I've changed my mind. Bush and Cheney should be impeached.

[Bill]

Even if it won't go thru the senate.

The scooter pardon was the last straw.

That's it.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Click on the pic:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2695/olbermannlibbypardongt0.jpg (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070407Y.shtml)

I just realized it's possible to use a picture
as the title of a link.

[Bill]

Huh - this vid is now on page one of most viewed at youtube...

Impeach Cheny - i guess its by kucinich people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEzPVP6EVRk

[KevinG]

Considering Libby didn't break any laws...that's a tough comment.

And on top of that, considering that he didn't pardon Libby, you're straying even more from sensible thought.

[Bill]

blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

I think it's great to see a traitor lover standing up for his traitor.

[KevinG]

blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

I think it's great to see a traitor lover standing up for his traitor.

The way you dismiss comments without so much as a hint of rebuttal is quite cute, and something I'd expect from your ideology, but it's more a waste of time than anything.

[Jesse Hemingway]

The way you dismiss comments without so much as a hint of rebuttal is quite cute, and something I'd expect from your ideology, but it's more a waste of time than anything.


My my when you think the republicans could not sink any lower in the cesspool here comes Fred and the support the scooter fund. The facts are so glaringly clear that even a knuckle dragging 18%er could figure it out. Patrick Fitzgerald investigation was in reality a look into a crime initiated by the CIA the investigation was going to be a white washing and then move on. Scooter Libby left his script at home and got caught lying to a Grand jury, FBI investigators, and Patrick Fitzgerald Scooter was too stupid and got busted. Then Scooter Libby went to a jury trial and scooter got convicted of lying and obstruction of justice by the jury.

Now that I realize that being convicted by a jury of your peers of lying and obstruction of justice is a new Christian value, is now part of Fred Thompson republican’s parties’ new and improved core values.

So please I need some help from a conservative to explain why the Republican Party wants to destroy the United States Constitution. There is no way, a rational person can take the republican presidential candidates except for Ron Paul as a bunch say anything, beyond nut cases, and circus freak show spectacles. Out of fairness the democratic presidential candidates that are current senators are know different then the republicans I mentioned. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Linkster]

kevin - actually he did "pardon" Libby - he just used a clause of the pardon law in the Constitution that allows for clemency in sentences - he did not fully pardon since by law he would have to wait 7 years after the conviction date (since it was a felony that Libby was convicted of)
BTW - note the last - Libby was convicted of a felony (which I believe is the legal definition of a jury finding that he did break laws?)

Interesting that the underlying problem here isnt being discussed much in the mainstream - that is that whoever orchestrated this within the white house if definitely guilty of treason - and if any person in a responsible position (even the president and vice president) - knew of the commision of a felony and did not take steps to stop it (or encouraged it) they are also guilty of a felony and treason by definition in the law

[Bill]

The way you dismiss comments without so much as a hint of rebuttal is quite cute, and something I'd expect from your ideology, but it's more a waste of time than anything.

The way you repeat your FOX talking points is quite cute, and without a modicum of originality to taint the point.

If you are unable to perceive the originality in calling a traitor to this country a traitor, and in implying that traitor-loving might also be traitorous, perhaps you should turn off the FOX channal and read a book.

If you took even a few moments to write your own opinion, rather than merely repeating the opinions of your handlers, we might have a conversation.

[Bill]

Huh - this vid is now on page one of most viewed at youtube...

Impeach Cheny - i guess its by kucinich people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEzPVP6EVRk

Now it's #3 most viewed.

#1 Titties
#2 Wrestling
#3 Impeach Cheney

[KevinG]

The way you repeat your FOX talking points is quite cute, and without a modicum of originality to taint the point.

If you are unable to perceive the originality in calling a traitor to this country a traitor, and in implying that traitor-loving might also be traitorous, perhaps you should turn off the FOX channal and read a book.

If you took even a few moments to write your own opinion, rather than merely repeating the opinions of your handlers, we might have a conversation.

Is John Kerry a traitor?

Sit and think about that one before you start throwing around your b.s.

And your "you listen to too much FOX news" dismissal is quite cowardly.

[Jesse Hemingway]

Is John Kerry a traitor?

Sit and think about that one before you start throwing around your b.s.

And your "you listen to too much FOX news" dismissal is quite cowardly.

I would say no I do believe John Kerry killed more NVA then
George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hanity
Michael Wiener (Savage)
Trent Lott
Fred Thompson
Rudi
Mitt
Ducan hunter
Scooter Libby
Jeb Bush
All the commentators on the fox network
Jeff Ganon Gucker
The entire white house staff
Karl Rove
All the members of PNAC

John Kerry killed more NVA Face to Face then
John McCain
Donald Rumsfeld

So what's your point?

[Jesse Hemingway]

July 8, 2007
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Profile in Cowardice




By FRANK RICH




THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby?s silence. Now we have the answers, and they?re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.




