WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-14 19:23:10 +0000

I Love you Dawn _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-14 19:33:21 +0000

I Love you Dawn

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-14 19:49:19 +0000

What is this, "Mock the Gay Retard Week"? It ain't on my calendar...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-14 20:05:45 +0000

No mocking. The gay retard is a sinking ship...

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-14 20:28:14 +0000

I Love You Pam _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-15 18:36:50 +0000

I'm still trying to read Ledermen. It's a whopper of an entry. As I see it: The US has the enviable position of having a military that takes orders from civilian leadership. I highly doubt that the military decided to ignore i) Geneva, ii) Article 16 of CAT, iii) a presidential directive, and iv) the UCMJ on its own without some direction from the people who don't wear uniforms at the Pentagon.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-16 23:33:53 +0000

Today an Official inqury called to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein. And so it begins...

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-16 23:54:45 +0000

This is encouraging stuff, as is the Patriot Act bit that was posted earlier.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-17 04:35:09 +0000

Still, I thought that shit was pretty obviously lies when it came down... Terrorism->WMD->Humanitarian... I lost a lot of respect for our elected officials who kowtowed to clear bullshit. I lost a lot of respect for my country and its people when a majority of voters reelected this _clearly_lying_ asshole.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-06-17 19:09:37 +0000

Anybody see this? [url=http://homepages.nyu.edu/~meo232/sloganator/]sloganator[/url]

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-19 20:13:09 +0000

The Dems [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570_pf.html]start preparing.[/url] I really can't wait for shit to go down.... It will also help keep Jeb out.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-20 02:35:58 +0000

[url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/19/excerpts_from_downing_street_memos/]A must read.[/url]

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-20 14:00:47 +0000

Jeb ain't running either way. The People Are Tired Of Bush.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-20 23:46:25 +0000

Awesome:

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-21 14:01:18 +0000

Access denied. You gotta login to the Village Voice? Sheesh.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-21 22:31:16 +0000

Awesomer: [img]http://freewayblogger.com/Images_3/downingst1.JPG[/img] Praise Allah, I love free speech...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-12 18:56:53 +0000

I actually think Rove's criminal acts of treason are going to hurt the impeachment movement. It's becoming increasingly clear that Rove should step down. But there is still stonewalling. I do not think that Rove should be executed as I am not a big fan of capital punishment, but a lifetime in jail seems about right. America is not really into hitting a man when he's down, so Bush may stay...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-12 21:25:29 +0000

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html]Another tough day for Scott.[/url] Great question: Should Rove have security clearance during the investigation? This is actually up to the Dept. of Defense, when Rove is not personally escorted by the President. It was a good run Karl...

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-13 15:55:56 +0000

I can't believe I missed this story. Three days gazing out to sea will do that. --- Some interesting points I picked up from Charlie Rose last night: McClellan is already on the record as saying he was personally assured by Rove that Rove was not involved in this. Does McClellan trust Rove anymore? As much as McClellan comes across as an ass, he always uses precise language and never says something he doesn't mean. Does Bush value loyalty over silence? This adminstration is nearly fanatical in it's disdain for leaks. Personally, I don't see Rove getting run out of town for this.

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-13 16:17:40 +0000

I like how McClellan is refusing to comment because of the investigation, however, he previously felt free to comment from the podium that Rove had personally reassured him that Rove was not involved. Delicious.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-15 17:55:56 +0000

David Brooks last night [url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4754569]on NPR's All things considered[/url] went on record saying Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger. Not only is that not true, but both Cheney AND Wilson have stated that is not true. Is Brooks on the Bush payroll, like other "reporters?" He works for the New York Times right? This whole thing is a shit sandwich, and poor Scott McClellan is getting it the hardest. I say the firing squad for Rove...

