The scum also rises...

[bullypulpit]

Yesterday, another big, nasty turd floated to the surface of the Bush administration punchbowl. Turns out that Chimpy McPresident <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05interrogate.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>lied about shutting down the black sites and stopping the torture of detainees</a>.

After stating publicly and emphatically in December of 2004 that "torture was abhorrent", a secret memo was issued by Bush administration apparatchick, fixer and Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. This memo gave "explicit authorization" to use interrogation techniques against detainees at these "black sites" and other US facilities which meet the criteria for torture as laid out in US law, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions.

This establishment of secret prisons, legal protections for those engaging in these practices, and the overarching shroud of secrecy surrounding these operations and the Bush administration in general, are indicators of a shift towards a fascist/totalitarian regime. Given the abolition of <i>habeas corpus</i>, the power of the President to be the sole arbiter of who is and is not an "enemy combatant" and the new powers to declare martial law under a much looser definition of a "national emergency" are all grave threats to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should possess the powers that the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch, especially such powers as outlined above. They usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers and marginalize the Legislative and Judicial branches, which serve to maintain the checks and balances so necessary in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that a unitary executive is needed to streamline the decision making processes of government. However, the Madisonian separation of powers was never meant to promote efficiency, but rather to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power. Power which the Bush administration has exercised since 9/12/01.

[Guernicaa]

Don't expect any comments denouncing this hideous administration from any of them. All one has to do is glance at OCA's avatar and the condoning of it by the administrators on this board to truly see the evil, ignorance, and pure stupidity in Republicans.

[bullypulpit]

Don't expect any comments denouncing this hideous administration from any of them. All one has to do is glance at OCA's avatar and the condoning of it by the administrators on this board to truly see the evil, ignorance, and pure stupidity in Republicans.

I don't. I'm just poking them with a sharp stick.

:poke:

[actsnoblemartin]

common bullypulpit, tell us how you really feel :laugh2:


Yesterday, another big, nasty turd floated to the surface of the Bush administration punchbowl. Turns out that Chimpy McPresident <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05interrogate.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>lied about shutting down the black sites and stopping the torture of detainees</a>.

After stating publicly and emphatically in December of 2004 that "torture was abhorrent", a secret memo was issued by Bush administration apparatchick, fixer and Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. This memo gave "explicit authorization" to use interrogation techniques against detainees at these "black sites" and other US facilities which meet the criteria for torture as laid out in US law, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions.

This establishment of secret prisons, legal protections for those engaging in these practices, and the overarching shroud of secrecy surrounding these operations and the Bush administration in general, are indicators of a shift towards a fascist/totalitarian regime. Given the abolition of <i>habeas corpus</i>, the power of the President to be the sole arbiter of who is and is not an "enemy combatant" and the new powers to declare martial law under a much looser definition of a "national emergency" are all grave threats to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should possess the powers that the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch, especially such powers as outlined above. They usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers and marginalize the Legislative and Judicial branches, which serve to maintain the checks and balances so necessary in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that a unitary executive is needed to streamline the decision making processes of government. However, the Madisonian separation of powers was never meant to promote efficiency, but rather to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power. Power which the Bush administration has exercised since 9/12/01.

[red states rule]

Yesterday, another big, nasty turd floated to the surface of the Bush administration punchbowl. Turns out that Chimpy McPresident <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05interrogate.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>lied about shutting down the black sites and stopping the torture of detainees</a>.

After stating publicly and emphatically in December of 2004 that "torture was abhorrent", a secret memo was issued by Bush administration apparatchick, fixer and Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. This memo gave "explicit authorization" to use interrogation techniques against detainees at these "black sites" and other US facilities which meet the criteria for torture as laid out in US law, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions.

This establishment of secret prisons, legal protections for those engaging in these practices, and the overarching shroud of secrecy surrounding these operations and the Bush administration in general, are indicators of a shift towards a fascist/totalitarian regime. Given the abolition of <i>habeas corpus</i>, the power of the President to be the sole arbiter of who is and is not an "enemy combatant" and the new powers to declare martial law under a much looser definition of a "national emergency" are all grave threats to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should possess the powers that the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch, especially such powers as outlined above. They usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers and marginalize the Legislative and Judicial branches, which serve to maintain the checks and balances so necessary in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that a unitary executive is needed to streamline the decision making processes of government. However, the Madisonian separation of powers was never meant to promote efficiency, but rather to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power. Power which the Bush administration has exercised since 9/12/01.

When I read your thread title I thought "Yea, Bill Clinton odes have that reaction to anything in a skirt or tight pants"

[Gaffer]

They're coming for you Bully.

[actsnoblemartin]

knock knock
who's there?
george bush
george bush who?
the president, motherfucker

:lol:

(its a joke)


They're coming for you Bully.

[manu1959]

Yesterday, another big, nasty turd floated to the surface of the Bush administration punchbowl. Turns out that Chimpy McPresident <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washington/05interrogate.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>lied about shutting down the black sites and stopping the torture of detainees</a>.

After stating publicly and emphatically in December of 2004 that "torture was abhorrent", a secret memo was issued by Bush administration apparatchick, fixer and Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. This memo gave "explicit authorization" to use interrogation techniques against detainees at these "black sites" and other US facilities which meet the criteria for torture as laid out in US law, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions.

This establishment of secret prisons, legal protections for those engaging in these practices, and the overarching shroud of secrecy surrounding these operations and the Bush administration in general, are indicators of a shift towards a fascist/totalitarian regime. Given the abolition of <i>habeas corpus</i>, the power of the President to be the sole arbiter of who is and is not an "enemy combatant" and the new powers to declare martial law under a much looser definition of a "national emergency" are all grave threats to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should possess the powers that the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch, especially such powers as outlined above. They usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers and marginalize the Legislative and Judicial branches, which serve to maintain the checks and balances so necessary in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that a unitary executive is needed to streamline the decision making processes of government. However, the Madisonian separation of powers was never meant to promote efficiency, but rather to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power. Power which the Bush administration has exercised since 9/12/01.

they are terrorists......fuckem....

