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

Bill Walker wrote:
> "Steve T" <rm2@no48panspam.com> wrote in message

>> Dick Cheney is the man. The very fact that Kucinich wants to impeach
>> him is a testament to his good character and masculinity!
>
> ROTFL.. The "testament of good character and masculinity" was truly
> manifested during Dick Cheney's many deferrments due to "other
> priorities"..

Cheney and Bush sure know how to make money off the blood, tears,
body parts, and suffering of those who are serving, though...


--


Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

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/

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:34:38 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:02:40 -0800, Alan Moore
><alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:02 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>>wrote:
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>You've confused impeachment with conviction. They have to have proof
>>to convict, not to impeach.
>
> As with a Grand Jury, there's SUPPOSED to be at least evidence
>that reasonably supports the accusation. AND that it rises to the
>level of 'high crime'. Merely being wrong, weighing facts
>differently, or coming to different conclusions and having different
>policies, does not.
>
> Of course, they KNOW there is no such thing - they just want
>to use the public platform as a political and election weapon.
>
The use of a well-known forgery seems to qualify to me. Especially in
view of the fact that it was already known to be a forgery before they
used it, and they proved this over again, also before they used it.
Search for Niger and Uranium in the same document if you don't believe
me, but it was in all the newspapers at the time.

<snip>

Al Moore
DoD 734

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:05:14 -0800, Alan Moore
<alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:34:38 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:02:40 -0800, Alan Moore
>><alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:02 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>You've confused impeachment with conviction. They have to have proof
>>>to convict, not to impeach.
>>
>> As with a Grand Jury, there's SUPPOSED to be at least evidence
>>that reasonably supports the accusation. AND that it rises to the
>>level of 'high crime'. Merely being wrong, weighing facts
>>differently, or coming to different conclusions and having different
>>policies, does not.
>>
>> Of course, they KNOW there is no such thing - they just want
>>to use the public platform as a political and election weapon.
>>
>The use of a well-known forgery seems to qualify to me. Especially in
>view of the fact that it was already known to be a forgery before they
>used it, and they proved this over again, also before they used it.

You're referring to Dan Rather's 'documents' ? Or perhaps
Shrillary's 'planted questions' ????? Are you under the impression
that there is ANY national-level politician who doesn't 'kind of shade
things' to their own position ? Are you that naive ?

>Search for Niger and Uranium in the same document if you don't believe
>me, but it was in all the newspapers at the time.

Oh, I KNOW the accusations were all over the place - after
Wilson decided to publish his editorial or letter or whatever form it
was in, to make himself the unelected determiner of national policy.

The bottom line is, a decision was made, based on the bulk of
the available evidence ( from **ALL** sources and countries ), that
Saddam HAD to be taken out.

I just saw a post earlier tongiht somewhere, can't find it
right now, showing the many quotes from Kerry, Clinton, and all the
other libs AT THAT TIME, saying 'We agree, Saddam has to go'.

Their recorded votes in Congress, and their floor speeches on
the topic, AT THE TIME, say clearly that they BELIEVED Saddam had,
and/or was trying to get ( more ) WMD, and had to be stopped BY ANY
MEANS NEEDED. They voted to authorize the use of military force, as
is our system of controls.

This includes the people on the Intelligence Committee ( a
non-sequitor when referring to polliticians, I grant you ), who had
FULL access to ALL the data ( not just the WH 'version' ), and the
intelligence services of EVERY country in the world, France and Russia
included.

Now, some of them say 'Well, we didnt' know he would actually
DO it, we thought we could just vote that authorization so he could
BLUFF with it' or whatever.

The Niger / Wilson / Plame thing was JUST ONE SMALL FACTOR
AMONG MANY. We did not go to war based on any one single thing.

There was ONE MAN, AND ONE MAN ONLY, who HAD to make a
decision, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly. He made his
decision. We The People empowered him to do so. Twice.

Everyone else ( you, me, Senators, whatever ) had the luxury
of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the other politicians all get to
say 'Well, I voted for it before I voted against it before I voted for
it' ala Kerry, they get to say 'Well, I voted for this or that, but I
didn't really mean what it said' blah blah blah.

Arm chair quarterbacking is easy on Mondays. Not so easy when
you're standing up on the sidelines Sunday afternoon giving orders.


--
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.