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-15 20:11:05 +0000

Our favorite Nixon counsel. John Dean expects Rove to be held to the same standards as other government leakers the past 5 years. I'm not that confident. I'd expect Rove to get special treatment from this DoJ. There's just no -- sex -- in all of this, that's why nothing might come of it. Maybe Rove committed perjury during his grand jury testimony, that might do it. Does lying about leaking get as many people riled as lying about screwing? Dean raises the specter of conspiracy, that might get juicy.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-16 17:44:37 +0000

It's all unraveling now (from MFGR): Bush justified torture use. "A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Let's be clear, this does not say Bush directly ordered the military's use of torture, but why would he have a report made to argue he may? Add the fact that JAG's now claim it is no longer an operational report, and you've got one big mess.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-17 20:48:33 +0000

You know, sometimes I have to take a deep breath and take a step back. The Rove leak stories, Novak denials, Cheney lies about uranium and Iraq, Bush claiming he was allowed to use torture, Bush lying (via Scott McClellan) about Rove etc... I just got caught up in it all. An impeachment of one of the worst presidents in American history, would undoubtly be a good thing. But what's at stake for me personally is dirt compared to our troops and the future of the country. The NY Time's Frank Rich hits it on the head today: "This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove, but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. " Yeah, Bush/Cheney/Rove should go, but it's not personal for me anymore. It's logical.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-07-18 11:09:27 +0000

That's a beautifully-written piece. Oh, and I liked the NYT Op-Ed too. :-) As always, thought-provoking, Dawn.

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-18 15:19:07 +0000

That smile is smug? Knowing?

I'm nervous: All these pundits saying this is the start of a correction to America's aberrant behavior. I'm not ready to believe, yet. ---- Re: the downfall of Rove So he takes a fall? Do we then assume that Bush really doesn't know a thing about what goes on in this administration? Are Bush supporters going to defend their man: "Well, Bush didn't actually _know_ anything." Makes me queasy.

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-18 15:53:54 +0000

A different perspective from the NRO. All the Right has are character attacks on Wilson (a pompous ninny, sure, _he_posed_for_Vanity_Fair_ !) and the standard liberal media whimpering. They're avoiding these questions: Did Hussein try to obtain uranium from Niger? No. Did Rove and Libby pass on sensitive information without knowing the consequences of that information when the country was preparing for war? Yes. --- If no crime was committed, why is Fitzgerald taking so long to determine who did not commit a crime?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-23 03:34:31 +0000

[url=http://balkin.blogspot.com/SAP.S.1042.pdf]More here.[/url] It is becoming increasingly clear Bush authorized torture, and the fact that he may [b]veto for the FIRST TIME[/b] to defend his right to torture, shows how scared and cowardly he actually is. Look, even if Congress passes a bill that states rights and guidelines for "enemy combatants", Bush would most likely be grandfathered into safety. But this stance that he's allowed to torture says a lot...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-27 17:14:53 +0000

[url=http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/jag-memos-on-military-interrogation.html]The JAG memos.[/url] From 2.1.b: "U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral "high-road" in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate. While the detainees' status as unlawful belligerents may not entitle them to protections of the Geneva Conventions, that is a legal distinction that may be lost on the members of the armed forces. Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful. In addition, consideration should be given to whether implementation of such techniques is likely to result in adverse impacts for DoD personnel who become POWs, including possible perceptions by other nations that the United States is lowering standards related to the treatment of prisoners, generally." From 3.4: "It must be conceded, however, that we are preparing to treat these detainees very differently than we treat any other group, and differently than we permit our own people to be treated either at home or abroad. At a minimum, I recommend that decision-makers be made fully aware of the very narrow set of circumstances-factually and legally-upon which the policy rests. Moreover, I recommend that we consider asking decision-makers directly: is this the "right thing" for U.S. military personnel?" --- This is not the ACLU or a liberal lawyer form New England, this is the JAG's, with decades of military service, essentially telling Bush and Rumsfeld not to do this. So who authorized the torture? Let's ask Bush under oath, shall we? "Compasionate conservative" indeed.

Posted by tgl on 2005-07-28 00:53:03 +0000

Bush can't be impeached for lying because he's never been under oath.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-07-28 01:24:51 +0000

Exactly. Put him under oath. Clinton was impeached, and he didn't even lie. (Note: that the Senate acquitted him of the perjury charge, so he stayed in office.)

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-22 23:54:48 +0000

Front: Back: I'm going to order several. Anyone else want one besides me, my dad, and rladew?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-23 18:39:06 +0000

Guess who got impeached?

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2005-08-23 20:18:36 +0000

Oooh! I know the answer! Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton! Nixon (never impeached) resigned as the hearings began.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-23 20:24:30 +0000

Let's add Bush #43, my dear BQ...

