How many of ya'all would be against this???

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler??

Michale.....

While it is not needed, and is completely irrelevant, I feel that it would be rude of me to not at least acknowledge your complete and utter lack of rational argument..

Michale.....

But, due to your childish attacks and your incessant
immature name-calling, I figured why bother.

By attacking the messenger, you have fully conceded the message..

I could not refute you better than you have refuted yourself.

Why don't you come back and talk to me when you can grow up..

Michale.....

- "Do you HONESTLY believe that these detainees are in there because they stole someone's milk money or didn't pay a parking ticket.. These are some very VERY bad people.."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml

(CBS) At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.

Oh yes... everyone in Guantanamo are the worst of the worst and wouldn't be there if they were actually innocent... (eyeroll)... especially since a McClatchy investigative report released three days ago, stated:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38773.html

"An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments."

Ummm... what did you say? Do I believe it? Not only do I believe it, but, officials in many countries believe it. Why?

"McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records."

"This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies."

Here, let me highlight that part... "INNOCENT AFGHAN VILLAGERS". Truly, you're right-wing GOP talking points have been debunked over and over and over and yet, here you are, repeating them only days afterwards.

- "Oh yes, sure. There may be one or two that are completely innocent. The possibility does exist. Just like in any criminal prosecution, the possibility always exists. Does that mean we throw out the entire criminal justice system, just because it MIGHT convict an innocent person??"

It is not a "belief" that there are innocent people in Guantanamo; it is a FACT. And, an "entire criminal justice system" even... that would be laughable if it wasn't so wrong.

The tribunals at Guantanamo are not a "criminal justice system", it is a "military tribunal system". And, it was a system that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the Military Commissions Act was passed. The Supreme Court has now ruled three times that anyone who is held can challenge their detention in federal court. Why was this necessary? Why was it necessary to rule THREE TIMES for the same thing? Because Gitmo trials are not fair, open, or free of prejudice.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013163.php

"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"

Who is Haynes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702862_2.html

"Among those questioned yesterday about decisions was William J. "Jim" Haynes II, a former Defense Department general counsel who acknowledged pressing for more aggressive techniques but said the decisions were driven by the administration's fear of more terrorist strikes."

Why, he was a person who wanted "more aggressive techniques", ie, he wanted to torture detainees. And, his testimony???? As reported at Crooks & Liars blog:

Over the course of just a few minutes, Haynes said, “I don’t recall seeing this memorandum before and I’m not even sure this is one I’ve seen before…. I don’t recall seeing this memorandum and I don’t recall specific objections of this nature…. Well, I don’t recall seeing this document, either…. I don’t recall specific concerns…. I don’t recall these and I don’t recall seeing these memoranda…. I can’t even read this document, but I don’t remember seeing it…. I don’t recall that specifically…. I don’t remember doing that…. I don’t recall seeing these things.”

He got "Gonzo disease"! Go figure THAT!

- But, if you have a scumbag terrorist accidentally released from Gitmo, guess what?? Many MANY innocent people die. It's already happened once that was reported. How many times did it happen that it DIDN'T get reported??

Why, yes, imagine that... if you scoop up everyone you can in a dragnet, innocent or not, hold them for YEARS in indefinite detention, TORTURE THEM... innocent or not... and then, they get set free because they weren't terrorists, guess what Sherlock... you've MADE a terrorist! And you figured it out all by yourself, albeit, years too late!!! Of course, like always, the grown-ups knew this years ago:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2005/06/wwwh60521.htm

Oh yes, and then you run right back to the right-wing meme:

- But you have to realize that the people you are fighting for would just as soon slit your throat as spit on you.

I was in Iraq twice. Amazingly, few of the Iraqi people I met wanted to slit my throat, much less spat at me. But then, I treated them as human beings.

- I have asked many many times and never got an answer. Whose side are you on?? Do you WANT terrorists to be released so that they can kill again?? Do you WANT to see your fellow Americans and fellow human beings butchered and killed in cold blood?? Are your principles and ethics worth an innocent person's life???

Oh my... the outrage... the crying... the "you can't be patriotic if you want your fellow Americans to die"... blah blah blah...

It sounds nice, packaging it all up into a nice neat ball, but, the grown-ups know that it isn't that simple. Wanting to treat everyone to a fair trial, with real evidence, and let an impartial jury decide their fate, is separate from a patriotic duty to keep people safe from terrorism.

