Two in five Americans favor impeachment

Zogby released a poll on the 30th taken before and after the President’s recent prime time address. The poll showed no bounce in the President’s approval ratings that might be attributed to the address. In his release, Zogby prominently featured this question.

If it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.

Here is a breakdown of responses. (Sorry, couldn’t configure the table quite the way I wanted.)

Category

Yes

No

Overall

42%

50%

Democrats

59%

30%

Republicans

25%

70%

Independents

43%

49%

Western States

52%

41%

Eastern States

49%

45%

South

34%

60%

Central/Great Lakes

52%

38%

Red

36%

55%

Blue

48%

45%

 

The release also reported that Americans are tiring of the partisan division on Capitol Hill. (Duh)

The poll results were not reported in the three papers that I routinely look at. Since I had to be somewhere last night, I don’t know if the NewsHour picked it up or not. Perhaps they will tonight on their weekly political wrap up.

A local weekly discussion show, carried on PBS, did pick up the story. For various reasons, three of the four panel members , one a columnist for the Post-Dispatch, didn’t believe the story was newsworthy. The moderator disdainfully introduced the subject by saying that the question should never have been asked.

Generalizing a bit, I ask—The liberal media bias is where?

—————
For some reason the hyperlink didn’t pick up. Here is the URL

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

77 thoughts on “Two in five Americans favor impeachment

  1. Liberal Media? That reminds me of a joke: George Bush, The Liberal Media, and Satan all spot a dollar on the ground at the same time. Who picks it up? That’s easy; it’s George Bush! The other two don’t exist!

  2. Haha, good one, Bo$$!  Along those lines, it’s pretty amazing that impeachment has reached as far as it has concerning the failing of the corporate media to get the word out on any number of issues of “Teflon Boy”.  I saw an article that Time is going to give the courts the information regarding Plame.

  3. To get impeached, you have to (1) lose money on a screwed-up land deal that happened before you were even president, or (2) lie about getting your wick happy.

    When has any president, ever, been held accountable for taking us to war on grounds that turned out to be total bullshit?  It isn’t like this is the first time it’s ever happened – or even the fourth time.

  4. Generalizing a bit, I ask—The liberal media bias is where?

    That’s easy, media is allowed to be liberal only so far as it doesn’t reveal inconvenient things from those in power.

    http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media.asp

    http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11836

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/18/media-fairyland-/

    So that thing what Dubya said about those undemocratic, un-free tyrannies in axis of evil… he was just talking about himself.

    You know, If Clinton would have done all this there would be public lynching by same people who now sanctify all these.

  5. If it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.

    The problem with this poll is the question.  Bush’s reasons for going to war were the same reasons given by the Clinton administration before him and were clearly stated in the resolution which was agreed upon by the majority of Congress.  I am not happy with all that Bush has done but the one thing that is glaringly apparent to me is the liberals GAVE Bush the power to go to war based on the reasons listed in the resolution (if you haven’t read it you ought to) and then turned around and cried foul once he did just what they gave him authority to do-FULLY knowing the reasons. And I say THE reasons because they weren’t just Bush’s. He didn’t dream them up-hence he didn’t lie about them.  The majority of the liberals suspected weapons of mass destruction and claimed concern over those weapons ending up in the wrong hands-thus they agreed to the resolution.  The majority of liberals agreed on the evidence pointing to 10 years of linkage between Al Qaida and Iraq, thus they agreed to the resolution. 

    What they, and those that fall in to their backwards thinking, have essentially done is played their best hand and then sat back and whined that some of their own cards didn’t back up their play. They need someone to blame other than themselves, forgetting that they were right there, voting and signing and agreeing to go to war. Enough is enough already. Quite frankly I am tired of the whining about it. We are in a war, like it or not, and the best move now is to stay the course and finish the job right.  Backing out now could have disastrous consequences and I am not willing to leave that burden on my sons-who may someday have to go back into Iraq and clean up the mess the liberals would like to just forget exists.

  6. Generalizing a bit, I ask—The liberal media bias is where?

    Perhaps 3 of the 4 panelists didn’t think it was newsworthy because it is a stupid poll question with no basis in reality, and not necessarily because they aren’t liberal or biased.  Even some liberals realize a dumb question when they see/hear one.

    As far as the liberal media bias goes it has existed for decades. Only recently have radio syndicates and television producers begun to see the wisdom in providing BOTH sides to the political spectrum. And that decision has been widely successful, as evidenced by Fox’s popularity and the shift towards more conservative/liberal debate shows like Hannity and Colmes-where people can hear both sides. This in stark contrast to the days when all we heard was Dan Blather, Peter Spinnings and CNN (Commie News Network).

  7. To get impeached, you have to (1) lose money on a screwed-up land deal that happened before you were even president, or (2) lie about getting your wick happy.

    Gotta love how you guys spin things. It puts a sweet smile on my face.

    Correction: to get impeached you have to (1) lie under oath, whereby circumventing the legal system and committing perjury while holding the office of chief executive legal officer of the land. (2) commit obstruction of justice, through his discussions with Monica Lewinsky, in an attempt to elude justice in a case in which he was the defendant against a sexual harrassment accusation.

    One has to wonder why he would try to get people to lie for him, to cover up his inappropriate conduct in the oval office-if he were innocent.

    I know how badly the liberals want to make this just about sex, in an effort to excuse his illegal conduct.  But the facts speak for themselves.  I also know how badly you liberals are still reeling from having to watch your guy go down in flames and become one of the most ridiculed and laughed at presidents of all times-his precious legacy in ruins.  So badly that you pull desperately at straws in a feeble attempt to catch Bush doing anything wrong, constantly making insinuations and innuendos you can never prove. It’s so transparent and yes, stupid.