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-23 22:02:29 +0000

nope. After seeing Billy, Brenda's brother on "Six feet Under" with his "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" T would be more of the way I would go: It's funnier, more creative, was a better color T (a niece burnt sienna instead of piss yellow), and not as long winded and lecturing as that one. Please have fun with it if you like it though, Dawn. _______________________________

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-23 22:54:04 +0000

Both Southerners. I believe Johnson was from TN and Clinton was AR.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-24 00:42:54 +0000

"more creative"? Um.. that I have to disagree with, after the thousands of "What would Johnny Damon do?"/ "who would Jesus Kill?" t-shirts around Boston. Plus the whole Jesus thing... brings religion into it, making it possibly offensive. Even Bush himself won't answer questions about his faith. (He claims to be Christian behind the camera, yet he kills thousands of people. Good question actually, but he won't even acknowledge his religion when asked.) It also let's people know that support for the war has nothing to with support for the troops. (Honestly, does anyone know of anybody who doesn't support the troops?) I'll get you one in burnt sienna.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-24 03:22:53 +0000

Nixon's approval rating of 39% at the time of his resignation was higher than Bush's current rating (36%). Yeah, db and I read the same blogs... Anyone wanna bet our Fearless Leader can Lead out of this one? Wait... where has he led us so far? I frankly don't care if Bush gets impeached or not. Other than gross ineptitude, I'm on the fence as to whether he's committed impeachable offenses. I'm primarily concerned that his policies get discredited. It would seem to me that they will be, at this early junction.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-24 03:23:56 +0000

Miriam: _Now_ you should get a "Yankees Suck" bumper sticker.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-08-24 20:31:01 +0000

Supreme Court Justice Story on impeachment in 1833: "Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law." House Minority Leader Gerald Ford on impeachment in 1970. Alexander Hamilton on impeachment, from the Federalist Papers. exerpt: "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." In my opinion this violation does not necessarily have to be intentional on the part of the president - it could just be due to following principles and policies that end up being dreadfully wrong. Even if you thought they were right, and they totally ruined your country, you'd still be accountable. That being said, realistically it's up to the party in power to decide to go through with impeachment proceedings...or their constituents, I suppose, if they're loud enough. A lot of it has to do with public perception of the high crime or misdemeanor, and how the press frames it. Also, it would be sort of bizarre for a Republican House and Senate to draw up articles of impeachment on a Republican president, especially with majority leaders in both chambers being rather loyal to Bush. It's been too long since the last impeachment proceedings - I'm looking forward to another long, bare-knuckled brawl.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-24 21:06:36 +0000

2006 gets even more interesting, then.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-25 18:08:35 +0000

Today at the Corner of Bolyston and Tremont, some Emerson College kids and My Rep. were collecting signatures to demand the continuation of the official inquiry of Bush's lies before Congress. He is saying the inquiry is dying because the GOP led Congress won't even discuss it, and it will peter out after the break unless it remains paramount. Really nice to see the grassroot campaign against Bush actually hitting the pavement. Decent site they were promoting. Again I don't suppose a full party change will happen in '06, but it's looking good.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-25 18:16:28 +0000

I voted for that guy!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-03 03:26:10 +0000

Once again The Moose tells it like it is. Shame for the leaders of our Country, and get rid of Bush.

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-03 13:18:13 +0000

It's cathartic. This event has suddenly opened the floodgates, as it were, of criticism.

Posted by burkee on 2005-09-04 05:51:45 +0000

This, from an awesome friend of Dawn and I, native to NOLA: "I knew you would be wondering and sorry to keep you so long guessing but evacuations are difficult when: so many are affected, there is no gas and you are under tremendous stress, anger at the govenment and tremendously sad for neighbors who could not leave and were at the mercy of such an amazingly incompetant governement. My "hurricane family"and i have been rolling all week and waiting on gas or car repairs as we witness tragedy after tragedy unfold and watch old people try to cope. i am great.i have means, a sense of humour and all that. i am in nashville and i may land in ny. i amworried as you must have been about me, about my friends from whom i have yet to hear. Let your friend know that people on the Gulf Coast need EVERYTHING. And then lets drum bush out of office-impeachment????? Love leslie"

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-04 16:42:54 +0000

Oh, the irony that a natural disaster, something GW Bush had no control over, shows his flaws, and pushes the impeachment movement....