You see, terrorism has been around for centuries. It will not go away unless you subscribe to genocide. Do you? Do you believe that it is right to jail or kill EVERYONE who opposes your thought process???? Because, like all the right-wing nuts, you sure sound like it!

The WTC was attacked in 1993. The perpetrators are in prison for their crime. The WTC was again attacked. We have invaded a country based on lies, imprisoned tens of thousands of people, killed hundreds of thousands more, displaced millions, and guess what... we WILL be hit again. So, the ONLY question here is WHAT ARE YOUR ETHICS???? Do you back the rule of law, or, the rule of slaughter?

And, you run to the "fear mongering", another right-wing nut tactic.

Except, you miss, like all the right-wing nuts, miss the point; if the person was actually innocent, and tortured, and held for years, and turned INTO that terrorist BY OUR OWN AUDACITY... that nightmare could have been avoided BY SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW.

Here is the REAL WORLD:

*** Achmed is swept up and detained. The evidence against him isn't there, and, the prosecutor, without political bias, without fear of political retribution, releases the man back to his family and Achmed goes back to his former, non-violent, life.

Here is what Gitmo brings us... YOUR scenario:

- 3 weeks later, Achmed Bin Terrorist is sitting on a busy street corner in Boston MA and blows himself to bits, taking 36 innocent men, women and children with him. Body parts are strewn for blocks and a corner of a Boston, Mass street is covered in blood and entrails..

Why? Because Achmed wasn't a terrorist. He was simply an innocent man who was imprisoned. But, since we imprisoned him for YEARS, since we KNEW he was a terrorist and TORTURED him, and then, YEARS later, after his wife, his family, was destroyed by his absence, he BECAME that terrorist YOU FEAR.

And, you again run to the right-wing talking point:

- This ain't no game. The people you want released from Gitmo are, for the most part, bad bad people. The fact that there MAY (emphasis MAY) be one or two innocent ones is unfortunate. But to want to release them all, SOLELY based on the completely unproven allegation that there might be ONE or TWO innocent ones is foolhardy. It is irresponsible..

Now, get this straight and through that hate-filled brain of yours: NOBODY IS SAYING RELEASE EVERYONE. NOBODY.

What we are saying is GIVE THE PEOPLE AT GITMO THE FAIR, OPEN, HEARINGS THEY DESERVE BASED ON REAL EVIDENCE... NOT HEARSAY... NOT TORTURED CONFESSIONS... NOT SECRET EVIDENCE NOBODY CAN EVER SEE... BUT THE FAIR, OPEN, NON-POLITICAL TRIALS THEY DESERVE... AND IF THEY ARE INNOCENT, LET THEM GO... IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY, THEN THEY ARE GUILTY.

But, you see... after YEARS of torturing people... after YEARS of secret detentions... after YEARS OF THIS ILLEGAL SYSTEM THAT YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU SUPPORT... you know that you can't DO THAT now. So, all you can do is continue to support these practices, lest, all of you be shown to the be the idiots you truly are... and you prove my point by your last statement:

- Hell, even if it can be proven beyond ANY doubt that one or two are completely innocent (it just can't be ascertained which one or two) it would STILL be foolhardy and irresponsible to release them all...

Yes, because after you've supported torturing innocent people... after you've supported a system that wants to kill these people for doing absolutely nothing... you'd really hate to be shown to be an idiot by having that person finally be proven to be innocent. And, heaven forbid, that innocent person NOW want some payback because YOU were too stupid to follow the rule of law from the beginning.

The fear for you isn't that there are terrorists that will be released. The fear is that the lies will finally be told... but, that is happening anyway... and, because of it, you, and those like you, are being shown for the idiots you truly are.

Keep bringing the right-wing talking points... it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

What's your point???

"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong"

I like my version better..

"If the terrorist dies, you're doing it right."

I am seriously concerned about this overt compassion for scumbag terrorists..

Do you HONESTLY believe that these detainees are in there because they stole someone's milk money or didn't pay a parking ticket.. These are some very VERY bad people..

Don't you think your "compassion" is misplaced??