  8. Let’s see:
    1. Patriot Act and related Executive Orders
    2. The gutting of habeus corpus, posse comitatus, and due process
    3. Spygate- the intentional revealing of an undercover CIA operative
    4. FBIgate- Ashcroft having a GOP judge throw out Sibel Edmonds’ whistleblower case while all the documentation was still classified as secret
    5. Iraq War- yeah, yeah, you claim that it was all the “liberals’” fault, yet this week Bush still mentioned Iraq and 9/11 together six times.  He also joked about not finding WMD’s under his desk (last year)- what a funny guy- I’m sure that all the families who have lost loved ones in Bush’s war were rolling on the floor with tthat joke.
    6. Chalabigate- Bush’s little darling who sold out to the Iranians.
    7. GOP breaks into Dem’s judiciary computer
    8. Cheney’s buddies at Halliburton profiteering from no-bid contracts
    9. Antidisestablishmentarianism
    10. Enron- he and Lay were so thick that they had little post-it notes that they had sent each other
    11. Tampering with scientific reports about global warming
    12. Refusing to disclose information about Cheney’s secret energy task force meeting
    13. HR 3077, International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003
    14. The Total Information Awareness fiasco
    15. The 9/11 Hearings- what a joke!
    16. Bin Laden- “Wanted- dead or alive.”  Seems that Georgie has forgotten all about him.
    17. “Mission Accomplished” and “Bring ‘em on!”
    18. HHS deceptive ad campaign and Scully scandal
    19. Fostering an environment conducive to torturing POWs (as well as petty criminals and innocents)
    20. Use of napalm in Iraq
    21. Suppression of EPA report on mercury pollution

      Before you get worked and start hurling your favorite epithet- “liberal”, I did not vote for Gore in 2000 and only for Kerry in 2004 because I thought he might actually beat Bush.  BTW, you might want to do a Google search on Ohio and the 2004 elections- some interesting stuff out there that never made it into the corporate media somehow, as with most of the above.

  9. The problem with this poll is the question.  Bush’s reasons for going to war were the same reasons given by the Clinton administration before him and were clearly stated in the resolution which was agreed upon by the majority of Congress.  I am not happy with all that Bush has done but the one thing that is glaringly apparent to me is the liberals GAVE Bush the power to go to war based on the reasons listed in the resolution (if you haven’t read it you ought to) and then turned around and cried foul once he did just what they gave him authority to do-FULLY knowing the reasons. And I say THE reasons because they weren’t just Bush’s. He didn’t dream them up-hence he didn’t lie about them.  The majority of the liberals suspected weapons of mass destruction and claimed concern over those weapons ending up in the wrong hands-thus they agreed to the resolution.  The majority of liberals agreed on the evidence pointing to 10 years of linkage between Al Qaida and Iraq, thus they agreed to the resolution.

    What they, and those that fall in to their backwards thinking, have essentially done is played their best hand and then sat back and whined that some of their own cards didn’t back up their play. They need someone to blame other than themselves, forgetting that they were right there, voting and signing and agreeing to go to war. Enough is enough already. Quite frankly I am tired of the whining about it. We are in a war, like it or not, and the best move now is to stay the course and finish the job right.  Backing out now could have disastrous consequences and I am not willing to leave that burden on my sons-who may someday have to go back into Iraq and clean up the mess the liberals would like to just forget exists.

    You’re wrong.
    Congress did not, in fact, examine the evidence.  They took the White House’s word about the evidence.  They did have access to review at least some (perhaps all?) of the evidence, but they didn’t.  Shame on them for not doing their jobs and actually researching the issue, but that’s nothing new; members of Congress routinely are completely ignorant of the issues they are legislating.

    You’re correct that previous administrations also suspected Iraq was not scrapping its WMD programs.  Previous administrations did not—as far as I can tell—suspect any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. 

    Also, previous administrations did seek regime change of Iraq. 

    However, it was this one—and only this one—which lied about the evidence to Congress and pushed for regime change via war and without doing any serious planning.  (An example of the sort of lie I’m talking about is the White House claiming to “know” where Saddam had his illegal weapons stored/manufactured, the WH claiming that the best intelligence suggested that Iraq was procuring aluminum tubes for enriching uranium when all the actual experts on enriching uranium were telling the WH that the tubes couldn’t possibly be used for nuclear centrifuges, etc.)

    Clinton lied about something completely unaffecting his job and was impeached.  Bush lied about something quite important to national security, not to mention important to the world, and so far he’s received no punishment whatsoever.

  10. Perhaps 3 of the 4 panelists didn’t think it was newsworthy because it is a stupid poll question with no basis in reality, and not necessarily because they aren’t liberal or biased.

    Errr…the White House (including Bush) did lie to Congress and to the UN to start an illegal war against a sovereign nation that wasn’t a threat to anyone.  So, yeah, it does have a basis in reality.

    Even some liberals realize a dumb question when they see/hear one.

    And some conservatives can feed themselves.
    Though not many.

    As far as the liberal media bias goes it has existed for decades.

    No it hasn’t.  That’s a myth.  I’d be thrilled if you would provide some evidence of a liberal media bias.  I’ll help you start:  First, define “liberal”, “conservative”, and “media”.  You might also try explaining why the “liberal media” gave more positive air time to Bush in the 2000 elections than in gave to Gore and why the media spent so much time harping on Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Surely if they were “liberal”, they could have downplayed the Lewinsky thing, right?  They could have made it out like it was probably not even true and all the work of evil Republicans.

    Only recently have radio syndicates and television producers begun to see the wisdom in providing BOTH sides to the political spectrum. And that decision has been widely successful, as evidenced by Fox’s popularity and the shift towards more conservative/liberal debate shows like Hannity and Colmes-where people can hear both sides. This in stark contrast to the days when all we heard was Dan Blather, Peter Spinnings and CNN (Commie News Network).

    That’s probably the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard.  Congratulations!

    Fox is not popular because it is “fair and balanced.”  Fox is popular because it reinforces shallow, completely unsupported (by facts) beliefs among a certain segment of ignorant Americans, rather than educating them.  Fox routinely spins its “news” to play up the conservative angle.  They cater to white Christian males, 18-40, who are below average intelligence.  They also mix opinion and “news” such that the viewer can’t tell one from the other.  (If you doubt this, check out some stats on how Fox viewers are WAY more out of touch with news facts than viewers of any other station.  Hell, most Fox viewers probably still believe that Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11.)  Hannity and Colmes is not a conservative/liberal debate show; it’s a conservative show.

    Here’s a few websites to help you out:
    http://www.newshounds.us/
    http://mediamatters.org/
    http://www.fair.org/index.php

  11. Gotta love how you guys spin things. It puts a sweet smile on my face.

    Correction: to get impeached you have to (1) lie under oath, whereby circumventing the legal system and committing perjury while holding the office of chief executive legal officer of the land. (2) commit obstruction of justice, through his discussions with Monica Lewinsky, in an attempt to elude justice in a case in which he was the defendant against a sexual harrassment accusation.