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-06 18:55:35 +0000

Cronyism -- Plain and simple, the reason Katrina was a disaster, and Bush must go: 1 Secretary 2 Chief of Staff 3 Deputy So the FEMA Chief of staff and Deputy, by their own admission, got into politics by being "advance" guys for Republican campaigns. What the fuck!!! At some point we have to put competent people into public positions, not just buddies and GOP diehards. I know the Republican's hold government shouldn't help out that much, but to put people in positions who have no clue what to do... Bush, you are cooked.

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-27 04:24:25 +0000

In case you haven't heard, we are still torturing people.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-27 14:51:26 +0000

As far as torture is concerned: the new season of 'Joey' did just start. Once again TGL is right on the $$$ _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-27 16:56:10 +0000

Ahh... torture jokes. Maybe rladew and Lyndie should hang out. I emailed Kennedy's office again about impeachment proceedings. The momentum is getting bigger. Encouraging stuff.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-27 17:10:46 +0000

It will never happen. Dream on. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-27 17:12:54 +0000

Not dreaming. The man should be in jail, and the country knows it.

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-30 21:11:00 +0000

MFGR sez: WE ARE STILL TORTURING PEOPLE. "Bush has brought the deepest dishonor imaginable on his office. The last president was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil lawsuit. Our current one has legalized torture in the U.S. military, and is thereby responsible for the deaths from torture of scores and the staining of the military's honor for ever. Which crime is worse?" I can answer that one. By the way: Kerry might have been worse, as people say, but I can't imagine him undermining the military in the same way.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-30 21:35:08 +0000

TGL's right/ season 11 is pretty rough. Dr. Carter's not even around anymore... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-30 21:45:50 +0000

That's torture you can turn off. Lyndie England doesn't give you that option.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-30 22:15:45 +0000

point well taken. just a futile last ditch attempt at humor on a Friday night where Im stuck 2 the office until 7:00 (of all nights arrrgh... whats the best AM station to hear the Red Sox coming out of R.I.?) _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-30 22:55:24 +0000

850 AM, still. Catch it on yr. ride home. I'm increasingly becoming less susceptible to humour on this particular topic. Otherwise, I'm all chuckles.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-10-21 22:13:26 +0000

It's a long talk (1 & 1/2 hours), but boy is it worth it. How is it possible that the Chief of Staff of the State Deptartment, under Secretary of State Colin Powell, doesn't know why we went into Iraq? Think about that for a second. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the #2 of our country's foreign policy from '00 to '04, Powell's right hand man, doesn't know why we invaded Iraq. A life long Republican and one who believes George Bush Sr. was "one of the finest Presidents we've ever had," his words are too strong to ignore. "The Cabal of Cheney and Rumsfeld" has damaged our country beyond belief, and it scares him and me that so many, so high up in the Bush administration are saying such. Wilkerson's lecture is trenchant. Again, I ask you all to call and email your Senator and Representatives and demand impeachment.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-24 15:42:23 +0000

Here's an interesting comment on the courage of Wilkerson, et al.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-24 16:00:14 +0000

Holbrooke reacts.

Posted by rladew on 2005-10-26 20:16:57 +0000

Guess where the Washington Post weighs in? _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-26 20:23:43 +0000

They weigh in on the side of decency, respect for life, and The American Way. Surprised?

Posted by rladew on 2005-10-30 15:11:34 +0000

A Washington Post Retort. Go against the people complaining loudly that a few people / bad eggs on the night shift represent the entire military and you advocate torture. uggh. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-10-30 17:48:14 +0000

When the few bad eggs are Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney (On record: "This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.")? Yeah, I'd say that's a problem. Still reading the Opinion Journal, rladew? For real or for giggles?

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-30 20:09:06 +0000

The actions of England and the rest of the Abu Grhaib night shift were illegal, the Bush administration does not dispute that. TAnd that is not what the McCain amendment is meant to address. Under this administration, the US military has choosen to use torture as a matter of course in prosecuting the war in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan and Guantanomo Bay. Advocate is the wrong word... apologist?