..p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:05:14 -0800, Alan Moore
> <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:34:38 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:02:40 -0800, Alan Moore
>>> <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:02 -0500,
>>>> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You've confused impeachment with conviction. They have to have
>>>> proof to convict, not to impeach.
>>>
>>> As with a Grand Jury, there's SUPPOSED to be at least evidence
>>> that reasonably supports the accusation. AND that it rises to the
>>> level of 'high crime'. Merely being wrong, weighing facts
>>> differently, or coming to different conclusions and having different
>>> policies, does not.
>>>
>>> Of course, they KNOW there is no such thing - they just want
>>> to use the public platform as a political and election weapon.
>>>
>> The use of a well-known forgery seems to qualify to me. Especially in
>> view of the fact that it was already known to be a forgery before
>> they used it, and they proved this over again, also before they used
>> it.
>
> You're referring to Dan Rather's 'documents' ? Or perhaps
> Shrillary's 'planted questions' ????? Are you under the impression
> that there is ANY national-level politician who doesn't 'kind of shade
> things' to their own position ? Are you that naive ?

You freaking tool. Of course he's talking about the FACT that we were lied
into this war and thousands have died because of it.

>
>> Search for Niger and Uranium in the same document if you don't
>> believe me, but it was in all the newspapers at the time.
>
> Oh, I KNOW the accusations were all over the place - after
> Wilson decided to publish his editorial or letter or whatever form it
> was in, to make himself the unelected determiner of national policy.
>
> The bottom line is, a decision was made, based on the bulk of
> the available evidence ( from **ALL** sources and countries ), that
> Saddam HAD to be taken out.

Liar. You are a lying tool. How can you look yourself in the mirror and
justify spouting these lies and false bullshit? You're intelligent enough to
know the truth. You're the worst kind of dissembling tool there is. Hannity,
O'Reilly, and the rest have nothing on you.

Real Republicans are leaving politics in droves and you _still_ cling to the
neocon mantras.

You a tool.

>
> I just saw a post earlier tongiht somewhere, can't find it
> right now, showing the many quotes from Kerry, Clinton, and all the
> other libs AT THAT TIME, saying 'We agree, Saddam has to go'.

Because they were shown the bullshit evidence, tool. Also, they way Bush had
whipped this country into a spasm of fear, they had no choice politically.
It was either follow the neo's lead or be called anti-American by tools like
you and the complicit media shills.

You're a tool.

>
> Their recorded votes in Congress, and their floor speeches on
> the topic, AT THE TIME, say clearly that they BELIEVED Saddam had,
> and/or was trying to get ( more ) WMD, and had to be stopped BY ANY
> MEANS NEEDED. They voted to authorize the use of military force, as
> is our system of controls.

They voted to have Bush come back to Congress and Bush never did. The "war"
was illegal and the current occupation is illegal and is draining our
country dry of it's most precious resources, tool.

>
> This includes the people on the Intelligence Committee ( a
> non-sequitor when referring to polliticians, I grant you ), who had
> FULL access to ALL the data ( not just the WH 'version' ), and the
> intelligence services of EVERY country in the world, France and Russia
> included.

And they would have been taken away in chains if they told anyone what they
had discussed under the tenants of, so called, National Security, tool. You
know it all stunk but you backed all the rightwinger's plays anyway.

You're the worst kind of lying sack of shit tool there is.

>
> Now, some of them say 'Well, we didnt' know he would actually
> DO it, we thought we could just vote that authorization so he could
> BLUFF with it' or whatever.

He didn't have the final authorization, tool. He never went back and the
Republican controlled congress didn't do shit about it. Many complained but
no media outlet, certainly none of the rightwing tool media outlets you
frequent, said diddly, you lying sack of shit.

>
> The Niger / Wilson / Plame thing was JUST ONE SMALL FACTOR
> AMONG MANY. We did not go to war based on any one single thing.

We went to war based on lies. that's it, that's all there is. Wanting to
take out some asshole because he's a "Bad Guy" is not justification, tool.
It's a freaking crime and everyone that was in on it should be thrown out on
their asses, Repub _or_ Dem. You as well, tool.

>
> There was ONE MAN, AND ONE MAN ONLY, who HAD to make a
> decision, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly. He made his
> decision. We The People empowered him to do so. Twice.

Bullshit. Lying, complicit, sacks of shit like you screamed for war. Do not
include me in your lying sack of shit screeching.

>
> Everyone else ( you, me, Senators, whatever ) had the luxury
> of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the other politicians all get to
> say 'Well, I voted for it before I voted against it before I voted for
> it' ala Kerry, they get to say 'Well, I voted for this or that, but I
> didn't really mean what it said' blah blah blah.