    One has to wonder why he would try to get people to lie for him, to cover up his inappropriate conduct in the oval office-if he were innocent.

    I know how badly the liberals want to make this just about sex, in an effort to excuse his illegal conduct.  But the facts speak for themselves.  I also know how badly you liberals are still reeling from having to watch your guy go down in flames and become one of the most ridiculed and laughed at presidents of all times-his precious legacy in ruins.  So badly that you pull desperately at straws in a feeble attempt to catch Bush doing anything wrong, constantly making insinuations and innuendos you can never prove. It’s so transparent and yes, stupid.

    I stand corrected; THIS is the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read.

    Clinton’s “crimes”:  Lying to cover up what crime?  Getting a blowjob?  That was consensual, there was no harassment.  Congress had no right to be probing into Clinton’s sex life (at several tens of millions of taxpayers’ expense, I might add.) 

    Bush’s “crimes”:  (Aside from just plain evil things in general)  Lying to Congress to start an illegal war against another country with no provocation.  Lying to the UN for same.  A war with no plan for success, no end of committment in sight, and one that has caused about 180 billion or so in deficit spending. 

    (I could also mention dereliction of duty as President during a time of crisis:  When the president’s advisor whispered in his ear “America is under attack” Bush sat where he was doing nothing for quite awhile, until his advisors finally told him what to do:  Get the hell moving.)

    Let’s compare the two presidencies in short:
    Under Clinton:  World was largely at peace, the economy was better than ever, the budget was balanced.
    Under Bush:  Never-ending war (for no reason), we have record deficit spending, and the economy—though ok—is basically stagnant (and will continue to be mediocre or worse as long as we are deficit spending and having large uncertainties in the ME due to US actions.)

    Somehow, I bet you will blame all of Bush’s problems on Clinton.
    The Republicans used to claim they were the party of “responsibility” (especially for oneself):  So much for that.  The new motto of Republicans should be “the buck stops somewhere else.”

  12.   BTW, you might want to do a Google search on Ohio and the 2004 elections- some interesting stuff out there that never made it into the corporate media somehow, as with most of the above.

    By the way, nice copy and paste job. How many Clintoon sites do you think I can drudge up that list his disgraceful and irresponsible actions as president?…and no I am not just talking about his slimey sex drive.

    But speaking of those Ohio websites-I’m quite certain they also include info on Elvis sightings and loads of really sketchy, grainy Bigfoot photos. LOLOLOLOL

  13. Congress did not, in fact, examine the evidence.  They took the White House’s word about the evidence. 

    And you know this how?!  Have you even read the resolution??????

    AT THE SECOND SESSION
    Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
    the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .

    Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq ;

    Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ ;

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq , including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations

    Resolution – Page 2
    Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994) ;

    Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’ ;

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’ ;

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’ ;

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations

    Authorization
    Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) ; and

    Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
    strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
    obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

    SEC. Sponsored Links
    Half My Heart is in Iraq
    Custom tee’s for Military Families Magnetic Support Yellow Ribbons
    http://www.ServiceFlags.com/

    Zawya.com
    Middle East Business News, Research and Company Directory Resource.
    http://www.zawya.com

    Should U.S. Leave Iraq?
    Take Our Iraq Survey And Get Paid $300 In The Next 15 Minutes!
    Ahwa.org
    3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
    (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
    defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
    enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
    reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
    acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
    SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
    APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
    (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

    (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

    (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

    Source: Thomas

    READ IT AND CHOKE ON IT, CHRIS. I am so damn sick and tired of hearing Bush lied.  Especially from people who can’t even be bothered to read this resolution and determine for themselves wether the information came from Bush and Bush alone or from 10 years worth of documented intelligence, from the Clintoon Administration for the most part. Enough is enough already.

    You have absolutely no proof, and are just running off at the mouth, when you claim Congress willfully ignored this resolution and just sat back in their seats and voted yes without examining the resolution from top to bottm and concurring that the intelligence (again-gathered mostly during the 1990’s) was substantial enough to give the president authority to go to war to overthrow Saddam.

    Surely if they were “liberal

  14. Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    Now read that carefully, Chris. Re-read it if you need to and pay close attention to the DATE. This was one of the major determining factors for giving the president authority to wage war against Saddam’s regime.  The thought that Saddam was stockpiling wmd’s was of major concern to both sides of the aisle and the risk was determined to be just too great to ignore.  Now I ask you…where the hell are Bush’s lies in this intelligence?

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

    Read these words and try not to strain, I know this is all real tough information to handle.  This is information provided via intelligence that was over 6 years old, Chris.  LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the man you call “liar” entered in to office.  How can you explain this? Gasp! Can you?

    Oh but wait, there’s more! Can ya handle it, Chris???

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!  1998! Can you believe it???? Who was in office?  Could it be…could it be…CLINTOOOOOOOON?  Gee, I wonder whose intelligence was used to gain this ILA of 1998…the then governor of Texas or the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM BJ CLINTOOOOON?  I know, I know this is tough. Wipe away the tears, Chris, the truth is painful isn’t it?  Boo my hoo.

    Ok.  Now I wonder, will you give up this nonsense of Bush lying to the whole country and the country just rolling over and voting ignorantly to the war in Iraq?  On the one hand you all accuse Bush of being so “stupid” that he can’t even get through a speech. Then on the other you accuse him of having this diabolical mastermind capable of pathologically lying to BOTH sides of the aisle (who approved the resolution) and pulling off the biggest deception of all mankind and then managing to win a second term on top of it all.

    It’s ridiculousness, Chris.  Pure ridiculousness.

  15. By the way, nice copy and paste job. How many Clintoon sites do you think I can drudge up that list his disgraceful and irresponsible actions as president?…and no I am not just talking about his slimey sex drive.

    But speaking of those Ohio websites-I’m quite certain they also include info on Elvis sightings and loads of really sketchy, grainy Bigfoot photos. LOLOLOLOL

      By the way, you are 100% wrong.  There was not a single cut and paste from my list.  The first half or so came straight from the top of my head.  I also notice that instead of trying to intelligently debate any of the 20+ issues, you just tried to denigrate the sources by making a “joke” (hard to tell since it fell so flat).  And the information on the election debacle came from independent media sources- not some personal website in Ohio.  The only reason I even read CNN or Fox is to see what pap the sheeple are being fed (and the stocks wink).  I probably scan between 8 and 10 different news sources weekly- everything from the far right to the far left as well as foreign news services.