[red states rule]

common bullypulpit, tell us how you really feel :laugh2:

The poor soul is another liberal suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome

[actsnoblemartin]

Bully is not a bad guy, but i just dont agree with him.

why should american lives be lost, so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see were better, as another islamic terrorist slices an americans head off and thanks allah, or plants a bomb that maimes one of our soldiers.


The poor soul is another liberal suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome

[red states rule]

Bully is not a bad guy, but i just dont agree with him.

why should american lives be lost, so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see were better, as another islamic terrorist slices an americans head off and thanks allah, or plants a bomb that maimes one of our soldiers.

He, like most on the kook left, is consumed with hate and rage for Pres Bush

I laugh at him and pity him at the same time

[bullypulpit]

When I read your thread title I thought "Yea, Bill Clinton odes have that reaction to anything in a skirt or tight pants"

So are you, as usual, going to engage in puerile ad hominem attacks so as to utterly avoid the issues raised? Or are you going to surprise us all and debate the issues in a reasoned manner? My money is on the former.

[bullypulpit]

they are terrorists......fuckem....

Utterly simplistic and completely avoiding any meaningful debate. Typical.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm just poking them with a sharp stick.



I thought you didn't believe in torture....

[bullypulpit]

The poor soul is another liberal suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome


They're coming for you Bully.


knock knock
who's there?
george bush
george bush who?
the president, motherfucker

:lol:

(its a joke)




He, like most on the kook left, is consumed with hate and rage for Pres Bush

I laugh at him and pity him at the same time

And you are utterly predictable...Utterly boring...Completely and totally intellectually bankrupt.

[bullypulpit]

I thought you didn't believe in torture....

Ah! You DO have a sense of humor.

[red states rule]

Utterly simplistic and completely avoiding any meaningful debate. Typical.

I learned a long time ago, the ONLY thing that matters to libs is their political power. They do not care about anything else. If the US has to lose a war so they can increase their power so be it

Why else would they do everything possible to make the US lose in Iraq. They have compared the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot, they have called them losers, they caleed them cold blooded killers, the MoveOn.org ad, and many others things

They will continue to find ways to short cahnge the troops, but they could not care less as long as they can maintain and increase their power

[Sir Evil]

In defense of Bully you have to admit that he always takes the high road when confronted with attack style responses, never or rarely returning one of his own. Also he always addresses what he has to say with style granted I recall the title of this post used over many times by him.

Now with that out of the way, why is this topic still even coming up, why are we still sympathetic to the barbarians? Are we reaching for more minor issues to turn into bigger issues soley to say Bush did it? I know when we see photos of such acts we invisions George standing in the shadows thoroughly enjoying himself, or in other we can see the lines to the pc that are connected to a webcam for the times when George can't be there personally. Really though, this is the kind of stuff that has been around longer then any of us here, does it make it more acceptable? no, but to act like this is something to this administration is pretty unimaginative. Let's see how it shakes out first, and assume we have another Bush hate piece in the process.

You liked Bully's posts did ya Obama? lol, too bad you could'nt add anything remotely as creative even though it boils down to the same kind of dookie. :D

[manu1959]

Utterly simplistic and completely avoiding any meaningful debate. Typical.

that is beacuse terroists deserve to be tortured....their own actions engender the response.....my premise is not debatable.....unless of course you belive terrorists deserve compasion .....

[red states rule]

that is beacuse terroists deserve to be tortured....their own actions engender the response.....my premise is not debatable.....unless of course you belive terrorists deserve compasion .....

To libs, they are not terrorists - they are freedom fighters

[bullypulpit]

I learned a long time ago, the ONLY thing that matters to libs is their political power. They do not care about anything else. If the US has to lose a war so they can increase their power so be it

Why else would they do everything possible to make the US lose in Iraq. They have compared the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot, they have called them losers, they caleed them cold blooded killers, the MoveOn.org ad, and many others things

They will continue to find ways to short cahnge the troops, but they could not care less as long as they can maintain and increase their power

Do us all a favor...Stop parroting the White House talking points and think for yourself. You're just wasting bandwidth otherwise.

[Gaffer]

Bully, other than your long diatribes about your Bush hatred and your conspiracy theories you don't have anything to have a dialog about.

[red states rule]

Do us all a favor...Stop parroting the White House talking points and think for yourself. You're just wasting bandwidth otherwise.

Truth hurts BP?

That is a perfect description of the modern day Dems

[bullypulpit]

In defense of Bully you have to admit that he always takes the high road when confronted with attack style responses, never or rarely returning one of his own. Also he always addresses what he has to say with style granted I recall the title of this post used over many times by him.

Now with that out of the way, why is this topic still even coming up, why are we still sympathetic to the barbarians? Are we reaching for more minor issues to turn into bigger issues soley to say Bush did it? I know when we see photos of such acts we invisions George standing in the shadows thoroughly enjoying himself, or in other we can see the lines to the pc that are connected to a webcam for the times when George can't be there personally. Really though, this is the kind of stuff that has been around longer then any of us here, does it make it more acceptable? no, but to act like this is something to this administration is pretty unimaginative. Let's see how it shakes out first, and assume we have another Bush hate piece in the process.

You liked Bully's posts did ya Obama? lol, too bad you could'nt add anything remotely as creative even though it boils down to the same kind of dookie. :D

I don't recall saying ANYTHING about sympathy. What I am talking about is adherence to constitutional principles and the four corners of the law. How does adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law militate against the effective defense of the United States?