The timing of the president?s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father?s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton?s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.




But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.




That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn?t care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O?Reilly in a bunker.




But if those die-hards haven?t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby?s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren?t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or ?amnesty? for illegal immigrants.




The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby?s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.




What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush?s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney?s use of prewar intelligence.




Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby?s appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can?t testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million ?legal defense fund.?




The president?s presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libby?s jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. That?s the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.




When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely ?some bureaucratic red-tape issues.?




Asked last week to explain the president?s poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that ?when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind? to describe Mr. Bush, it?s ?incompetence.? But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush?s cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris.




Even The Wall Street Journal?s editorial page, a consistent Bush and Libby defender, had to take notice. Furious that the president had not given Mr. Libby a full pardon (at least not yet), The Journal called the Bush commutation statement a ?profile in non-courage.?

What it did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, is that this non-courage, to use The Journal?s euphemism, has been this president?s stock in trade, far exceeding the ?wimp factor? that Newsweek once attributed to his father. The younger Mr. Bush?s cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.




People don?t change. Mr. Bush?s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm?s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.




The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didn?t stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus ?compromise? that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to ?protect? marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.




Nowhere is this president?s non-courage more evident than in the ?signing statements? The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush ?quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.? Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward?s escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.




In the end, it was also this president?s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.




But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby?s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush?s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld?s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.




Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bush?s commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of ?Bring ?em on? to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after ?Mission Accomplished,? by taunting those who want ?to harm American troops.? Mr. Bush assured the world that ?we?ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.? The ?surge? notwithstanding, we still don?t have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.




No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.

[Jesse Hemingway]

By BART GRUZALSKI




On July 4th, 2007, President Bush compared the U.S. struggle in Iraq with the American Revolution. He reminded his audience of West Virginia Air National Guard personnel and their families that the first July 4th celebration in 1777 took place in the midst of "a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom." Although "it is hard [today] to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way," he said, "at the time, America's victory was far from certain." He then turned to the war in Iraq. "You're the successors of those brave men," he told the crowd. "Like those early patriots, you're fighting a new and unprecedented war." He commended them for "showing that the courage which won our independence more than two centuries ago is alive and well here in West Virginia."



What makes the American Revolution an inspirational example to people everywhere is that the first Americans were, like the Iraqis today, trying to end an occupation. Bush never got it, even though he pointed out that in 1777 "we were a small band of freedom-loving patriots taking on the most powerful empire in the world." Today it is the Iraqis who are "taking on the most powerful empire in the world" and our own military that constitutes the occupation. This is the stark and obvious analogy between the American Revolution and the Iraq occupation and it does not bode well for U.S. military success.



The American Revolution jettisoned foreign rule and subjection to the English throne. It should not be surprising to Americans that other peoples want to free themselves from occupation and foreign rule. Being a colony and suffering foreign troops on our soil infuriated our ancestors and would infuriate most of us today. The U.S. currently has over 160 thousand military personnel occupying Iraq, yet Iraq is a country with less than 10% of the population of the U.S. If a proportionally equal number of foreign troops were occupying our nation, more than 1,600,000 foreign troops would be in our cities, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods. There is no question about what would happen-we would create an insurgency of unprecedented ferocity that would drive the foreigners out. This is precisely what the Iraqi insurgents are trying to do today.



It is difficult to believe that some of the strategists in Washington D.C. are not fully aware that the occupation itself creates the Iraq insurgency. Even President Bush in his April 2004 press conference acknowledged that the Iraqis are not happy they're occupied" and added that AI wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.




What is shameless is that Bush used the example of our own American Revolution against a foreign occupation to pump up an audience of National Guard and their families as he told them to be ready for even "more sacrifice" (the euphemism for casualties) in our war of occupation.




Bart Gruzalski is Professor Emeritus at Northeastern University. His most recent book is "On Gandhi."

[KevinG]

I would say no I do believe John Kerry killed more NVA then
George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hanity
Michael Wiener (Savage)
Trent Lott
Fred Thompson
Rudi
Mitt
Ducan hunter
Scooter Libby
Jeb Bush
All the commentators on the fox network
Jeff Ganon Gucker
The entire white house staff
Karl Rove
All the members of PNAC

John Kerry killed more NVA Face to Face then
John McCain
Donald Rumsfeld

So what's your point?

Who cares how many he killed? A traitor is a traitor. Oh, suddenly we let traitors off the hook because they were once in the military?

Give me a break. Thanks for showing us all your bias.

[Jesse Hemingway]

Who cares how many he killed? A traitor is a traitor. Oh, suddenly we let traitors off the hook because they were once in the military?

Give me a break. Thanks for showing us all your bias.

Why do you call John Kerry Traitor?

I hope your not going to bring up viet nam because I would hate to see you make a fool of your self. If you do then add your self to the list of CHT talking cowards.