Oh yes, sure. There may be one or two that are completely innocent. The possibility does exist. Just like in any criminal prosecution, the possibility always exists. Does that mean we throw out the entire criminal justice system, just because it MIGHT convict an innocent person??

I know, I know. Your response will be, "but the criminal justice system has safeguards to prevent innocent people blaa blaa blaa."

My answer to that would be,
A> Do those safeguards always work??

and

2> The system at Gitmo also has safeguards. It's simply that those safeguards are not as stringent and rightfully so.

In your run of the mill criminal case, if a prosecutorial mistake is made then some guilty wife beater or druggie is released. OK, not the best scenario, but it happens.

But, if you have a scumbag terrorist accidentally released from Gitmo, guess what?? Many MANY innocent people die. It's already happened once that was reported. How many times did it happen that it DIDN'T get reported??

Look, I get it. It's fun to be compassionate. It's a thrill to stand up for the "little guy", the poor innocent farmer who was swept up in the nasty storm trooper nets of the evil George Bush and the bad bad USA. It makes you feel good that you can attempt to right a alleged wrong.

But you have to realize that the people you are fighting for would just as soon slit your throat as spit on you.

I have asked many many times and never got an answer.

Whose side are you on??

Do you WANT terrorists to be released so that they can kill again??

Do you WANT to see your fellow Americans and fellow human beings butchered and killed in cold blood??

Are your principles and ethics worth an innocent person's life???

Imagine the defense lawyer down at Gitmo arguing, pleading and begging for the release of his client down in Gitmo, Achmed Bin Terrorist... This lawyer makes in impassioned plea, saying all the things you are saying, all the alleged atrocities, zero evidence to support anything, all the BS that has been spouted by bleeding hearts.. This lawyer is so passionate about it, that he impresses the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS frees Achmed...

3 weeks later, Achmed Bin Terrorist is sitting on a busy street corner in Boston MA and blows himself to bits, taking 36 innocent men, women and children with him. Body parts are strewn for blocks and a corner of a Boston, Mass street is covered in blood and entrails..

Now, I ask you.

How does that lawyer feel??

How would YOU feel if you were that lawyer??

Hell, how do you feel just knowing that you WANTED this terrorist released from Gitmo??

"This ain't no game, Slick"
-Bruce Willis THE LAST BOYSCOUT

This ain't no game. The people you want released from Gitmo are, for the most part, bad bad people. The fact that there MAY (emphasis MAY) be one or two innocent ones is unfortunate. But to want to release them all, SOLELY based on the completely unproven allegation that there might be ONE or TWO innocent ones is foolhardy. It is irresponsible..

Hell, even if it can be proven beyond ANY doubt that one or two are completely innocent (it just can't be ascertained which one or two) it would STILL be foolhardy and irresponsible to release them all..

This is the reality of the world we live in..

Tis sad, tis true... Tis true, tis sad.

Michale.....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41394.html

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.

"We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. At that same meeting, Beaver also appeared to confirm that U.S. officials at another detention facility — Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — were using sleep deprivation to "break" detainees well before then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved that technique. "True, but officially it is not happening," she is quoted as having said.

A third person at the meeting, Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, disclosed that detainees were moved routinely to avoid the scrutiny of the ICRC, which keeps tabs on prisoners in conflicts around the world.

"In the past when the ICRC has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD (Defense Department) has 'moved' them away from the attention of the ICRC," Fredman said, according to the minutes.

So... to recap... Bush/Cheney and their Pentagon cronies made sure that the International Red Cross couldn't find detainees, which, ensured that the world wouldn't know about the abuses occurring.

And what was their "guideline"?

"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong"

Let me just say that, in the not so distant future, $4 a gallon may look pretty darn good. Be happy!

What about .93 cents a gallon gas??? :D

Michale.....

I can't believe I didn't add my two cents worth on that blog post! I must have been otherwise preoccupied...trying, in vain, to prevent a fiasco in Iowa.

I was under the impression that the Bush-CHENEY regime were the experts on offering up the false choice. But, I have good news for you. You don't have to give up your favorite dive spots to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran! Seriously!

Michale.....

Local off-shore drilling...

Wait... That's been in the media recently...

Hmmmmmm

Personally, I am for all the drilling we can do for a short term fix... In 1976 (when I got my licence) gas was 93 cents a gallon...