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-02 20:27:57 +0000

We're torturing in places we don't even know about. Hat tip, MFGR. [sarcasm]I don't know what's more upsetting, that we have secret torture camps, or that I don't get to see pictures of the abuse. I paid for that waterboarding, dammit![/sarcasm]

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-02 20:32:32 +0000

Sad that the US justice system is the goat of the developed world.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-05 21:18:22 +0000

"Wilkerson said he had some hard evidence: a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff. The directives, he said, contradicted a 2002 order by President Bush for the military to abide by the Geneva Convention rules against torture." Yep, even life long Republicans who work for the Armed forces are coming out against Cheney & Rumsfailed. "The former Powell aide is 31-year military veteran and former director of the Marine Corps War College. Some have noted that he often expresses what Colin Powell believes, but can't or won't say." My guess is we get a statement from Powell (sadly) in 2009...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-09 19:09:00 +0000

Bush's 'lame duck' status starts today. And its looking like Cheney is losing influence. Actually that could work out. Bush without Cheney, Rumsfailed, Libby, and Turd-blossom, is much less dangerous. Good day for America, if I may sing Patriotic praises.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 20:40:39 +0000

Rebuttal from an actual member of the CIA _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:26:10 +0000

I have nothing to add, but I'd still like to be part of the first three-page post in rs.n history.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:26:36 +0000

Three pages three pages la la la!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:26:59 +0000

C'mon, gang! you can do it!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:32:07 +0000

We there yet? We there yet? We there yet?

Posted by G lib on 2005-11-09 21:33:38 +0000

I hate having to click so much to get to the argument-- I say let's make "Impending Impeachment 2!" ______________ Cha ching!

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:41:02 +0000

are we there yet Papa Smurf? _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:41:04 +0000

'Electric Boogaloo.' (Are we there yet? Are we are we?)

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:41:55 +0000

no my smurfs, just a little further... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-09 21:41:56 +0000

Er, an actual former member. I'm sure I can dig up an actual former CIA officer that finds revealing operatives particularly distasteful. So, it's a "the crime doesn't really matter" argument from (now I am assuming here...) the same crowd that is willing to impeach a president for lying about a peronsal transgression, or hog ties judges with mandatory sentencing rules? Nice. Skirting the issue all the same: at this point, it's not the outing of Plame that is the administrations problem; it's the lying about the outing. Sounds familiar... I'm assuming you meant this as a rebuttal to whether or not the administration is culpable for "outing" Valerie Plame. Not whether or not Cheney has fallen from grace and Bush is looking more and more lost in the woods. Both of which seem valid.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:42:35 +0000

said in my best x-wing pilot voice "....almost there" _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:43:02 +0000

...almost there.... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-09 21:43:06 +0000

The two clicks annoy me as well, I would expect the #new directive to get us to the last comment...

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:43:25 +0000

...almost there... _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 21:45:50 +0000

Three?

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 21:50:13 +0000

negative... It didnt go in... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-09 22:01:11 +0000

It's a bug.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 22:07:49 +0000

almost there... _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-11-09 22:34:32 +0000

A bug? I take it all back!

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-09 22:49:21 +0000

whaddya mean a bug? I dont get it... _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-10 11:37:51 +0000

Wow, that's a fairly ugly piece. Not really a rebutal, and it galvanizes the CIA leak case. Plus the guy is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute!!! Lynne Cheney's company!!! And the WSJ has no disclaimer for the piece!!! ARE you fucking kidding me!!! "... Langley's operatives (who are, let us be frank, probably overwhelmingly antiwar and anti-Bush)." Well, let's be frank, does anyone agree with that? Most CIA operatives are antiwar / anti-Bush? News to me.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-11-10 20:43:20 +0000

I've been sayin' that for years!

Posted by Miriam on 2005-11-10 20:49:00 +0000

Is she still in Nashville? Still looking for jobs? My bosses are ready to help anytime with all their connections. Also, the kids I work with had a dance three weeks ago and were asked to bring personal hygiene items for Katrina relief. There were several bottles of Axe Body Wash, one tube of Clinique Body Firming Lotion, and a variety of other hilarious things that most people would consider superfluous, not necessary. At least their hearts were in the right place. Most of them brought bars of soap and tooth brushes and toothpaste.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-12 23:36:00 +0000

Joshua Marshall nails it. If the Dems get the majority of the House back by this time next year, swap 16 Reps out of 435, (no small task, but almost probable) I would imagine the impeachment precedings start by Feb. 1st, 2007. Life long Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush, and ABC news even pointed out Republicans stopped calling themselves "Republicans" in the election last week, instead calling themselves "centrists" or "moderates". The intelligent design ploy of the Dover, PA school board was a bigger disaster than anybody could have fathomed, and Cheney... well Cheney has alienated everyone except for his wife. Good times are soon to follow...