  16. blah blah blah blibbity blah

    I have been debating those 20+ issues on the internet with liberals like yourself for years, warbi-so don’t flatter yourself to think I would give you the time of day. Quite frankly it’s the same old tired routine of shallow accusations you people never back up-you just throw around to see if any will eventually stick.  And like I said, it all relates back to the fact that you all lost-TWICE.  You know, my husband, who hates politics-but loves sports-has commented numerous times on what a sorry, whiney, cry baby pack of sore losers the liberals are.  And I swear, it’s like Nancy Pelosi and that fat, drunk piece of shit Kennedy have their hands in your backs flapping your jaws for you….you all sound the same.

    Like I said, get your own party back on track, try to win the respect of the American people and focus on the issues and MAYBE you guys will win something in 2008, I don’t know-maybe a house seat?  But keep whining, keep pissing and moaning and you are headed for yet again another massive, humiliating defeat in the polls.  Just ask Daschle. LoL Keep supporting the looney rhetoric being vomitted forth like that from Durbin and the American public will continue to punish your party at the polls.

    Hey that’s all sounding better and better!  Ok I take it all back-don’t change a thing you are doing. Encourage your reps and sens to keep behaving the way they are.

    tah tah! tongue wink

  17. Despite my first instinct to not join in on the media bias debate….I was a moment ago innocently perusing the news and came across an article on the NYTimes website: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30enviro.html

    registration takes mere moments for those of you who are too impatient to register.  But right there, next to the article, big as LIFE is an ad from Naral stating: ‘Don’t let Bush’s choice end yours.’

    Now, is there an opposing ad on the same page? Is the other side represented?  Nope.

    This all amuses me to no end, though.  Sandra Day O’Connor hasn’t even got her old, shriveled foot out the door and already the lib groups are panicking in the streets, organizing like the bunch of paranoid reactionaries that they are.  Yet here we have an article on the same page in which Barbara Boxer is concerned about pesticide testing on PREGNANT women.

    Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmm

  18. Hmm what an astonishingly rude and ignorant person you are Karen. It’s a shame you have to use ad hominem in place of valid argument, then again you didn’t come here to debate and discuss did you?

  19. Heh, shows how will you assimilate information.  Hmmmm… I’m supposedly a “liberal”, but I didn’t vote for Gore, I don’t much care for socialism and I tend to vote Independent.  Gasp- what a “liberal” I am!!!

    I have been debating those 20+ issues on the internet with liberals like yourself for years…

    Why that’s quite amazing since some of these issues just happened within the last year- you must be psychic!:bug: 

    don’t flatter yourself to think I would give you the time of day

      You might not give me the time of day, but you will mistakenly label me.  You will take the time to spew forth invective, yet little of substance ever seems to occur in your posts.
     

    organizing like the bunch of paranoid reactionaries that they are

      A more ractionary stance might be one that passes legislation that invades the privacy of citizens and curtails their freedoms as a knee-jerk reaction to a terrorist attack.  Don’t fool yourself- Bush is about as “conservative” as a Kennedy.  Under Bush, government and government spending have increased, individual and States’ rights have been trampled; hardly the hallmark of a “conservative”.

  20. Hmm what an astonishingly rude and ignorant person you are Karen. It’s a shame you have to use ad hominem in place of valid argument, then again you didn’t come here to debate and discuss did you?

    Why thank you!

    But….ad hominem?  Um, say what?

    And yes,I did come here to debate and discuss. I am debating and I have adopted some of the member’s attitude and style: corrosiveness and sarcasm. Just thought it might help me blend…..oh and I am a crabby bitch today.  You want some of this, too?

  21. Ad hominem” is a type of fallacious argument where the debater’s character is called into question as opposed to the actual points the person made.

  22. Were you bitching and sobbing then, warbi?

      Why, yes I was.  In fact, I mailed more letters to Clinton than I have to Bush.

  23. Sorry, I don’t believe you.  I have this niggling feeling you weren’t even out of Pampers when the OKC bombing occured.

  24. I turned 29 that year and was working for the feds at the time.  Some of my co-workers had friends who were directly impacted by the blast (injury, death, or the same for a child).

  25. Still don’t believe you. Neener, neener, neener.

    Now you were working for the feds. LOL

    Nighty, night, woobie baby.

  26. Karen, given these past few replies it’s hard to imagine why anyone here should take anything you say seriously. You’ve crossed over to the point of trolling and that doesn’t tend to sit well with most folks regardless of how correct your ideas may or may not be.

  27. I must have missed this completely asinine comment yesterday:

    Fox is popular because it reinforces shallow, completely unsupported (by facts) beliefs among a certain segment of ignorant Americans, rather than educating them. Fox routinely spins its “news

  28. Karen, given these past few replies it’s hard to imagine why anyone here should take anything you say seriously

    And how do you separate my posts last night from the person who compared his skin cells to embryos and stated he was going to collect them and preserve them because they might be turned into human beings one day-or some such nonsense.

    You claimed you were fair, Les.  I didn’t see you stepping in to chastize that member for taking a serious debate and denegrating it.  You know I am not a troll but then you can think what you want.

  29. To add a little seasoning to the original topic, I see nobody has yet mentioned the article in one of the UK papers the Sunday times, which brings out more points from the ‘downing street memos’.

    Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the “spikes of activity

  30. Need I remind you that the trial was NOT about Monica Lewinsky and the blowjob?  I know, I KNOW how much you all want to make it about that!  Funny thing is though, the trial was about his alleged sexual harrassment of Paula Jones (January 17, 1998) . He perjured himself before a grand jury during a deposition to avoid incriminating himself and making himself look like the low life, white trash, over-sexed bastard that he is. Again, I know you people HATE facts but I just can’t help but force you to at least try to accept them. YOu can call me ignorant all day but it seems YOU are the one woefully ignorant about the Clinton impeachment.

    Yeah, it wasn’t about a blowjob; it was about Republicans who were desperately trying to take nuke a very popular Democratic president, any way they could.
    Assuming this summary is accurate:
    http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
    it certainly seems to me that this was a witch hunt brought about by Ken Starr.