Would love to see that again! :D

Note that the wife and I are avid SCUBA Divers and would hope such drilling could be accomplished with a minimum of environmental impact..

But, if it's a choice between having to move our favorite dive spots and being able to prevent a nuclear Iran... Well, I think we can make the sacrifice...

Michale.....

Editing done. You're welcome.

And Elizabeth... ask and it shall be given...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/10/01/the-day-after-we-bomb-iran/

Note, this was last October, so the scary numbers for oil prices are a bit dated, to say the least.

-CW

Let's just say that, thankfully, both of them will be gone from the world stage before hard decisions like these will need to be made.

You hope...

Michale.....

I agree...

Not so much that a case for impeachment can be made.

But, I agree with you that IF a case can/should be made, the way it's being attempted is a detriment.

Which has kinda been my sub-point. The hysterical accusations, the far-fetched and totally unbelievable statements coming from the Left HURT their case more than it helps..

Michale.....

Why not just send an invitation to Republicans to bring up the "loony left"?

Now I don't agree that this characterization is apt. But Dennis should be smart enough to realize that if he can't garner more support for his cause, introducing it, I think, can only hurt the cause unless he can find a way to frame it so it doesn't fit into the Republican narrative.

The Republican narrative is: the left is obstructionist and out to get us.

I know. I know. It's a narrative. But set aside the truth of the statement for a second.

You have to take into account the power of this narrative and either have a better answer for it, or realize that what you are doing may hurt your cause.

Now the Republicans can say "look how loony he is". No one agrees with him.

Again, I'm not arguing against the validity of impeachment because I think a case can be made, but I am arguing for more effective methods. Until these exist, I don't think it's really news.

Best
Dave

A nuclear armed Iran would all but guarantee a nuclear conflict in the middle east in our lifetime.

Iran bombed back into the stone age??

Not so much..

Let's just say that I have more faith in our own President than I do in the psychotic Ahmenjihadist...

Michale....

Of course I meant to say "...this administration WOULDN'T have the first clue..."

...and "alla bout" was simply a freudian slip, nothing more!

After the kind of neocon-inspired incompetence we have witnessed over the last seven years, I would be far more concerned about THIS administration, in particular, initiating a military strike against Iran than I would be if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. I shit you not!

Even if the RG, Hamas, AND Hezbollah were alla bout to become nuclear-armed, God forbid...that would not change the fact that this adminstration wouldn't have the first clue about what would be required to stop it or how to implement it if they did!

Not only a nuclear armed Iran, but a nuclear armed Rebublican Guard. A nuclear armed Hamas. A nuclear armed Hezbollah..

Now, which would be the better of two evils??

Michale.....

I can...

Just as I can also imagine a nuclear armed Iran...

Out of the two possibilities, which do you think is more detrimental to the region and to the world??

Michale.....

Can you even begin to imagine the consequences of a US military attack on Iran? The president would have to be out of his mind to even be considering such a course of action...wait a second...

Since Congress has declared the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, Bush is fully authorized to attack their assets, especially in the case of a clear and present (not necessarily imminent) danger to US Forces in the region.

Bush can argue that the War On Terror authorization allows him to attack Republican Guard facilities and units. And it would be a legal argument that has legs in a court of law.

With public opinion?? Not so much.

The only option Congress has is to revoke the authorizations.. Up until that point, Bush can pretty much do what he wants...

Michale.....

Revoking the October 2002 Iraq resolution would seem to have been the logical next step for Congress to take for some time now, considering the fact that all of what that resolution authorized the President to do, IF NECESSARY, has been done, one way or the other. We could argue about the 'if necessary' part ad nauseam, but I am sure you would agree that life is too short!

It seems to me that the best case for impeachment would materialize when and if the President used military force against Iran, in a limited or all out attack, without the approval of Congress - which I don't believe he would get, notwithstanding the Kyl-Leiberman resolution.

Michale.....

As I said, I have been there and done that and much more... And, guess what??

It was as bad back then as it is now. The only difference is now it is easier for the general public to know about it than before when news was delayed a day or two or more..

But as bad as it is, that doesn't mean it represents an impeachable offense.

You have heard the term, "WAR IS HELL"?? What did you expect??

The point is, when viewed in a COMPLETELY objective manner (which is, by the bi, necessary when prosecuting a criminal case) the accusations made by the hysterical Left are very easy to respond to.