Posted by tgl on 2006-03-07 00:44:42 +0000

HT, wonkette. Maybe someone, er... NP?, can check out the source WSJ article and find out why they are warning Dems against impeachment. Let's see about that Clinton-impeachment-backlash: 8 (well, after the '06 elections, maybe only 6) years of one-party rule. Sounds like an OK trade-off.

Posted by tgl on 2006-03-07 01:14:31 +0000

When the Republican pollsters are sending warning signals, things can't be good. I think I read that someone on FOX News was freting over these same numbers.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-03-07 01:28:55 +0000

As far as polls are concerned, all that comes to mind is "Dewey Defeats Truman"

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-03-07 01:31:34 +0000

I have no idea where this WSJ source article is. Sorry to disappoint, but...

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-03-07 01:32:10 +0000

I'm that annoying asshole who wants post #100 in this thread

Posted by tgl on 2006-03-07 01:38:26 +0000

I know you don't give polls that much credit NP, but the people you vote for surely do. Any other reason to be flogging the line item veto this week?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-03-07 01:51:47 +0000

It is hard to dislike the LIV. I think even Kerry is behind that... Sung in the vein of the talking Heads: "We're on a Bridge To Nowhere"...

Posted by tgl on 2006-03-07 02:12:37 +0000

Goddamn #new link.

Posted by Time Wisrd on 2006-03-07 02:39:53 +0000

Sorta works.

Posted by tgl on 2006-03-07 02:46:05 +0000

Now I remember, from my attempts at becoming more muscular in my foreign policy outlook.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2006-11-08 13:18:46 +0000

Bump

Posted by tgl on 2006-11-08 15:04:04 +0000

First things first: the impending subpoena.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 03:34:33 +0000

In light of the Libby conviction, I'd think Cheney is more likely to be impeached. His health may force him to resign first... Although the "emergency" nomination of US attornies would seem to be an egregious over-reach of power. Is it un-Consitutional if the Congress passes a law saying it's Constitutional? That's rhetorical... of course it is. Should Constitutional be capitalized/

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-07 04:31:02 +0000

Does veep impeachment work the same way as the presidential kind?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-07 04:50:12 +0000

I assume so. "Condi Rice for Vice"

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-07 16:20:35 +0000

Is this our longest standing thread? (if not in age, # of posts?) "Impending Impeachment" Oh, How I've missed thee...

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-04-26 15:44:25 +0000

Well, I wouldn't have guessed it, but it does make sense, Impeach Cheney first!

Posted by virtue on 2008-01-07 14:56:55 +0000

George McGovern calls for Bush's impeachment.

Posted by tgl on 2008-01-07 16:20:11 +0000

No time to lose! Only 378 days 'till a better America.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2008-01-07 18:21:18 +0000

"Till" is it's own word, one that predates the word "until", which is a lengthening of the former. "'til" should be avoided, as it is used under the misunderstanding thereof. "'till" is simply silly, and you should punish yourself for having typed it.

Posted by G lib on 2008-01-07 18:37:27 +0000

And, because he works full-time and has a small child, let me recommend The Flagellator , a convenient, hands-free self-flagellation machine.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-01-07 18:43:26 +0000

Strangely erotic...

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-01-07 19:00:52 +0000

Wow, George McG is still alive?

Posted by virtue on 2008-01-07 20:03:39 +0000

Yeah--the article was posted to another dorktastic online community I'm involved with in the context of a dead pool.

Posted by Miriam on 2008-01-08 20:58:26 +0000

Reminds me a little of a gift I got on Dec. 24.

Posted by tgl on 2009-01-19 15:34:01 +0000

Last chance...

Posted by MF DU on 2009-01-20 19:11:12 +0000

Rather chortle inducing. Sorry I didn't see the post yesterday.

Posted by tgl on 2009-01-20 20:03:56 +0000

Lederman's assignment in the DoJ means it's possible that Obama hasn't completely forsaken the idea of legal action against past administration members. But... no impeachment.