[red states rule]

I don't recall saying ANYTHING about sympathy. What I am talking about is adherence to constitutional principles and the four corners of the law. How does adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law militate against the effective defense of the United States?

Terrorists are NOT entitled to US Constitional rights

[bullypulpit]

that is beacuse terroists deserve to be tortured....their own actions engender the response.....my premise is not debatable.....unless of course you belive terrorists deserve compasion .....

So, where does the torture stop? As a country shifts towards a fascist/totalitarian government, "mission creep" always sets in. Maybe next month, year, or what-have-you, some other undesirable population gets targeted for arbitrary detention and torture...you know the homeless, the mentally ill, minorities. Soon enough, there's no one left but you and me.

If you are willing to stand by silently while others are tortured, you don't really understand what the Founders were setting out to do...Establish a nation where tyranny could never again take root. Unfortunately, we, the people, have neglected our duties in this arena. We can, however, stop it if we remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[red states rule]

So, where does the torture stop? As a country shifts towards a fascist/totalitarian government, "mission creep" always sets in. Maybe next month, year, or what-have-you, some other undesirable population gets targeted for arbitrary detention and torture...you know the homeless, the mentally ill, minorities. Soon enough, there's no one left but you and me.

If you are willing to stand by silently while others are tortured, you don't really understand what the Founders were setting out to do...Establish a nation where tyranny could never again take root. Unfortunately, we, the people, have neglected our duties in this arena. We can, however, stop it if we remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

What is torture? Not letting them sleep, low and hot temps in the cells, lound music pumped in the cell, females questioning them?

Coddling terrorists will not get the job done

[bullypulpit]

Bully, other than your long diatribes about your Bush hatred and your conspiracy theories you don't have anything to have a dialog about.

Bush isn't worthy of hatred. The policies of his administration do show a clear trend towards the creation of a unitary executive branch which IS inimical to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

Now, unless you are going to refrain from your base attacks on me rather than debate the issues, I have nothing further to say to you.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I think we should have an *International Tribunal Judge Panel*, put into place, in Gitmo.
2. Put on trial these terrorists.
3. Anyone of them convicted, gets immediate death sentences.
4. Lay out the penalties before hand, anyone found proven guilty, dies by hanging.
5. No ifs no buts, death within 24 hours.
6. Let their dead bodies be returned to their homeland.
7. Start the process now, before President Bush leaves office.
8. In fact give them all speedy trials before his leaves office.
9. This is fair and just, those who can not be proven guilt, return to their home land.
10. Americans want these bastards dead, not living off out tax dollars one extra day.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bullypulpit]

Terrorists are NOT entitled to US Constitional rights

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that General Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to those in US custody at GITMO, thus by extension, to the rest of the facilities where the US is detaining "enemy combatants".

The US is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which under the Constitution has the full force of law in the United States. Why else do you think the Bush administration established these interrogation camps, another violation of the Geneva Conventions, outside the borders of the US?

[red states rule]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that General Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to those in US custody at GITMO, thus by extension, to the rest of the facilities where the US is detaining "enemy combatants".

The US is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which under the Constitution has the full force of law in the United States. Why else do you think the Bush administration established these interrogation camps, another violation of the Geneva Conventions, outside the borders of the US?

when did the terrorists sign the GC, when did they start to wear uniforms and insignias, and what nations military did they join

Those are required to be covered under the GC

[Gaffer]

I don't recall saying ANYTHING about sympathy. What I am talking about is adherence to constitutional principles and the four corners of the law. How does adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law militate against the effective defense of the United States?

If making people talk by making them uncomfortable and nervous adds to the defense of the country, then I'm all for it. By claiming this is torture your showing sympathy to the enemy. The scum that end up in these secret locations are not nice guys that just got picked up on the street, they are hardcore murderers. The are also not citizens of the US nor are they soldiers in a standing army. But none of that means anything to you because Bush is in office. But don't worry, Bush will not get elected again in 08. You'll finally defeat him in an election.

[Sir Evil]

I don't recall saying ANYTHING about sympathy. What I am talking about is adherence to constitutional principles and the four corners of the law. How does adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law militate against the effective defense of the United States?

Sorry Bully, thought I was tossing you a bone on that one, guess not. Ok well I think it's pretty obvious what you are reaching at with this one, kind of hard to giftwrap it with laws, and not call it the usual pile of dung that it is.

[Sir Evil]

Attention Obama: where are those words of wisdon you wanted to add? Oh, were you merely agreeing to a point, jumping on the bandwagon?:lame2:

[red states rule]

Saving American Lives? Not in my Name!
A surprised interviewer got a glimpse at the face of true evil last week when Vice peeResident SElect Dick "Torquemada" Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, boasted that he would dunk a terrorist in water if it would save "American lives" of all things.

American lives? I cannot place enough exclamation points at the end of this sentence to adequately express my outrage!!!!!!!

Put aside for a moment that fact that American lives are not Cheney's to save; but are they even worth saving? Does a society that would sanction the dunking of an innocent terrorist for the sake of self-preservation even deserve to exist?

As a patriotic liberal who spent the weekend vainly hoping his underwear would dry through his pants, I couldn't live with myself knowing that somewhere out there someone was going through the same unspeakable torture just to protect the lives of people who are vastly inferior to me. I encourage other progressives who feel the same way to join their shrill voices with mine and demand that that no more terrorists are dunked, doused, drenched, or moistened in our names. The lives of the American people are simply not worth it.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/10/saving_american.html

[Gaffer]

Bush isn't worthy of hatred. The policies of his administration do show a clear trend towards the creation of a unitary executive branch which IS inimical to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

Now, unless you are going to refrain from your base attacks on me rather than debate the issues, I have nothing further to say to you.