Passion about science is an admirable goal. Passion IN science should be avoided at all costs
-Spock

If one looks at all your accusations with the cold analytical eye of objectivity, it's easy that the accusations require emotion to be acceptable.

Take out the emotion and there is nothing there.

Can you PROVE beyond a doubt that Bush acted in anything other than a sincere and appropriate manner as is his duty as Commander In Chief?

Don't even bother answering because your answer will be based in emotion, not fact.

The simple fact is, any accusation made against Bush that has ANY basis in fact can be answered quite logically and rationally with the response, "I made the best decision I could have made with the evidence I had at the time and in accordance with my duties as Commander In Chief and the authorizations given to me by the US Congress."

Zing... Any and all accusations are immediately rendered moot..

Because for these hysterical accusations to be applicable, the accuser has to, MUST perform one simple task.

To PROVE the accusations true, you must have rock-solid evidence as to what is in Bush's head at the time.

Anything less and you have nothing.

It can be legally argued that Bush has had authorization from the UNITED STATS CONGRESS for EVERYTHING he has done.

And THAT is why you will not see President Bush impeached. Because when Congress authorized the President to take any and all measures to safeguard this country in 2001 and 2002, they gave the President a blank check.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Joint Authorization For Use Of Military Force
18 Sep 2001

This authorization has never been revoked. The Joint Authorization Of Military Force Against Iraq (Oct 2002) is more of the same. Complete authorization for each and every action that Bush has taken.

And that is Bush's defense.. EVERYTHING he has done can be legally argued in the context that he was authorized by Congress..

Finit.. Impeachment case falls apart.

Pelosi knows this. Reid knows this.

THAT is why impeachment is nothing more than a wet dream.

Now, you may argue that the actions taken were NOT appropriate or required. But it's not your call to make. It's the President's decision and as long as he has the authorizations in hand, it's all perfectly legal..

You want Bush impeached?? Get Congress to revoke the authorizations and then, if Bush continues to act in the same manner, than you can have your impeachment.

It's really THAT simple.

Michale....

Our military isn't so stressed out after repeated deployments that they aren't committing suicide.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/military_suicide_060808w/

They aren't having to take anti-depressant drugs.

http://www.mcleague.com/mdp/modules.php?op=modload&name=MDForum&file=viewtopic&t=821&MDPROSID=c8f4250d75bb85362bd26f92fdef5496

Things just aren't that bad, because, YOU are sitting behind a keyboard instead of where our soldiers are... right?

And that's exactly my question as well..

The only reason I can come up with is that the administration used it's wiretapping, not to find terrorists, but, to find dirt on the Democratic politicians.

There is another explanation that is more in keeping with Occam's Razor..

Things are not nearly as bad as you claim.

Michale.....

I believe you're wrong on one point: that there is no smoking gun.

If the actions of President Bush were legal, why did the MCA include retroactive immunity? If the warrantless wiretapping by telecoms were legal and sanctioned by FISA, why is the GOP working so hard for retroactive immunity?

We already know, per the governments OWN reports, that the White House used public funds to put out a propaganda campaign using retired military as "message force multipliers" in regards to Iraq.

We already know, per the governments OWN reports, that the intelligence used to invade Iraq was cherry-picked at best, and that statements made by Bush and Cheney were flat out false.

Again, it comes down to political will, and the Democrats just don't have it. The biggest question is why, when the public is behind it?

The only reason I can come up with is that the administration used it's wiretapping, not to find terrorists, but, to find dirt on the Democratic politicians.

http://ooibc.blogspot.com/2007/10/america-in-clear-and-present-danger.html

Gore Endorses Obama
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080616/D91BCLTG3.html

Barely a footnote on DRUDGE...

It's amazing what a difference a couple weeks make, eh??

I guess Gore is trying to shore up his legitimacy by riding Obama's coattails..

Obama will lose a LOT of my support if he embraces the con that is Human Caused Global Warming...

Michale.....

Thanx.. I really didn't research it as my post was more in jest than anything else..

I am not really surprised with your information though. It's amazing the reaches the Hillary Clan will go to to try and derail Obama...

Michale.....

As to the first, my point is that people are accusing Bush of war crimes, genocide, murder, etc etc. If Bush was actually guilty of those crimes, it is beyond comprehension that he would not be impeached and prosecuted..