    Lying to Congress?  Hmmmm He presented Congress with information and intelligence gathered during the Clinton Administration.  These were not his lies.  Lying to the UN?  He requested that the UN hold Saddam to the sanctions and allow un fettered inspections or we would take further action.  There were no lies there. He requested they do their fucking job. They didn’t….we did.

    First part of this baloney:
    Bush knew how extremely speculative the intelligence used was.  If he didn’t then he was incompetent in the extreme.  Clinton never went to congress or to the American public to argue that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.  Bush argued that Saddam would set off a nuke in a major US city.  The White House also claimed that they KNEW where Saddam had weapons caches.  Clearly, that was a lie.  They did not know.  They then tried to blame the CIA for giving them bad information.  That might be true, but it is Bush’s job to check to make sure the intelligence is good.  The intelligence was made to fit the agenda, not the other way around, despite what the White House says.  The best you could argue here is that Bush is incompetent in the extreme.  I tend to think a mix of incompetence and balls-out lying.  Either is worthy of impeachment in my book.

    Second part of this that is baloney:  You are asserting (incorrectly) that the UN did not enforce the disarmament agreement.  Iraq was disarmed.  How can you reconcile your statement with reality?  I know you would like to respond:  Iraq was supposed to account for all its weapons and prove that they were destroyed, however, in 2003, how could Iraq have possibly proved that their weapons were destroyed?  All their WMD’s were destoyed, as were their means for producing them.  How could they prove that to the United States or to the UN?
    The third part of this that is baloney:  “They didn’t…we did.”  The United States was not authorized to use military force against Iraq, nor was it “our job” nor our right to do so.

    This is laughable.  Correction: during Clinton’s sexcapade regime, Al Qaida was allowed to build in strength and power and go unchecked until such time as they attacked and murdered our own innocent citizens on our soil.  The Clinton administration avoided the collective threat of terrorism and the brewing hostilities in the mideast. I have news for you, child-those problems did not erupt in a matter of months.  The world was not at peace. The Clinton Administration just had a great ability for pulling the wool over our complacent societal eyes and allowed us to falsely believe things were a-ok, meanwhile Al Qaida was planning their menacing attack and working to achieve it right here in our own flight schools….while the whole of the Clintoon Administration looked askance.  I would call that an abysmal failure. I would call the deaths of thousands of Americans, who simply went to work one day, a horrendous failure.

    The threats of Al Qaeda did build up during the Clinton administration and certainly he should have done something about worldwide terrorism during his terms.  You conveniently ignored, however, that Al Qaeda also built up during Bush I and II (and probably during Reagan years).  And none of them—INCLUDING GW BUSH—took any action until September 11th.  That’s because there was no public support for such a war.  You also conveniently ignored that Bush II was warned of the 9/11 attacks by Richard Clarke well ahead of time and did nothing more than anyone before him had done.  He certinly did nothing helpful on September 11th (other than helping some kids to read.)  Now, before you mentioned that Bush used Clinton-era information to sway Congress to invade Iraq:  So why was Bush unable to use that Clinton-era information about flight schools to attempt to stop September 11th?  You can’t implicate Clinton for 9/11 without simultaneously implicating Bush.

    So now we have a president cleaning up the mess and he gets nothing but grief for it. 

    Please explain how invading Iraq is “fighting the war on terror”.

    Nothing but bitching and moaning from a bunch of arm chair liberals who would NEVER have the spine or gumption to fight in a war to prevent another attack and protect their own children

    And would you tell this to the faces of our soldiers in Iraq who increasingly agree with me?

    BTW, Karen, are you posting this from Fallujah or somesuch?
    If not, I call thee a hypocrite.

    -hell I am convinced a great majority of you would rather abort your children rather than deal with protecting them from future terrorism.

    That makes you sound pretty stupid and perhaps even more out of touch with reality than GWB.

    Would deal with the inconvenience of it all, wouldn’t it?  Less kids to have to fight in a future war, less kids who will turn in to adults and be subject to future attacks….now that’s REAL impressive logic.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.  You need to lay off the smack.
    This conversation has nothing to do with the subject of abortion.

    I don’t see as Bush has all that many problems. He won a second term and quite frankly I think you all need to get over it. I have never in my life seen a worse bunch of sore losers who can’t accept the fact that they LOST-TWICE.  Stop fucking cry babying and get your own party back on track and win back the WH.  Attacking Bush and misrepresenting the war isn’t going to cut it-you’d think you would have learned that lesson in the last election! Good God!

    According to polls, the president is in some serious trouble, as is the GOP in general.  My interpretation, which happens to fit all the facts (a good sign) is this:
    The president and GOP managed to get the American public so focused on war and so confused about everything that they won by, frankly, manipulating the public’s natural stupidity.  This theory is testable against facts:  Most Bush voters believed—at the time of the elections—things about Bush and about reality in general which were 180 degrees off from reality.  For example, they believed that large stockpiles of weapons were found in Iraq, that Hussein was linked to 9/11, that Bush supports the Kyoto Protocols, etc.  The White House did an excellent job with their propaganda.  Since the election, however, the American public appears to have wakened (probably because the Democrats have finally launched an effective counter-propaganda campaign) and you see a steady decline in Bush’s poll numbers and the people who supported Bush’s various policies last year increasingly do not this year.  And this coincides with a more informed populace:  People tend to now understand that Iraq was not a threat and not linked to 9/11, for example.
    I’ve been trying to figure this out for awhile, maybe you can answer it:  What does the White House currently have going for it that is positive?  (I’ll help you start:  It isn’t Social Security privatization, it isn’t the Terri Schiavo fiasco, it isn’t Iraq…)

  31. And you know this how?!  Have you even read the resolution??????

    IIRC (and I don’t intend to spend the entire day finding links for you, you can do your own research), many members of Congress have said that they did not actually examine the evidence; the evidence was classified and those who were keeping the information have said that only something like 2 members of Congress actually checked out the information.  There are also statements by members of Congress that the White House left out

    READ IT AND CHOKE ON IT, CHRIS. I am so damn sick and tired of hearing Bush lied.  Especially from people who can’t even be bothered to read this resolution and determine for themselves wether the information came from Bush and Bush alone or from 10 years worth of documented intelligence, from the Clintoon Administration for the most part. Enough is enough already.

