I
>>
>> >> snip
>>
>> >> Yeh, that's the same tactic the lefties use - just keep repeating the
>> >> lie over and over.
>>
>> >Yup, Valerie Plame was really just short order cook at Long John
>> >Silvers.
>> > Damn lefties blow everything out of proportion all right.
>>
>> Try to keep up - her identity was made public ( by a guy
>> named Armitage, BTW, not Cheney, who worked for Colin Powell - not
>> Dick Cheney ).
>
>http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
>
>> This was all very thoroughly determined at the Libby
>> trial, and in the civil trial that saw Plame thrown out of court
>
>U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important
>questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our
>highest government officials." But in a 41-page decision, he found
>Plame and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, failed to
>show the case belongs in federal court.

Yep.

So, how does this all give rise to impeaching Bush or Cheney ?
Armitage ( either 'slipped up' or did it on purpose ). He worked for
Powell. Unless there is evidence that Cheney ordered it, then the
only possible rationale is that 'any time any government employee
accidently ( or even on purpose ) mentions something secret to anyone,
the VP ( or Prez ) is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for it.

If THAT is the 'standard', I bet there is no President or VP
since Washington that didn't deserve impeachment.

Face it - impeachment is supposed to be the last and final
'safety' in our system, with the trigger pulled by the least powerful,
against the most powerful. It supercedes everything else in our
system - elections, SCOTUS, etc. It should not be used lightly.

There is a radical element on the far left that has no
scruples, no respect for our system, and will use anything they think
they can get away with to reverse the results of elections they lost.

They will use impeachment to affect policy change, they will
use the judiciary to write legislation they failed to get passed by
Congress, they will foster the myth that various Federal agencies and
positions are somehow supposed to be 'independent'. They ignore, on
purpose, our basic tripartate system, and invent a 4th estate of
'independent agencies and positions' that somehow are neither part of
the legislative, judiciary, nor Executive branches. If you read the
Constitution even briefly, you will find that there is no support for
this concept there.

They would have you believe also that the President of the
United States is merely some kind of 'mid-level manager' whose job is
to follow the orders of ( fill in the ever-expanding list - Congress,
SCOTUS, various government agencies like the EPA and the AG, etc ).
They would equate the position to that of the Queen of England - a
mere figurehead.

Again, the Big C does not support this. It says the three
branches are co-equal. Intentionally, this leads to endless tension
and debate as to what power lives where etc. They set up a country
run by rocks-paper-scissors, in effect.

WTF were they thinking ???? :-)



--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

..p.jm wrote this on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:02 -0500. My reply is
below.

> It's very very easy to second guess someone the day AFTER or the
> year AFTER or 5 years AFTER a situation came up that they had to ACT
> ON. That does not infer a right to impeach them merely because your
> late guess is different than their timely one.

Here're questions I've been meaning to look into:

o How come doesn't every POTUS before leaving office issue blanket
executive pardons absolving everyone serving in his administration
from any possible future investigation of wrongdoing?

o How come doesn't Congress ever investigate former administration
officials but only sitting ones?

o How come don't Attorneys General commence criminal investigations of
officials of outgoing administrations of the opposing persuasion?

o Are there rules and regulations covering what can be investigated
when and what needs to be excused when?

o ... or has this been foreclosed by gentlemanly agreement?

How ought I to proceed to find out?

--
... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
... 1979 Honda Goldwing GL1000 (Geraldine)
... Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
... 46° — Wind S 9 mph — Sky overcast.