I mean, we're talking about a president with an approval rating in the low 20s!! How could he NOT be impeached, if there was just cause??

If the Left could learn to tone down their hysterics and put forth their accusations in a calm and rational manner, then they might find their accusations received considerably better.

In this regard, the hysterical Left are their own worst enemies..

Michale.....

I suggest you go talk to a DA or any prosecutor. There are plenty of people walking around free who have committed crimes and are guilty as sin. But if there is not enough evidence that can be introduced in court, then the DA will not bring the case. So there is a third option, which I believe is where we find ourselves with the impeachment of Bush question. There's no smoking gun, but that doesn't prove he's innocent by a long shot.

Hadn't realized Obama's birth was so close to Hawaii's statehood. But as BLaws points out, it's on the right side of the line. Also, I believe the Senate already voted to accept McCain as "native born" so that this question wouldn't come up in the campaign. I didn't follow it all the way to the end, so I'm not sure if the House followed suit or not. (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at a US military base).

-CW

"There are Hillary Supporter Talking Points that state that Obama cannot run for President because he was born in Hawaii before it became a state.."

Well, maybe in the fantasy world many of them live in...

Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959.
Obama was born August 4, 1961.

There are DEM talking points floating around the web that McCain cannot run for President because he wasn't born in the USA...

There are Hillary Supporter Talking Points that state that Obama cannot run for President because he was born in Hawaii before it became a state..

Wouldn't it be hilarious if BOTH candidates were disqualified from running for President?? :D

Michale.....

With your every post you prove my point..

If Bush is all so fired up guilty as "public opinion" and the Democrats say he is....

WHY ISN'T HE BEING IMPEACHED??

If the crimes are of such magnitude, surely political expediency cannot explain the lack of impeachment.

If Bush was guilty of even a TENTH of what has been leveled at him, the the would HAVE to be impeached.

It's simple logic.

The fact that Bush hasn't been impeached speaks volumes.

Let me put it to you this way.

Let's say you have John Q Tuvix as the Police Chief in (oooh where can I pick on today???) Albequierky, NM... Chief Tuvix is not very popular because Albequierky is a really rowdy town and Mr Tuvix is a law and order kind of guy. At one time or another, Mr Tuvix has had to jail more than half the town for various minor offenses. So, as I said, Chief Tuvix is not very popular. Now, in this town, "Everyone knows" that Chief Tuvix has molested hundreds of children. If you were to take a poll in Albequierky, you would learn that 75% of the people in Albequierky think that Chief Tuvix has molested children. Many on the town council also say that Chief Tuvix has molested children and should be jailed. The talk is endless..

And yet, Chief Tuvix is NOT arrested and not only is he NOT arrested, he still continues as Chief Of Police..

Now, as a newcomer to Albequierky, wouldn't you be simply GABBERFLASTED that all these people in town "KNOW" that Mr Tuvix is guilty, yet NO ONE will step up to do anything about??

Wouldn't you, as a logical and rational person, wonder about this? That if Mr Tuvix has NOT been arrested and jailed that maybe, possibly, perhaps that the "charges" are motivated by hatred rather than by actual events??

No offense to anyone, but if there is one "problem" that people have in this political forum, it is that they cannot face the tough questions. The really tough questions are poo-poo'ed away as "straw men" or simply ignored..

So, here is one of those tough questions for you, Michael...

If Bush is as stone cold guilty as you claim, if Bush has committed such HORRENDOUS crimes as you claim, then WHY HASN'T HE BEEN IMPEACHED??

If the answer is "political expediency" then that makes the Democrats every bit as guilty as Bush. And if THAT is the case, then the people would rise up and demand action..

Given that, the ONLY response that makes logical and rational sense is that Bush is NOT guilty of the horrendous crimes that ya'all accuse him of.

But I would truly love to hear your answer.

Michale.....

In 2006, Zogby poll showed:

"By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003."

In July 2007, a USA/Gallop poll showed that 62% of America said that there was not enough justification to start impeachment of Bush. Yet, in November 2007, the American Research Group did a poll and found that 53% of those polled said that with the abuses of the Bush administration rose to the level of impeachment (which is consistent with the Zogby poll that was commissioned).

And, why might citizens not take to the streets?