I would say no I do believe John Kerry killed more NVA then
kevin g
George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hanity
Michael Wiener (Savage)
Trent Lott
Fred Thompson
Rudi
Mitt
Ducan hunter
Scooter Libby
Jeb Bush
All the commentators on the fox network
Jeff Ganon Gucker
The entire white house staff
Karl Rove
All the members of PNAC
:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Jesse Hemingway]

Who cares how many he killed? A traitor is a traitor. Oh, suddenly we let traitors off the hook because they were once in the military?

Give me a break. Thanks for showing us all your bias.

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: February 13, 2006


Print This | Email This


The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html

[Lovelynice]

My my when you think the republicans could not sink any lower in the cesspool here comes Fred and the support the scooter fund. The facts are so glaringly clear that even a knuckle dragging 18%er could figure it out. Patrick Fitzgerald investigation was in reality a look into a crime initiated by the CIA the investigation was going to be a white washing and then move on. Scooter Libby left his script at home and got caught lying to a Grand jury, FBI investigators, and Patrick Fitzgerald Scooter was too stupid and got busted. Then Scooter Libby went to a jury trial and scooter got convicted of lying and obstruction of justice by the jury.

Now that I realize that being convicted by a jury of your peers of lying and obstruction of justice is a new Christian value, is now part of Fred Thompson republican’s parties’ new and improved core values.

So please I need some help from a conservative to explain why the Republican Party wants to destroy the United States Constitution. There is no way, a rational person can take the republican presidential candidates except for Ron Paul as a bunch say anything, beyond nut cases, and circus freak show spectacles. Out of fairness the democratic presidential candidates that are current senators are know different then the republicans I mentioned. :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Hear, hear, I concur! (well said too!):D

[Bill]

And your "you listen to too much FOX news" dismissal is quite cowardly.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Nobody cares how much neocons cry anymore. You had your war, and screwed it up. You stole your money, and now the crimes are being uncovered.

Libby was de facto pardoned, and his fine paid by other republicans, because he knew secrets about treason that would have hurt Cheney and Bush even more than their war has hurt them.

Covering up your crimes is also a crime.

And nobody is buying it, not your rhetoric here, or in the national debate.

You can twist and squirm and try to shift the blame from now til doomsday - nobody cares any more.

Your lazy FOX rhetoric is irrelevant.

[Bill]

Another republican turned independent had this to say:

"It’s unlikely this Congress will ever impeach George Bush because his people - some of who were close at hand during Watergate - didn’t make any Watergate-like tactical errors: no tapes, no smoking gun, no hard evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. That doesn’t make them any less guilty of what Theodore H. White described as the underlying deed that undid Nixon:

“The true crime of Richard Nixon was simple: he destroyed the myth that binds America together, and for this he was driven from power.

“The myth he broke was critical - that somewhere in American life there is at least one man who stands for the law, the President . . . That faith holds that all men are equal before the law and protected by it; and that no matter how the faith may be betrayed elsewhere, at one particular point - the Presidency - justice will done beyond prejudice, beyond rancor, beyond the possibility of a fix.”

Cops will continue to do their duty, prosecutors will continue to do theirs and judges will do likewise, but guilty men everywhere will find comfort in knowing that the justice system can be treated like a whore, if you have enough money or clout or both. Mob bosses will admire Bush’s loyalty to a closed-mouth soldier and petty criminals may well want to do better than small crime because they’ll realize that big crime pays big dividends.

Pass a bad check and go to jail. Attempt to subvert the justice system and never see the inside of a cell. Thanks a lot, George Bush."

http://www.lakeexpo.com/articles/2007/07/07/lake_news/02.txt

"I thought George W. Bush started off well enough. He responded to 9/11 with the right amount of diplomacy and force. I never thought much of his tax cuts - I’m not rich - and I found his constant harping on family values and morals to be distasteful. (It made me think of the Sermon on the Mount: "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.” But who I am to quote the Bible without sounding like W?).

I supported the Iraq War in the beginning, but as its mismanagement grew, so did my disillusionment. Yet I remained a Republican.

Then the rains came. When the New Orleans levees gave way, so did my belief in the Republican Party. This was an American city, pulverized by nature - though with plenty of notice, unlike an earthquake - and although the local and state authorities (which were Democrats) reacted with monumental ineptitude, I had confidence that a Republican administration would get the situation under control and lead a swift rebuilding.

That hasn’t happened. Instead, a great American city has been left to pull itself out of the mess while thousands of American citizens haven’t been able get decent housing or assistance from the federal government, which is firmly in the hands of the Republicans. Maybe the Republicans were grossly incompetent or simply indifferent because most of the hardest-hit victims were poor or non-white or both. No matter what, a Republican administration showed itself to be either monumentally inept or cruelly, methodically callous.

Either way, I didn’t want anything more to do with the Republicans. So I declared myself an Independent and have been so since. It was hard for me to walk away from a party that had been my political home since my youth."