The same powers Bush has now will transfer over to the next president. are you going to whine and moan this way if that person is a dem? You actually think they will give up these powers?

[red states rule]

The same powers Bush has now will transfer over to the next president. are you going to whine and moan this way if that person is a dem? You actually think they will give up these powers?

BP will then suffer from Rudy Derangement Syndrome and whine how the Republicans stole another election

[manu1959]

So, where does the torture stop? As a country shifts towards a fascist/totalitarian government, "mission creep" always sets in. Maybe next month, year, or what-have-you, some other undesirable population gets targeted for arbitrary detention and torture...you know the homeless, the mentally ill, minorities. Soon enough, there's no one left but you and me.

If you are willing to stand by silently while others are tortured, you don't really understand what the Founders were setting out to do...Establish a nation where tyranny could never again take root. Unfortunately, we, the people, have neglected our duties in this arena. We can, however, stop it if we remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

but the country won't shift......there is freedom of speech and elections.....and people like you and me….it can’t shift as far as you fear…..

Currently “the undesirable population” is people trying to kill other people....once they make that choice the get tortured....simple really...

and no, i will not stand by silently....i will advocate that my govt respond in kind...no wait...i will advocate an extreme response by govt towards anyone that tries to kill one of my fellow americans or even threatens...or helps.....those that would kill americans or american allies

they are terrorists....we are not talking about the homeless, the mentally ill or minorities....we are talking about terrorists....the have chosen terror....they should receive nothing less in their treatment....

[Sir Evil]

BP will then suffer from Rudy Derangement Syndrome and whine how the Republicans stole another election

I dunno, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing a dem elected. I know it sounds crazy but after defending, and arguing a position since this all started, would be kind of nice to have a fresh perspective, and new opinions on why that bunch is just wrong on most things. :D

[red states rule]

There is No Terrorist Threat!
I originally intended to use today's blog entry to express my solidarity with the people of Great Britain, many of whom never even voted for George Bush, as they endeavor to persevere under the constant threat of terrorist attacks. But then I remembered what the esteemed statesman Michael Moore once wrote:

"There is no terrorist threat.
You need to calm down, relax, listen very carefully, and repeat after me:
There is no terrorist threat.
There is no terrorist threat!
There... is... no... terrorist... threat!"

Boy, did I feel like an utter berk! And I am confident that if the people of London just buy Mr. Moore's book, they will as well.

So a bus exploded. So a couple of Subway cars blew up. Whoop-dee-doo! I once saw Siegfried & Roy slice a woman into six pieces and then put her back together again. It's all smoke & mirrors, folks! SMOKE AND MIRRORS! The whole "terrorist threat" is nothing but an elaborate illusion devised to incite fear and justify Bush's illegal and immoral War on Terror.

Siegfried & Roy ought to be ashamed of themselves.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2005/07/there_is_no_ter.html

[red states rule]

I dunno, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing a dem elected. I know it sounds crazy but after defending, and arguing a position since this all started, would be kind of nice to have a fresh perspective, and new opinions on why that bunch is just wrong on most things. :D

I know it will make the terrorists very happy. Little Adolf from Iran said he was "encouraged" by the 06 elections

Hell of an endorsement, isn't it?

[Sir Evil]

I know it will make the terrorists very happy. Little Adolf from Iran said he was "encouraged" by the 06 elections

Hell of an endorsement, isn't it?

Would certainly be interesting to see how it would be handled. I have said long before Iran became a real issue that they were plotting in perfect symmetry back there in the usmb days so I will go out on a limb, and say that if a dem takes office, Iran produces it's first nuke by the end of that term.

[red states rule]

Would certainly be interesting to see how it would be handled. I have said long before Iran became a real issue that they were plotting in perfect symmetry back there in the usmb days so I will go out on a limb, and say that if a dem takes office, Iran produces it's first nuke by the end of that term.

To the kook left and the liberal media, little Adolf is a class politican. They find him very resonable since he hates Pres Bush as much as they do

He was cheered by the libs during his speech at the college, but booed when he talked about gays

He has to learn how to be more PC when bullshiting libs

[red states rule]

The liberal media is doing what they can to help both the Dems and terrorists


NBC Sees Scandal in 'Abusive' Interrogations; MSNBC: 'More Lies'
By Brent Baker | October 5, 2007 - 02:27 ET
Presuming Bush administration dissembling and illegality, NBC anchor Brian Williams considered it “big” news Thursday night that the administration “secretly authorized abusive interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including torture, despite denial from everyone from President Bush on down. And the policy remains even though the Supreme Court ruled against it.” Picking up on the front page New York Times disclosure of the classified documents, which neither the ABC nor CBS evening newscasts considered newsworthy, the NBC Nighty News ran a very slanted story that, other than one short soundbite from White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about how “they were safe, necessary and lawful, these techniques, and have helped save American lives,” aired only condemnatory comments as reporter Andrea Mitchell assumed the methods are torture.

She reminded viewers that “after a political firestorm, devastating pictures from Abu Ghraib and a Supreme Court ruling,” last year the President promised “the United States does not torture” and “I will not authorize it,” yet the New York Times reported that in 2005 the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales issued memos “authorizing much harsher techniques, including head-slapping, waterboarding, frigid temperatures and 'combined effects' -- using several practices simultaneously, despite dissent on his staff. Today leading Democrats vowed to pass new laws.” Without any consideration for how the memos could have been written to allow the use of the techniques in only the most dire circumstances, and thus the techniques may not have been employed, Mitchell warned: “There's also a big impact on foreign policy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has promised U.S. allies that the administration does not use torture, even though officials say she knew about the memos.”