He had the balls to admit he and others were wrong. You don't have the balls
to do the same. You're a pussy armchair quarterback that tries, and fails,
to justify their support of this illegal endeavor with more lies and
bullshit quibbling. You rail against the Dems quibbling and then you quibble
yourself. You are a lying, rightwing tool.

>
> Arm chair quarterbacking is easy on Mondays. Not so easy when
> you're standing up on the sidelines Sunday afternoon giving orders.

Illegal orders. Bush, Cheney, et al, are criminals. You're a lying sack of
shit.

Fuck off.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:03:47 -0800, "Jeff Mayner"
<jeffmayner@yahoo.com> wrote:

>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:05:14 -0800, Alan Moore
>> <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:34:38 -0500, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:02:40 -0800, Alan Moore
>>>> <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:02 -0500,
>>>>> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've confused impeachment with conviction. They have to have
>>>>> proof to convict, not to impeach.
>>>>
>>>> As with a Grand Jury, there's SUPPOSED to be at least evidence
>>>> that reasonably supports the accusation. AND that it rises to the
>>>> level of 'high crime'. Merely being wrong, weighing facts
>>>> differently, or coming to different conclusions and having different
>>>> policies, does not.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, they KNOW there is no such thing - they just want
>>>> to use the public platform as a political and election weapon.
>>>>
>>> The use of a well-known forgery seems to qualify to me. Especially in
>>> view of the fact that it was already known to be a forgery before
>>> they used it, and they proved this over again, also before they used
>>> it.
>>
>> You're referring to Dan Rather's 'documents' ? Or perhaps
>> Shrillary's 'planted questions' ????? Are you under the impression
>> that there is ANY national-level politician who doesn't 'kind of shade
>> things' to their own position ? Are you that naive ?
>
>You freaking tool. Of course he's talking about the FACT that we were lied
>into this war and thousands have died because of it.

I take it your sarcasm detector is malfuntioning
tonight ? :-)

But, we were NOT 'lied into' anything. No matter what the
lefties try to say afterwords, they were ALL 100 % convinced of it,
based on the TOTALITY of the information from ALL sources, not just
one report.

>
>>
>>> Search for Niger and Uranium in the same document if you don't
>>> believe me, but it was in all the newspapers at the time.
>>
>> Oh, I KNOW the accusations were all over the place - after
>> Wilson decided to publish his editorial or letter or whatever form it
>> was in, to make himself the unelected determiner of national policy.
>>
>> The bottom line is, a decision was made, based on the bulk of
>> the available evidence ( from **ALL** sources and countries ), that
>> Saddam HAD to be taken out.
>
>Liar. You are a lying tool. How can you look yourself in the mirror and
>justify spouting these lies and false bullshit? You're intelligent enough to
>know the truth. You're the worst kind of dissembling tool there is. Hannity,
>O'Reilly, and the rest have nothing on you.

Instead of throwing shit, try pointing what I said above that
is incorrect. If you can't ( and you can't ) - STFU.

>
>Real Republicans are leaving politics in droves and you _still_ cling to the
>neocon mantras.

I am not a Republican. In fact, BOTH parties ( for that
matter, ALL parties ) make we want to puke. The Dems make me want to
projectile vomit, IOW, just a bit more than the others.


>You a tool.
>
>>
>> I just saw a post earlier tongiht somewhere, can't find it
>> right now, showing the many quotes from Kerry, Clinton, and all the
>> other libs AT THAT TIME, saying 'We agree, Saddam has to go'.
>
>Because they were shown the bullshit evidence, tool. Also, they way Bush had

The Intelligence committees have FULL access to ALL classified
briefings, including those the other Senators etc DON'T get. Hillary
is one of the ones that gets them, for instance.

>whipped this country into a spasm of fear, they had no choice politically.
>It was either follow the neo's lead or be called anti-American by tools like
>you and the complicit media shills.
>
>You're a tool.

I think you mentioned that. In fact, you seem quite
interested in my tool. Please be aware that is none of your business,
I am straight.


>
>>
>> Their recorded votes in Congress, and their floor speeches on
>> the topic, AT THE TIME, say clearly that they BELIEVED Saddam had,
>> and/or was trying to get ( more ) WMD, and had to be stopped BY ANY
>> MEANS NEEDED. They voted to authorize the use of military force, as
>> is our system of controls.
>
>They voted to have Bush come back to Congress and Bush never did. The "war"

They should have voted you some reading lessons.