    Several parts of that resolution were lies.  Here’s a sampling:

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;

    Perhaps you’d like to identify which specific pieces of intelligence came from the “Clinton administration” and what came afterwards?

    You have absolutely no proof, and are just running off at the mouth, when you claim Congress willfully ignored this resolution and just sat back in their seats and voted yes without examining the resolution from top to bottm and concurring that the intelligence (again-gathered mostly during the 1990’s) was substantial enough to give the president authority to go to war to overthrow Saddam.

    Errr…the “intelligence” was not sufficient.  That should be clear since it was completely incorrect.  And, now that we know what we know about the intelligence, it’s impossible to conclude that it was “substantial”.  The intelligence came basically from satellite images which were interpreted to fit Bush’s agenda (i.e., they’d have a satellite photo of a truck and conclude that it was a mobile weapons lab) and from a single unreliable source code-named “Curveball.”  Curveball’s claims were never validated.  It should have been clear that he/she was not a good source of information.  But the administration had already made up its mind and wasn’t interested in facts.

    As for Congress, as I said, the keeper of the intelligence said that almost no members of congress actually reviewed the evidence.  Congress did not do their damned jobs, but they took the president at his word in a time of war (not to mention voting against it would have been unpopular at that time.)

    I am loathe to enter in to a debate regarding liberal bias. I think it’s a pointless debate. But since you mentioned THIS-it’s really hysterical because this is exactly what CNN did during the impeachment-talking head after talking head proclaimed the impeachment unjust and downplayed Clintoon’s atrocious conduct within the oval office. It was sickening.

    And yet this negative thing about a “liberal” president was still prominently covered in the “liberal” media.  I dispute your “talking head” statement.  The media isn’t “liberal”:  They merely cover what they think will get viewers’ eyeballs to generate ad revenue. 

    As for your websites, stuff them. I can provide you with triple as many that give evidence for liberal media bias, but undoubtedly you would just pull up 3 more that prove otherwise and we would go around and around for hours on the subject-which quite frankly I could care less about.

    Translation:  You can’t show that there is a liberal media bias.

  32. Most Bush voters believed—at the time of the elections—things about Bush and about reality in general which were 180 degrees off from reality.  For example, they believed that large stockpiles of weapons were found in Iraq, that Hussein was linked to 9/11, that Bush supports the Kyoto Protocols, etc.

    I’m not going to jump in here too much, I don’t really feel like getting into a long discussion on the pros and cons of the war on terror / war in Iraq, but from the standpoint of a Bush voter (and my vote was based primarily on the war) I’d like to correct a couple of mistaken beliefs.

    No one that I know (and I know one hell of a lot of conservatives) ever believed that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11. I know of no one who believed that Bush supported the Kyoto Protocols. I do know many who thought that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons before the war, but very few who insisted on it afterward. It is possible to support the war without believing such nonsense.

    In 2001 we declared war on terrorism and terrorists. I know, that sounds abstract, and I’m not going to argue the right or wrong of it. I support the idea, many don’t. However, declaring war on terror was a much wider statement than declaring war on those that attacked us on 9/11. Iraq routinely and publicly funded terrorist attacks in Israel. That made him the enemy. I think Bush’s biggest mistake was not in attacking Iraq, but in using WMD’s to justify the attack. Personally, I would have compiled evidence of Iraq’s involvement in terrorism and used that as a justification for overthrowing Hussein.

    That said, I agree with most everyone about the post-war situation being a mess. It has been mishandled from the start.

  33. Despite my first instinct to not join in on the media bias debate….I was a moment ago innocently perusing the news and came across an article on the NYTimes website: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30enviro.html

    registration takes mere moments for those of you who are too impatient to register.  But right there, next to the article, big as LIFE is an ad from Naral stating: ‘Don’t let Bush’s choice end yours.’

    Now, is there an opposing ad on the same page? Is the other side represented?  Nope.

    This all amuses me to no end, though.  Sandra Day O’Connor hasn’t even got her old, shriveled foot out the door and already the lib groups are panicking in the streets, organizing like the bunch of paranoid reactionaries that they are.  Yet here we have an article on the same page in which Barbara Boxer is concerned about pesticide testing on PREGNANT women.

    Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Typically news outlets put advertising space up for sale to those who can pay.
    Why would this be an example of “liberal media bias”?
    If a channel sold advertising to, say Chlorox, but their competitor didn’t buy advertising space, would that, by your logic, mean that the channel is showing “Chlorox bias”?

    And since you keep using the term “liberal” to describe everyone who tears your arguments to shreds, why don’t you define that term for us and demonstrate why we are, in fact, a bunch of liberals?

  34. My dad, who served in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot and flew over 100 missions, earned his masters in engineering and spent his career as a test pilot for Northrop Grumman flying such aircraft as the SR71 (being one of the pilots involved in the final flight out of Edwards AFB) and the B2 Bomber (The Spirit of California) and ultimately retired from the airforce at the level of Colonel…watches only Fox News. He is 64 years old, does not necessarily consider himself “christian

  35. Bias!  (Shrug)  Give me honestly expressed bias any day over the fiction of objectivity.

    The NYT does have some liberal bias – it’s silly to pretend otherwise.  So I turn the ideological gain correction dial from “L” towards “C” a bit when I read NYT articles.  I turn the dial a bit the other way for American Conservative magazine.

    I see FOX all the time at the gym and if you can’t spot the conservative bias on FOX, you need glasses.  But so what?  It bothers me more that they pretend to be objective than that they have a bias.  It bothers me even more that if you tell some people; “Our news service is objective while the others are all biased!” they’ll believe you.

    Probably the most accurate news magazine is The Economist, which makes no secret of its bias.  Economist Pocket World in Figures is incredibly helpful on the desk but unfortunately they have not updated it since 2002.

    Bush’s comuppance probably won’t come until he’s safely out of office, alas.  It would probably not be practical to impeach him.

  36. Karen asks…

    And how do you separate my posts last night from the person who compared his skin cells to embryos and stated he was going to collect them and preserve them because they might be turned into human beings one day-or some such nonsense.