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/10/05/nbc-sees-scandal-abusive-interrogations-msnbc-more-lies-bush

[diuretic]

Does the constitution prohibit torture? Or does it authorise government to use torture?

[avatar4321]

Do us all a favor...Stop parroting the White House talking points and think for yourself. You're just wasting bandwidth otherwise.

did you ever stop to consider that you are the one parroting the talking points while the White House was being honest?

[avatar4321]

Bush isn't worthy of hatred. The policies of his administration do show a clear trend towards the creation of a unitary executive branch which IS inimical to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

Now, unless you are going to refrain from your base attacks on me rather than debate the issues, I have nothing further to say to you.

Bully, the Constitution specifically grants the President the only executive power "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." By definition the executive power in the United States Constitution is unitary.

This is exactly how the Founders designed it. They wanted a strong executive. That is why he is given broad powers.

[avatar4321]

Does the constitution prohibit torture? Or does it authorise government to use torture?

The Constitution does prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. This is usually interpreted to mean torture. However, it does not explicitly say torture is forbidden.

Personally, id rather the Constitution clearly stated it. Because the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment can be argued to only prohibit punishment and not interrogation.

But even if it did, there is still a question of "What is torture?" Which is really the heart of the debate.

Liberals thing humiliating people by putting underwear on their heads is torture. Conservatives see it more as physically harming or in severe cases, psychologically harming people.

Maybe one of these days the liberals will actually provide some case where the government has tortured someone rather than just claim it till its believed.

[bullypulpit]

Bully, the Constitution specifically grants the President the only executive power "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." By definition the executive power in the United States Constitution is unitary.

This is exactly how the Founders designed it. They wanted a strong executive. That is why he is given broad powers.

With his use of signing statements, bush has usurped the power and authority of the Legislative branch.

By asserting the power of the presidency to arbitrarily arrest and detain indefinitely, absent any legal recourse, the Bush administration usurped the power of th Judicial branch.

This patently IS NOT what the Founders had in mind in establishing the separation of powers in government. Having successfully prosecuted a rebellion against a tyrannical ruler, the separation of powers was designed to prevent this usurpation of the other branches of government and the establishment of a tyranny on our shores. But the Republican controlled Congress, between 2000 and 2006, placed loyalty to party and president ahead of their duties as laid out in the Constitution and utterly failed in their oversight duties, thus allowing the Presidency to pose the threat it now does to the Constitution and the democratic process in general.

I would strongly suggest that you read the <a href=http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2>Constitution</a>. Nowhere does it assert, either explicitly or implicitly, the powers accrued to the Presidency by the Bush administraton.

[bullypulpit]

The Constitution does prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. This is usually interpreted to mean torture. However, it does not explicitly say torture is forbidden.

Personally, id rather the Constitution clearly stated it. Because the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment can be argued to only prohibit punishment and not interrogation.

But even if it did, there is still a question of "What is torture?" Which is really the heart of the debate.

Liberals thing humiliating people by putting underwear on their heads is torture. Conservatives see it more as physically harming or in severe cases, psychologically harming people.

Maybe one of these days the liberals will actually provide some case where the government has tortured someone rather than just claim it till its believed.

There's nothing to debate. Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture.

<blockquote>For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.</blockquote>

The definitions put forward by Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, and later as Attorney General, had one purpose in mind...Provide the Administration the legal cover it needed to establish extra-legal black-sites and engage in activities which, no matter how one wishes to parse it, are torture.

[avatar4321]

There's nothing to debate. Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture.

<blockquote>For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.</blockquote>

The definitions put forward by Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, and later as Attorney General, had one purpose in mind...Provide the Administration the legal cover it needed to establish extra-legal black-sites and engage in activities which, no matter how one wishes to parse it, are torture.

You're right. There is nothing to debate. The Convention isnt the Constitution. its completely irrelevant to whether the Constitution prohibits torture or not.

However, putting underwear on peoples heads still doesnt qualify as torture.

[bullypulpit]

but the country won't shift......there is freedom of speech and elections.....and people like you and me….it can’t shift as far as you fear…..

Currently “the undesirable population” is people trying to kill other people....once they make that choice the get tortured....simple really...

and no, i will not stand by silently....i will advocate that my govt respond in kind...no wait...i will advocate an extreme response by govt towards anyone that tries to kill one of my fellow americans or even threatens...or helps.....those that would kill americans or american allies

they are terrorists....we are not talking about the homeless, the mentally ill or minorities....we are talking about terrorists....the have chosen terror....they should receive nothing less in their treatment....

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had independent judiciaries, legislature, freedom of speech, etc. right up until the the dictators seized power. After that, all bets were off.

Torture produces little, if anything, in the way of actionable intelligence. Given enough pain, the victim will tell hie/her tormentors what ever they think will make the pain stop. In short, torture is nothing more than an act of state sanctioned sadism. I refer you here:

<center><a href=http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/primetime/safe.asp>Why Torture Makes Us less Safe</a></center>

To willingly support the actions of a government in the conduct of torture is to give tacit approval to actions which are inimical to, and eventually undermine and lead to the collapse of a democracy. What happens when the attempts to limit torture fail, as they always do? Where do you draw the line?

[bullypulpit]

You're right. There is nothing to debate. The Convention isnt the Constitution. its completely irrelevant to whether the Constitution prohibits torture or not.

However, putting underwear on peoples heads still doesnt qualify as torture.

The US is signatory to the Convention. Under the Constitution, that treaty obligation carries the full force of the law. It is the law of the land.

As for the underwear issue...It does fall under the definition.

<blockquote>(Torture is...)<b>any</b> act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or <b>mental</b></blockquote>

[avatar4321]

With his use of signing statements, bush has usurped the power and authority of the Legislative branch.