Well, in April 2003, police in Oregon fired upon protesters. Then, again in October 2004, police fired upon protesters, again in Oregon. Oh, let's not forget all of the arrests for merely wearing a t-shirt that is anti-Bush! Or the fact that the Pentagon and various police agencies were infiltrating and spying on anti-war organizations.

I mean, come on... people should be in the streets instead of wanting their elected representatives to do their jobs. (eye roll)

And, let's look at logic:

- Tom Delay on Clinton impeachment:

"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

- Chuck Hagel on Clinton impeachment:

"There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

- Dick Armey on Clinton's attack on Iraq:

"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

I mean, LOGICALLY, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is, unless you're a GOP hack who can't come up with any LOGICAL reasoning in your argument...

There is no love lost between me and the media/blogosphere, generally speaking and certainly excepting this site, and neither have ever been my primary source for information. But, I am a Sunday morining talk show junkie, as they say, and Meet The Press has always been my favourite. I've been watching faithfully for almost as long as Tim Russert has been there. I have learned a lot from the guests he has interviewed, whether or not I've been impressed with his style, methods, or demeanor...as if I would be one to judge.

Frankly, I could never understand the criticism, often quite personal, directed at Russert and his show, from all corners of the political spectrum by members of the blogosphere and media. Talk about the pots calling the kettle black...oh, man!...that took the phrase to all new heights.

If you listened very carefully - not to the questions, per se, but to the answers and what the guests had to say, whether they answered the question or not - you couldn't help but learn something new about the guest or about the issue being discussed.

There is one Meet The Press episode that stands out among all the others for me and that I will never forget, as long as I live. It was the Sunday following Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. The pleas from Aaron Broussard are etched in my brain forever.

It was while watching that heart-wrenching show that I was introduced to Mark Freschetti and Mike Tidwell and to the precarious position that New Orleans finds itself in and to the urgent need to restore the wetlands and barrier islands of coastal Louisiana before it's too late.

If it were not for that MTP episode, I would still be clueless as to what really happened in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I would have no idea how the US Army Corps of Engineers laid the groundwork - or not, as is the case - for the drowning of New Orleans. I would have no understanding of the fact that what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina was anything but a natural disaster.

A clip from this episode has been replayed, more than a few times this weekend, but it is of Michael Chertoff's exchange with Tim Russert - funny, that part of the show I seem to have forgotten. Leave it to the media to focus on one small - very small - aspect of that memorable episode that I found to be completely forgettable. I guess that is just par for the course.

It's hard to imagine that I will ever have the same level of anticipation before another edition of MTP. I am assuming that, from here on in, "if it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press". But, it will never be the same.

If Bush was truly guilty of the crimes the hysterical Left accuse him of, then there would HAVE to be consequences.

Employing Occam's Razor, what is the more likely and plausible explanation??

Either Bush is a monster who is getting away with unimaginable crimes....

Or

The hysterical case made in the court of public opinion has little to do with reality.

The answer is clear..

If Bush was even guilty of a TENTH of what the hysterical Left is accusing him of, then there is simply NO WAY that the country would stand by and let him rule..

If the Left would learn to think rationally and logically about things instead of hysterically and emotionally, then they (and this country) would be better off.

On the other hand, if the Left DID think rationally and logically about things, they wouldn't be "the Left" for long. :D

Michale.....

The GOP did overreach. Clinton's popularity INCREASED to 73% during his impeachment. But, the GOP didn't "pay for it", either. In the 1998 election, the GOP lost 5 seats in the House, yet, maintained a nice majority in both the Senate and House.

In the 2000 election, the GOP lost 4 seats in the Senate and 2 seats in the House, but, with Democrats voting with them on issues, the GOP had control of the White House, Senate, and House. Total Control. That's hardly weaker.

Then you had the lies to get into Iraq in 2003, and the GOP gained seats in the Senate and House in 2004.

But, as the truth started coming out... the tides turned. They turned to the point that the Democratic Party picked up 27 seats in the House and 7 seats in the Senate in the 2006 midterms. Then, Democrats won 3 special elections in districts that were +10 GOP.

There is plenty of will from the public to impeach Bush... there just isn't any political will.

President Clinton's approval rating was in the 60's, and went up to 73% during his impeachment. The GOP started the "-Gates" in 1993, and was on a witchhunt every since. Yes, the public knew it, but, the GOP didn't "pay any price" for it. In fact, the GOP won it all in 2000 and solidified their gain in 2004.