    Nowiser’s comment was indeed hyperbole, but it was also a valid point. Every cell in the human body has the potential of forming an entirely separate human being. In particular the stem cells which are produced by all living things and are the primary makeup of the blastocyst before it develops into an embryo. In that sense if you’re going to use the argument that aborting the cells in the early stages of pregnancy is murder because they hold the potential to become a human being then it’s not that much of a stretch to claim that the destruction of any cell in a human body is murder. In reality, cells that have already specialized (such as skin cells) won’t develop into a complete human on their own, but they still hold the potential to become such through methods such as cloning.

    It’s clear from your reaction that you place a lot of value on the fact that those cells have the potential to become a human and you appear to be insulted to have them compared to common skin cells, but if even common skin cells have that same potential then why should they hold any less value to you than the developing fetus holds? In other words, it’s a valid—if a bit far-fetched and sarcastic—question to ask.

    Now let’s compare that to your recent statements of…

    Oh shaddup, woobie. I know what it means.

    Sorry, I don’t believe you.  I have this niggling feeling you weren’t even out of Pampers when the OKC bombing occured.

    Still don’t believe you. Neener, neener, neener.

    Now you were working for the feds. LOL

    Nighty, night, woobie baby.

    The above goes beyond being sarcastic hyperbole to make a point into childish name calling and ridicule. Which has it’s place, don’t get me wrong, but hardly qualifies as the honest debate you keep claiming to be interested in having here. If you just want to engage in name calling and ridicule then at least have the integrity to not claim it as informed debate.

    Looking back over the thread I’m not sure I see what comments Warbi made to even provoke such a response from you. Warbi attempted to raise several points and you dismissed them with an accusation of it being a cut and paste job without refuting any of the points made. When Warbi went on to illustrate that he doesn’t fit your stereotypical viewpoint of what a liberal is you resorted to acting like a child and implying he was lying.

    Granted you’ve not been welcomed warmly here and there’s been a fair amount of insults from both sides, but that’s only to be expected in a heated debate. From what I’ve seen, though, every time someone has attempted to actually engage you in a debate you’ve dodged the issues raised in favor of dismissals using a range of excuses from “biased sources” to “cut and paste jobs” to “you were still in Pampers when that happened.”

    You claimed you were fair, Les.  I didn’t see you stepping in to chastize that member for taking a serious debate and denegrating it.  You know I am not a troll but then you can think what you want.

    I believe I am fair in how and when I speak up here and I do my best not to get in the way of a good debate, but so far I’ve yet to see such a thing taking place. Nowiser didn’t denigrate a serious debate because his statement was a valid point to make and there wasn’t much of a debate taking place at the time. If you’re insulted by someone comparing skin cells to embryonic cells then that’s a hangup you will have to come to grips with more so than a problem with the comparison itself.

    You’re right in that I don’t consider you a troll in part because we had a decent discussion via instant messenger not long ago, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t acting in a troll-like manner in your recent spate of comments. You’ve mentioned being in a bad mood and perhaps that’s the catalyst behind your tone as of late, but that doesn’t excuse the behavior so much as explain it. I’m not here to censor you and if this is the manner in which you wish to debate then by all means continue to do so, but it is disappointing compared to what we engaged in the other night. You’re capable of better based on what I’ve seen previously. It’s just a shame you don’t seem to be willing to make use of it here.

  37. Karen,

    I participate here as an individual that believes in God, desperately hopes that more people like Scalia are appointed to the Court, and voted Bush both times. I participate in the forum to correct mistaken assumptions and correct the misuse of facts and stats that are misleading, as well as for my own personal amusement.  (There are several members who have a great sense of humor)

    My experience is that Warbi is rabidly anti-Bush, to the point that he/she will sometimes post some material that can be easily attacked.  His/her second post is an example of this.  Many of the things in his/her second post in this threat should be attacked vigorously.  It would be quite easy, and amusing to discredit that post.  I encourage you to do it.

    The way to approach the debate with him/her is to take it point by point and patiently and doggedly go through each point him/her.  In doing so, you make sure that you NEVER make a misstatement of fact so the debate doesn’t get turned on you. In addition, avoiding multiple posts presents the appearance that you have given some thought to the material presented and are rebutting it in a cogent manner.

    Doing so is far more effective than what you are doing now.  What you are doing now is a disservice to my cause.

  38. It would be quite easy, and amusing to discredit that post.  I encourage you to do it.

    First of all, Hello, Consigliere.  I think you are actually the first person on this God foresaken blog to introduce yourself to me.  Secondly, I don’t need to be told when to debate and when not to debate. I lost the heart for debating those empty Bush insinuations simply because they ARE empty.  I did so for so long. It gets old.

    In addition, avoiding multiple posts presents the appearance that you have given some thought to the material presented and are rebutting it in a cogent manner.

    Once again, I am stunned at the obsession among the people on this blog with how someone posts.  Con, I prefer not to respond all in one big posts as if all the posts generated at me/to me just ran together.  I take each posts on it’s face and like to respond individually to the individual. Of course I know I could sit here in each post and address each of my response to each person all in one post. I PREFER not to. It is my preference.  I PREFER to keep them separate. This does not mean I lack attention skills, had a bad home life as a child or am unhappy with my husband who “knocked me up”. This is simply a preference and continuing the tyrrade of bitching about it isn’t going to stop it.  I don’t often do what people on the net tell me to do-simply because they think they have the market cornered on (cough) “nettiquette.”  I’m sorry but it stil cracks me up that some dude on the internet actually uses that word.

    Oh and I prefer to give thought to one post at a time, not all at once. Unless this board is one single person posting under all these psuedonyms…..which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. Being that Les has all kinds of time on his hands….

    What you are doing now is a disservice to my cause.

    PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Oh dear, I nearly lost my lunch on that one.  Your cause?  I see, this is all about you.  I am here to support YOUR cause now?

    I have no idea who you are.  At this point do I even care what your cause is?

  39. Les get real.  Nowisers comment was meant to degrade the debate of abortion and you know it.  It was not valid in any sense of the word. To compare a developing human embryo or fetus to a skin cell is the utmost in immaturity and is said only to piss off whoever is taking the pro-life stance.  It was inflammatory and disrespectful to a woman you KNOW is pregnant and you know has strong feelings about the sanctity of LIFE-not skin cells.