By asserting the power of the presidency to arbitrarily arrest and detain indefinitely, absent any legal recourse, the Bush administration usurped the power of th Judicial branch.

This patently IS NOT what the Founders had in mind in establishing the separation of powers in government. Having successfully prosecuted a rebellion against a tyrannical ruler, the separation of powers was designed to prevent this usurpation of the other branches of government and the establishment of a tyranny on our shores. But the Republican controlled Congress, between 2000 and 2006, placed loyalty to party and president ahead of their duties as laid out in the Constitution and utterly failed in their oversight duties, thus allowing the Presidency to pose the threat it now does to the Constitution and the democratic process in general.

I would strongly suggest that you read the <a href=http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2>Constitution</a>. Nowhere does it assert, either explicitly or implicitly, the powers accrued to the Presidency by the Bush administraton.

Can you demonstrate where anyone has been arbitrarily arrested and detained indefinitely? Contrary to your assertions, there is nothing arbitrary about arresting and detaining terrorists who fight against the United States.

Can you demonstrate what authority the President has taken from the legislative branch? Keep in mind that taking authority inherent in the Presidency that the Legislative branch has previously stolen is not unconstitution as the Constitution appoints that power to the President.

The Founders specifically gave the President broad powers because he is entrusted with the survival of the nation. This is especially true with war powers. The executive power is invested in the President. That specifically dictates that neither the Judicial nor Legislative branches have these powers. Its based solely in the President.

BTW the Congress cant fail in oversight duties. The Constitution doesnt give them oversight duties. The only options Congress has for oversight of the Executive branch is the ability to override a Presidential veto with 2/3s vote and impeachment.

So unless you are suggesting that Congress was supposed to impeach the President for non-existant crimes and failed to so its very clear that they havent failed in their Constitutional duties.

I suggest you read the Constitution sometime. Maybe then youll stop trying to attack the President for exercising his lawful powers.

[avatar4321]

The US is signatory to the Convention. Under the Constitution, that treaty obligation carries the full force of the law. It is the law of the land.

As for the underwear issue...It does fall under the definition.

<blockquote>(Torture is...)<b>any</b> act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or <b>mental</b></blockquote>

So putting underwear on someones head is severe mental pain and suffering now? To whom exactly?

Oh and you seem to be missing the point. Not suprising. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about torture (excluding the cruel and unusual punishment clause as mentioned above).

On the other hand, the Convention, which is not part of the Constitution, falls exactly within the conservative definition I gave. I repeat, the Convention is not constitutional. It can be changed by a future convention or even by an act of Congress. Were it constitutional it could only be changed by a Constitutional amendment.

This is of course assuming the treaty is self enacting. You see not all treaties are considered law. Some treaties require that the nations legislate their terms in order to be enforce. However, considering the seriousness of the nature of torture, I think this is unlikely. I could be wrong as I dont have the convention sitting at my finger tips.

[diuretic]

Does the constitution allow the president to break the law?

[bullypulpit]

Can you demonstrate where anyone has been arbitrarily arrested and detained indefinitely? Contrary to your assertions, there is nothing arbitrary about arresting and detaining terrorists who fight against the United States.

Can you demonstrate what authority the President has taken from the legislative branch? Keep in mind that taking authority inherent in the Presidency that the Legislative branch has previously stolen is not unconstitution as the Constitution appoints that power to the President.

The Founders specifically gave the President broad powers because he is entrusted with the survival of the nation. This is especially true with war powers. The executive power is invested in the President. That specifically dictates that neither the Judicial nor Legislative branches have these powers. Its based solely in the President.

BTW the Congress cant fail in oversight duties. The Constitution doesnt give them oversight duties. The only options Congress has for oversight of the Executive branch is the ability to override a Presidential veto with 2/3s vote and impeachment.

So unless you are suggesting that Congress was supposed to impeach the President for non-existant crimes and failed to so its very clear that they havent failed in their Constitutional duties.

I suggest you read the Constitution sometime. Maybe then youll stop trying to attack the President for exercising his lawful powers.

Jose Padilla.

[red states rule]

Jose Padilla.

Who was a liberal media darling - now a convicted terrorist sitting in a jail cell

[bullypulpit]

Does the constitution allow the president to break the law?

Nope, it sure doesn't. The oath of office is as follows:

<blockquote>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."</blockquote>

The attempts by he and his administration to undermine the very document they have sworn to uphold and defend is nothing short of rank hypocrisy if not outright criminality.

[red states rule]

Nope, it sure doesn't. The oath of office is as follows:

<blockquote>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."</blockquote>

The attempts by he and his administration to undermine the very document they have sworn to uphold and defend is nothing short of rank hypocrisy if not outright criminality.

Libs did not seem to care about a President really breaking the law during the eight years of Clinton

[bullypulpit]

Libs did not seem to care about a President really breaking the law during the eight years of Clinton

The Republicans only seemed to worry about it during the eight years Goat-boy was in office. An Ironic twist of fate? No...they put loyalty to party and president ahead of their duties and responsibilities as members of Congress under the Constitution.

[red states rule]

The Republicans only seemed to worry about it during the eight years Goat-boy was in office. An Ironic twist of fate? No...they put loyalty to party and president ahead of their duties and responsibilities as members of Congress under the Constitution.

No, if any group has put their party ahead of their country it is the Dems. The party that has undermined the troops, smeared and insulted them, leaked classified documements, and given aid and comfort to our enemies

It was very telling when little Adolf from Iran siad how he was encouraged by the 06 election results - that said it all for me

[diuretic]

The Republicans only seemed to worry about it during the eight years Goat-boy was in office. An Ironic twist of fate? No...they put loyalty to party and president ahead of their duties and responsibilities as members of Congress under the Constitution.