>was illegal and the current occupation is illegal and is draining our
>country dry of it's most precious resources, tool.
>
>>
>> This includes the people on the Intelligence Committee ( a
>> non-sequitor when referring to polliticians, I grant you ), who had
>> FULL access to ALL the data ( not just the WH 'version' ), and the
>> intelligence services of EVERY country in the world, France and Russia
>> included.
>
>And they would have been taken away in chains if they told anyone what they
>had discussed under the tenants of, so called, National Security, tool. You
>know it all stunk but you backed all the rightwinger's plays anyway.

I know from their VOTES TO AUTHORIZE MILITARY ACTION, what
they thought.

>
>You're the worst kind of lying sack of shit tool there is.

You're STILL fascinated by my tool. maybe you should post in
rec.motorcycle.gay ?


>
>>
>> Now, some of them say 'Well, we didnt' know he would actually
>> DO it, we thought we could just vote that authorization so he could
>> BLUFF with it' or whatever.
>
>He didn't have the final authorization, tool. He never went back and the
>Republican controlled congress didn't do shit about it. Many complained but
>no media outlet, certainly none of the rightwing tool media outlets you
>frequent, said diddly, you lying sack of shit.

He needed NO other authorization, than the one he had ( and
still has - it has never been changed, including by the DEMOCRAT
Congress. )

Which part of 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002', the title of the Act, do you not
understand, tool ? Over 140 Democrats voted FOR it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00237

Including the 'Ones Who Would Be President' ( Roll call )

Biden (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea ( Intelligence Committee )
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea ( Intelligence Committee )
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Among some of the more well-known names.

>
>>
>> The Niger / Wilson / Plame thing was JUST ONE SMALL FACTOR
>> AMONG MANY. We did not go to war based on any one single thing.
>
>We went to war based on lies. that's it, that's all there is. Wanting to

Bullshit.

>take out some asshole because he's a "Bad Guy" is not justification, tool.
>It's a freaking crime and everyone that was in on it should be thrown out on
>their asses, Repub _or_ Dem. You as well, tool.

There you go again .......

>
>>
>> There was ONE MAN, AND ONE MAN ONLY, who HAD to make a
>> decision, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly. He made his
>> decision. We The People empowered him to do so. Twice.
>
>Bullshit. Lying, complicit, sacks of shit like you screamed for war. Do not
>include me in your lying sack of shit screeching.

Oh, you're not an American ? OK, I didn't know that. The
AMERICAN PEOPLE did in fact elect GWB President. Twice. And Congress
did in fact authorize him for the "Use of Military Force Against
Iraq", as you now understand thanks to the above education I have
imparted to you.

>> Everyone else ( you, me, Senators, whatever ) had the luxury
>> of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking, the other politicians all get to
>> say 'Well, I voted for it before I voted against it before I voted for
>> it' ala Kerry, they get to say 'Well, I voted for this or that, but I
>> didn't really mean what it said' blah blah blah.
>
>He had the balls to admit he and others were wrong. You don't have the balls
>to do the same. You're a pussy armchair quarterback that tries, and fails,
>to justify their support of this illegal endeavor with more lies and
>bullshit quibbling. You rail against the Dems quibbling and then you quibble
>yourself. You are a lying, rightwing tool.

Please, please, TRY to stop thinking about my tool. It will
only frustrate you, you can't have it.

>
>>
>> Arm chair quarterbacking is easy on Mondays. Not so easy when
>> you're standing up on the sidelines Sunday afternoon giving orders.
>
>Illegal orders. Bush, Cheney, et al, are criminals. You're a lying sack of
>shit.
>
>Fuck off.
>

Oh, dear. I see you've been studying the DumbocRats manual on
debating ......


--
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 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/

On Nov 12, 7:23 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:

>It took you a very long time to figure
> out what was quite obvious to informed, intelligent people *years*
> earlier.

We can only hope and pray that someday, you too, Henry, our good
friend, will also realize what informed, intelligent people have known
for years,

We're on your side, buddy!

Pulling for you,

Tim

In article <13jg1ibq1dt4h8c@corp.supernews.com>,
"P. Roehling" <nowayjose@uh-uh.edu> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote
>
> >> o How come don't Attorneys General commence criminal investigations of
> >> officials of outgoing administrations of the opposing persuasion?
> >
> > Because until now, the Attorney General's office was not used as a
> > political axe.
>
> Uh, I don't think you were in this country then -or maybe not even born- but
> the names "Richard Nixon" and "John Mitchell" spring to mind in that
> regard...

Actually, I was, both, but I wasn't paying much attention. But I do
recall that Nixon was not universally loved.

--
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.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