Clinton's approval rating was because he presided over a booming economy and low unemployment. The two military ventures were Somalia and Kosovo. President Bush Sr. stuck our troops into Somalia right before he left office and Clinton inherited it. Yet, the GOP were screaming for retreat with less than a 100 casualties.

Bush's approval rating is in the dumps, hovering between 25-28%. His policies have driven the country into rising unemployment, recession, and $4/gal gasoline. He mired us in Iraq based on lies, and after 4,000+ dead American soldiers, the GOP had the balls to call Democrats "cut and runners" for wanting out of that quagmire. And, btw, the word "quagmire" was used by Dick Cheney to describe what the U.S. would find if we took Baghdad during the First Gulf War.

After all of the non-scandals the GOP touted, they finally tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blowjob he got. And, he wasn't even convicted of that! He was ACQUITTED of lying under oath.

Bush has lied to the nation and world about Iraq. Illegal wiretapping that started PRIOR to 9/11. Trashing the consitution. Torture. Illegal black CIA sites and renditioning prisoners to 3rd world countries to torture them. Blocking access to detainees from the Red Cross and other Humanitarian agencies. The list goes on and on...

Nobody died from Clinton's lie... yet, he was impeached.

convict Pres. Clinton under impeachment for getting a blowjob.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury.. Apparently Dems thought that perjury was serious enough to call for Scooter Libby to be hung from the nearest lamppost..

I guess when a Dem commits perjury, it's no big deal. But when a Republican commits perjury, it's a crime akin to treason...

As I said. Hypocrisy at it's finest...

Let me lay it out for you so you can understand. There is NO CASE for impeachment.

It's THAT simple.

The GOP knows it.

The Democrats know it.

Get over it.

Michale.....

Ah, but the Clinton impeachment just made him stronger, and the Republicans weaker. They overreached, and the public knew it.

Now, I have fully supported all the investigations Congress has been running (and telling them to get on with it already! several times), and I still believe that if they ever uncovered a smoking gun that (a) the media and (b) the public got excited about, then impeachment might be the way to go. But until that happens, it's looking like we're just going to have to wait the Bush administration out, and hope he doesn't do too much damage before next January.

But I still admire Kucinich for sticking up for what he believes in, which is why he got the MIDOTW.

-CW

Aging hippies are always welcome here! Wait a minute, the Woodstock museum is in CT? You sure it's not in NY? Either way, when I'm in the neighborhood I will check it out...

As for zombies, I don't know why I keep getting an image of McCain and Cheney mumbling "mmmust... eat... BRAINS!!" while wandering around in a mall outside of Pittsburgh.

Maybe Buffy can save us all!

Heh heh.

-CW

I'd like to also recommend my current very favorite paperback book: WORLD WAR Z: The ZOMBIE WAR. It is written with such a believability, with much of it in the form of first person "diary" accounts by ordinary American SOLDIERS on the ground, that it was absolutely RIVETING.

I think John McCain would make an EXCELLENT Zombie, & so would BUSH; Dick Cheney is a little CHUBBY for a Zombie, so he'd make EXCELLENT Zombie FOOD RATIONS! Mmmmmmm, Dick Cheney MRE's! Yummy!

I think too many people are forgetting that the Republican-controlled Senate didn't have the votes to convict Pres. Clinton under impeachment for getting a blowjob. That didn't stop them from investigating, and publicizing, every little thing Clinton ever did or didn't do until they destroyed the Democratic Party's chances in the coming election.

Why, then, should we NOT impeach Bush, even IF we don't have all the votes to convict?

It's not like there isn't PROOF that Bush lied us into a war; took away habeas corpus; trashed the constitution; ADMITTED that he was ILLEGALLY wiretapping American citizens; ....

Whether or NOT Pelosi, or Reid, or any other Democrat has the balls to do it, it doesn't inspire faith when reporters, journalists, and PEOPLE, continue with the "but, we wouldn't win, so why try" meme.

I bet the Republicans were soooo scared to impeach Clinton over lying about a blowjob... oh wait... and they didn't have the votes to convict, so I'm sure they hated destroying the Democratic name and winning total control of the government in 2000... oh wait...