There lies the way of the fascist - party above nation.

[red states rule]

There lies the way of the fascist - party above nation.

Yes, moonbat Dems put their party ahead of their country several years ago

[diuretic]

Yes, moonbat Dems put their party ahead of their country several years ago

Ahead of country? When?

[red states rule]

Ahead of country? When?

When? When they supported leaking of classified documents to the liberal media. When elected Dems smear and insult the troops on the floor of Congress. When the Senate leader tells the liberal media the war is lost. When a Dem Congressmen admits if the surge shows progress it would not be good for his party.

Need more?

[diuretic]

When? When they supported leaking of classified documents to the liberal media. When elected Dems smear and insult the troops on the floor of Congress. When the Senate leader tells the liberal media the war is lost. When a Dem Congressmen admits if the surge shows progress it would not be good for his party.

Need more?

Yep, sure do. That's politics in a democracy, shitty but necessary. You have to make the other mob look bad, that's the rule. But how is that putting party above country?

[bullypulpit]

When? When they supported leaking of classified documents to the liberal media. When elected Dems smear and insult the troops on the floor of Congress. When the Senate leader tells the liberal media the war is lost. When a Dem Congressmen admits if the surge shows progress it would not be good for his party.

Need more?

With the Bush administration hiding its illegal activities behind the veil of secrecy they have cloaked ALL of their actions with in the name of "national security", the only way we can find out what's going on is for those true patriots to "leak" these spuriously classified documents to the media.

[diuretic]

With the Bush administration hiding its illegal activities behind the veil of secrecy they have cloaked ALL of their actions with in the name of "national security", the only way we can find out what's going on is for those true patriots to "leak" these spuriously classified documents to the media.

Party and sectional interests above nation. But the process has to be hidden or if it can't be hidden then it has to be hidden or otherwise dressed up in patriotic camo while it is taking place. It can be revealed when the mature fascist state has been achieved because then, well, it just doesn't matter any longer.

Don't think it can't happen in the US (I am acknowledging it can happen anywhere), check out USMC General Smedley Butler.

[bullypulpit]

Party and sectional interests above nation. But the process has to be hidden or if it can't be hidden then it has to be hidden or otherwise dressed up in patriotic camo while it is taking place. It can be revealed when the mature fascist state has been achieved because then, well, it just doesn't matter any longer.

Don't think it can't happen in the US (I am acknowledging it can happen anywhere), check out USMC General Smedley Butler.

Indeed...History has shown us that secrecy is the greatest ally of those seeking to push a nation from democracy to fascism/totalitarianism. Germany and Italy had independent courts, legislatures and news media until the fascists actually took over.

Tried to rep you, gotta spread some more joy first.

[diuretic]

Indeed...History has shown us that secrecy is the greatest ally of those seeking to push a nation from democracy to fascism/totalitarianism. Germany and Italy had independent courts, legislatures and news media until the fascists actually took over.

Tried to rep you, gotta spread some more joy first.

Likewise :coffee:

[red states rule]

Indeed...History has shown us that secrecy is the greatest ally of those seeking to push a nation from democracy to fascism/totalitarianism. Germany and Italy had independent courts, legislatures and news media until the fascists actually took over.

Tried to rep you, gotta spread some more joy first.

If the Bush administration is the most secret in history - how do you know if its a secret?

[bullypulpit]

If the Bush administration is the most secret in history - how do you know if its a secret?

If your rhetorical skills were any better, you might be a half-bright six year old.

[mrg666]

If your rhetorical skills were any better, you might be a half-bright six year old.




If the Bush administration is the most secret in history - how do you know if its a secret?

thats not rhetoric thats a valid question and deserves a non rhetorical answer

[diuretic]

If the Bush administration is the most secret in history - how do you know if its a secret?

Good question. In fact it's a fascinating question. There will only be proof after the Bush Administration has gone. Or if the Bush Administration refuses to go and cites the war with Iran - nope, not a typo - as justification for it sticking around as long as it needs.

However, it is possible to draw inferences. There's sufficient evidence of its efforts to quash investigations into its activities that I think allow us to accuse it, with some validity, of being highly secretive.

[manu1959]

If your rhetorical skills were any better, you might be a half-bright six year old.

actually, when fascism comes to america it will be burning a flag and a cross....even a half-bright six year old knows that.....

[bullypulpit]

actually, when fascism comes to america it will be burning a flag and a cross....even a half-bright six year old knows that.....

So, you're a member of the RSR school of debate too? Somehow, it doesn't surprise me, but I thought better of you than that.

Fascism always comes proudly bearing the symbols of nationalism, in America's case the flag and religion, all the while disdaining the rule of law that is the real strength of a democratic government. The symbols mean nothing to them beyond a means to an end, that end being the subversion of democracy. So , as Mr. Lewis so succinctly stated, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

Fascists only get around to burning these symbols AFTER they've seized power.

[red states rule]

So, you're a member of the RSR school of debate too? Somehow, it doesn't surprise me, but I thought better of you than that.

Fascism always comes proudly bearing the symbols of nationalism, in America's case the flag and religion, all the while disdaining the rule of law that is the real strength of a democratic government. The symbols mean nothing to them beyond a means to an end, that end being the subversion of democracy. So , as Mr. Lewis so succinctly stated, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

Fascists only get around to burning these symbols AFTER they've seized power.