    In that sense if you’re going to use the argument that aborting the cells in the early stages of pregnancy is murder because they hold the potential to become a human being then it’s not that much of a stretch to claim that the destruction of any cell in a human body is murde

    I think this is where you are confused, Les. I never said anything about the cells early in pregnancy. When discussing abortion I always referred to the point at which most abortions are performed, the soonest they can be performed-and that is 6 weeks of development. I even went so far as to share my own ultrasound story of my twins at 6 weeks. They were not balls of cells and could not in any way shape or form be compared to skin cells. They had beating hearts, developing brains and were moving around vigorously with little arm and leg buds. They were human beings, not skins cells. Nowiser knew where I was coming from and he proceeded to insult the very topic with his ridiculous insinuation that skin cells were comparable to embryos who are aborted daily.

    If you just want to engage in name calling and ridicule then at least have the integrity to not claim it as informed debate.

    I never did, when I actually was being obnoxious. I fully admitted I was being a crabby bitch and was fed up with some of your members. I take full responsibility for my bratty comments.  But when I DID intellectually debate it was YOUR members who shot insults at me from all directions.

    You’re capable of better based on what I’ve seen previously. It’s just a shame you don’t seem to be willing to make use of it here.

    I WAS.  At first. But the tone of this message board-at least what was directed at me has set me off-especially the incessant concern over how I post. It’s a shame you can’t see that, Les and instead are just choosing to make me the current whipping post.

  40. Consi,

    it seems you have a problem. Subsequent to the elections, the influx of posters that purport to support conservative positions appears to fit a general mold. Almost invariably, these posters slam the door shut on any possibility of reasoned discourse and only further the entrenchment of the respective positions. Even within your relatively narrow objectives, you face an uphill struggle and it must smart to get the kind of help that you do.

  41. Les,

    I can’t help wondering how you will reconcile the personal appeals from the poster known as Karen with the derisive comments about your (perceived, I hope) lack of employment made by said poster.

  42. . Clinton never went to congress or to the American public to argue that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.

    Chris, in 1998 Clinton went to Congress to get authorization to use force to make Iraq comply with UN sanctions and to stop Saddam from trying to shoot down our planes. The media then reported that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions concerning WMD’s-and he most certainly was. The Congress agreed as well, including many of these same Democratic Senators. Did President Clinton intentionally mislead the United States Congress and the American public? Not at all. Given the evidence that we and the world had in hand, it was a no brainer. A case could be made that Clintoon was trying to deflect attention from his impeachment and sexual harassment case, but no one contested the WMD issue. Did you?

    The White House also claimed that they KNEW where Saddam had weapons caches.

    Based on intelligence GATHERED DURING THE CLINTOON YEARS.

    That might be true, but it is Bush’s job to check to make sure the intelligence is good.

    You make a valid point that perhaps Bush shouldn’t have trusted any intelligence gathered under Clinton’s inept administration. But this still doesn’t constitute a lie. You are coming up short, Chris. The incompetence obviously didn’t come from Bush.

     

    How could they prove that to the United States or to the UN?

    First of all, Saddam could have gone a long way in proving that by actually allowing inspectors in all those years he was refusing. I have no idea where you got your information that Iraq was disarmed.  We had no proof of this until we went in.  Either way, Chris, the end result has been the removal of a hostile regime, that was harboring terrorists, most likely funding terrorists, a regime that had already murdered thousands of it’s own citizens and would most likely do it again if given enough provocation. How is this in any way shape or form a bad thing? Say what you want about faulty intelligence, who said what, who did what wrong-the end result will be a more stable Iraq-which is in the heart of the Mideast. This can only benefit us-especially if we set up a military installation there as we did in Germany and Japan. It only makes sense.

    The third part of this that is baloney: “They didn’t…we did.

  43. I apologize in advance, in case this is also upsetting some sensitive members, for how my posts get screwed up and look like one big quote.  I don’t know why that keeps happening.

  44. It was inflammatory and disrespectful to a woman you KNOW is pregnant and you know has strong feelings about the sanctity of LIFE-not skin cells.

    Oh dear, I nearly lost my lunch on that one.  Your cause?  I see, this is all about you.  I am here to support YOUR cause now?

    I have no idea who you are.  At this point do I even care what your cause is?

    Wooo, look who’s gone and crowned herself QUEEN OF THE WORLD!  It’s clearly not about anybody else but HER and her little skin cells.

    Karen, Consi is one of the smartest people here, and could have been your most powerful source of support if you hadn’t been too busy preening in the mirror to take his advice.  He’s understandably miffed because he’s trying hard to portray conservatives as rational, intelligent people, and you’re blowing that out of the water like a big ol’ whale fart.

    If you don’t want to be the whipping post, stop sticking your ass in our faces.  But I suspect you’re too enamored of yourself to be able to do anything but play the drama queen.  Go ahead, cry some more about how everyone’s being mean to you (while you’re flinging insults at the board’s owner).

    At this point you’re nothing but a source of entertainment.

  45. Consi, you say you know a lot of conservatives and not any who connect Iraq with 9/11.  I take that as very good news.  Yet our president seems to make that connection rather often.  Is there a disconnect between the president and Republicans on the street?  Or am I missing something?

    (I’m referring to his 29 June Ft. Bragg speech where he said; “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.”)

    Iraq didn’t start out a battlefield in this war – it seems that Bush made it into one, while we were not done with Afghanistan and have not caught Osama.

    It may be we can stamp out militant Islam by waging war but color me skeptical.  And the main thing the insurgents seem to want from us is for us to go away.

    Sadly, I don’t think we can just go away right now.  We broke it, we bought it. It’s a real pickle, all right and some admission of that fact from the White House would go a long way toward reassuring me that we have a reality-based administration.

    We “broke” Iraq not by invading, but by ever supporting that bastard Saddam in the first place.  Just like supporting the Shah all those years is a major reason for the current extremist theocracy in Iran.  It would just be nice if there were some indication of “lessons learned” in high places.  We need to be a lot more selective in who we support, and the Chalabi debacle is not exactly reassuring to that end.

    I also have not heard from any Republican the one rationale that would support the Iraq war in my mind; that Saddam was our boy, our mess, and it’s up to us to go fix it.

    BTW while I don’t agree with your “cause” I’m quite happy you are here.  You bring facts and intellectual perspective and I appreciate that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.