Then what is taking your Dems so long to correct the "problem"? Reid and Pelosi have not eneded the war, they have not impeached Pres Bush, Hillary said she could not promise to bring all the troops home by the end of her first term, and the House passed a wire tap bill

The kook left are camped out in front of San Fran Nan's SF home, and the Dems Congress are at record low approval ratings

San Fran Nan said the reason they are so low in the polls is they are NOT liberal enough :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Then what is taking your Dems so long to correct the "problem"? Reid and Pelosi have not eneded the war, they have not impeached Pres Bush, Hillary said she could not promise to bring all the troops home by the end of her first term, and the House passed a wire tap bill

The kook left are camped out in front of San Fran Nan's SF home, and the Dems Congress are at record low approval ratings

San Fran Nan said the reason they are so low in the polls is they are NOT liberal enough :lol:

Moral cowardice, a trait shared by congressional Republicans and Democrats alike.

[bullypulpit]

but the country won't shift......there is freedom of speech and elections.....and people like you and me….it can’t shift as far as you fear…..

Currently “the undesirable population” is people trying to kill other people....once they make that choice the get tortured....simple really...

and no, i will not stand by silently....i will advocate that my govt respond in kind...no wait...i will advocate an extreme response by govt towards anyone that tries to kill one of my fellow americans or even threatens...or helps.....those that would kill americans or american allies

they are terrorists....we are not talking about the homeless, the mentally ill or minorities....we are talking about terrorists....the have chosen terror....they should receive nothing less in their treatment....

Read your history. Pre-WWII Germany and Italy had independent media, independent judiciaries and legislatures, freedom of speech right up until the fascists seized power.

The course you advocate for the treatment of terrorists does little more than provide fodder for the recruiters of terrorists. By abandoning the rule of law in pursuit of terrorists, by adopting an "any means" strategy, by throwing the Constitution under the bus in pursuit of national security, we will ultimately give the terrorists the victory they could never achieve on their own. We succumb to dumb, irrational fear when we allow our freedoms to be eroded to nothing in the pursuit of an illusory security. Our real security can only come from the clear, reasoned defense of the foundation of our democracy, the Constitution, from all threats whether they be foreign or domestic. But when our elected officials forswear their oaths of office and use a threat to national security to undermine the real source of our security, they become a threat as great as any foreign enemy.

[bullypulpit]

Bully, the Constitution specifically grants the President the only executive power "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." By definition the executive power in the United States Constitution is unitary.

This is exactly how the Founders designed it. They wanted a strong executive. That is why he is given broad powers.

The powers of the President are outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and states:

<blockquote>Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.</blockquote>

Nowhere does it state that the President may ignore the laws, or any part of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The use of signing statements by President Bush assert such authority, thus usurping the authority of Congress.

Nowhere does it state that the President may declare, at his sole discretion, who may be deemed and "enemy combatant" and thus held incommunicado, denied access to counsel, held without charge for an indefinite span of time. Yet President Bush has claimed such authority, effectively eliminating <i>habeas corpus</i> and usurping the power of the Judicial branch.

This is what the unitary executive means to the Bush administration...An Executive branch which is not only above the law, but is a law unto itself. Such an Executive branch stands outside the bounds established by the Constitution. The Legislative and Judicial branches are no longer the co-equal branches which serve as a check on unbridled executive power. Under such a form of government, we will no longer have a constitutional republic...We will have a fascist dictatorship.

Be careful what you wish for.

[bullypulpit]

bump...No takers?

[red states rule]

Moral cowardice, a trait shared by congressional Republicans and Democrats alike.

Not at all. Even Reid and Pelosi the voters are not for surrender, appeasement, and impeachment

There kook base is. but not a majority of the country

[bullypulpit]

Not at all. Even Reid and Pelosi the voters are not for surrender, appeasement, and impeachment

There kook base is. but not a majority of the country

Care to offer any evidence in support of your assertions? Didn't think so.

Instead, let me offer some statistics to counter your mindless prattle.



<blockquote> "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
.
Approve: 30%, Disapprove:68%, Unsure: 1%, 9/27-30/07 </blockquote>



For the full results of the ABC News/Washington Post poll, you can go <a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>HERE</a>. Your assertions regarding public opinion on the war are, as ever, dismissed for the unsubstantiated twaddle that they always are.

According to a July 2007 poll From American Research Group, American adults are evenly divided on the question of impeaching Bush, with 45% approving of the idea, 46% opposed and 9% undecided.

The same poll finds 54% of all adults in favor of impeaching Darth Cheney, with 40% opposed and 6% undecided.

You can find those results <a href=http://americanresearchgroup.com/>HERE</a>.

[red states rule]

Care to offer any evidence in support of your assertions? Didn't think so.

Instead, let me offer some statistics to counter your mindless prattle.



<blockquote> "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
.
Approve: 30%, Disapprove:68%, Unsure: 1%, 9/27-30/07 </blockquote>



For the full results of the ABC News/Washington Post poll, you can go <a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>HERE</a>. Your assertions regarding public opinion on the war are, as ever, dismissed for the unsubstantiated twaddle that they always are.

According to a July 2007 poll From American Research Group, American adults are evenly divided on the question of impeaching Bush, with 45% approving of the idea, 46% opposed and 9% undecided.

The same poll finds 54% of all adults in favor of impeaching Darth Cheney, with 40% opposed and 6% undecided.

You can find those results <a href=http://americanresearchgroup.com/>HERE</a>.

Oh please BP - go for impeachment. Anything more current then a 3 month old poll? and not from the Washington Compost

You libs are desperate to try and do something. Reid and Pelosi are tanking in their own approval numbers, the Dem Congress are at record low approval, and you guys keep stepping in big piles everyday

[bullypulpit]

Oh please BP - go for impeachment. Anything more current then a 3 month old poll? and not from the Washington Compost

You libs are desperate to try and do something. Reid and Pelosi are tanking in their own approval numbers, the Dem Congress are at record low approval, and you guys keep stepping in big piles everyday

Read the dates...CAREFULLY...The poll was conducted 9/27-9/30/2007. Little more than TWO WEEKS ago. Dismissed.