Kerry to Call for IMPEACHMENT

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]vroom wrote:
Like when I came back on board and suggested we go back on topic. I brought up that Nadar was now taking over the reigns. I said I’ll play nice we can even share my sandbox.

Ding ding ding!

Sasquatch, exactly like that. Getting up on your pedestal and telling me to play nice, because you are giving me a chance to, guarantees that I am going to address your admonishment.

Not an attempt to be insulting, but this is pretty simple stuff.[/quote]

You’re kidding me right! You find it offensive that I will lay down my sword if you do so we can get back on topic. You interpret that as some kind of attack that you need to retaliate about.

In fact I never mentioned you had to do anything. It’s right there to see. I"LL play nice. I"LL even share…

You jjust look for arguments and you wonder aloud why you are the victom of all these ‘attacks.’

Each post weakens your own argument.

322

[quote]vroom wrote:
except that when I said truce schmooce I was kidding and it was obvious.

Joe, one of these days when you grow up, you can stop hiding behind “it was a joke”…

I’m not buying it either.[/quote]

But vroomie: I’m not selling it.
I’m stating flat out how it was.

You can accept or reject, of course.

But don’t act like I’m trying to pull something over on you.

One of these days when I grow up…huh.
For a guy who’s spent the last week or ten days acting like a spoiled little kid having a trantrum, you’re awfully full of yourself.

Whatever, buddy. I know the truth, and with a little luck more and more people around here are able to see the truth.

323

Okay, these are obviously going to be biased from a liberal perspective. Don’t blame me, I don’t think conservative news sources are going to show up with a search for impeachment…

–

http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_2787819

[quote]“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government” Thomas Paine.

“A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution” President James Madison.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither” Ben Franklin.

President Theodore Roosevelt: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.” [/quote]

–

–

http://www.sfbg.com/39/36/x_mediabeat.html

–

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/08/bush_blair_deny_memo_assertion_of_fixed_intelligence/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

Notice here, that we have a vague description of who the memo was describing. It certainly wasn’t Tony Blair… in case anybody recalls that topic of debate.

324

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, JTF, that is interesting.

I’ll admit to being curious and if indeed something did come out of this, I’d be really curious about why Al-Jazeera would be the source of this knowledge.[/quote]

Actually vroom every news source has/had access to this story - why the other outlets in the US didn’t pursue the story is a story in itself. The fascade of the MSM being “liberal” is slowly fading. The media ignored the story as long as it could and now they’re finally getting called out by a public who has reached they’re BS saturation level.

Rather than dying, this is about to get REALLLLY good. Rep. Conyers at first set out to get 100,000 signatures on a petition for Congress to take action. Already they are at 60% of they’re new goal of HALF-A-MILLION signatures. (que the terrorists - must distract)

The latest update has more info coming to light that reinforces the facts surrounding the memo in question:

[i]“We expect to release new documents that corroborate the Downing Street memo,” a Judiciary aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told RAW STORY Thursday afternoon. “None of the documents are as earth-shattering as the Downing Street minutes but all of them corroborate the accuracy of what it says.”

Among those scheduled to testify are Joe Wilson, former ambassador and weapons of mass destruction expert; Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst, used to do presidential daily briefings for Ronald Reagan; Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost her son in Iraq combat; and John Bonifaz, the Boston constitutional lawyer who has called for a resolution of inquiry into what he sees as impeachable offenses in the president’s false pretenses for war.[/i]
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Judiciary_Democrats_to_hold_hearings_on_Downing_Street_mi_0609.html

These documents:
The need to wrongfoot Saddam
The weekend’s leaked No 10 papers have revealed the depth of official fears about the legality of the Iraq invasion - and the disaster it presaged

September 21, 2004
The Guardian

Leaked Whitehall documents present an extraordinarily revealing picture of how Tony Blair’s closest advisers and his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, warned him of the pitfalls of following the Bush administration’s march to war against Iraq.

Washington confronts ‘memogate’
Times Online
June 09, 2005
It has provoked embarrassed questions in the US media as to why so many newspapers and broadcast outlets here ignored the story for so long.

The leaked memo quickly spread across the internet after it was first published by The Sunday Times on May 1 with several prominent US websites providing links to The Sunday Times article and the memo on Times Online. But only when British Prime Minister and President Bush appeared at a joint press conference on Tuesday did the American President face his first public question about a British intelligence official’s remark that “intelligence and facts were being fixed” by Washington to support the US case against Saddam Hussein.

Former Bush aide: US plotted Iraq invasion long before 9/11
Sunday Herald
11 January 2004

GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

O’Neill’s claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to ‘regime change’ Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.
http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

If it wasn’t for finding all those WMD’s or capturing bin Laden you might think there was more to 9/11 than meets the eye…

325

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
You’re kidding me right! You find it offensive that I will lay down my sword if you do so we can get back on topic. You interpret that as some kind of attack that you need to retaliate about.

In fact I never mentioned you had to do anything. It’s right there to see. I"LL play nice. I"LL even share…

You jjust look for arguments and you wonder aloud why you are the victom of all these ‘attacks.’

Each post weakens your own argument.[/quote]

Assquatch, quit being such a clown. You can’t go around in one sentence being an ass, then pretend in the next that you are suddenly reasonable.

Here is more of your post for dissection you dork.

[quote]
Personal attacks are certainly your forte lately, but water off my back. I’m plenty secure in my life, that some internet wannabe won’t have that much impact. I wish you well and hope one day you can offer a bit more than this to the conversation. I’m not the only one who is finding your contributions lacking of late. And even though you say differently, your attitude has carried to other threads besides the political forum.

Time to shake off the hatred and move forward. I’ll even play nice and share my sandbox, if you make any effort at all in civility. Surprise me[/quote]

Pushing the line that “personal attacks are my forte”, that’s laying down your sword?

Calling me an “internet wannabe”, that’s laying down your sword?

Saying my contributions are “lacking as of late”, that’s laying down your sword?

Suggesting my attitude has “carried to other threads”, that’s laying down your sword?

Stating that I should “surprise you” with respect to acting civil, that’s laying down your sword?

You didn’t lay down your sword at all. You offered to lay down your sword if I layed mine down first, while at the same time taking shots and jabs.

I’d hate to repeat myself, but as I said before, if you address the TOPIC, instead of your opinion of my behavior and some grand noble gesture with you on your pedestal as the master and commander of the known universe, then you’ll find you get a different response.

So, what part of that is difficult to understand for you? Perhaps the part that I don’t accept you as the master and commander of the known universe?

Fuck, how can you be so clueless about your own behavior while berating me for mine. That’s why I keep admitting to the fact that I’m a bastard. You tards don’t even see it when you do it.

At least I’m aware I’m doing it!

326

vroom

interesting reads, but nothing substantive or evidenciary in nature.

These papers are so liberl in focus that they call the mainstream media out for being slow-witted and unacting.

As for the famous memo this thread was based upon:
An ubsubstantiated document from less than reputable sources printed in a somewhat biased ultra-liberal tabloid.

Those quotes at the beginning are words to live by though. But I can’t say the President deserves impeachment proceedings because of a well written letter to the editor.

327

vroom, I honestly think you’ve lost your mind at this point.

No, really. Not trying to be dramatic, not trying to make a cheap point–I really think you’ve gone 'round the bend.

How sad.

328

[quote]As for the famous memo this thread was based upon:
An ubsubstantiated document from less than reputable sources printed in a somewhat biased ultra-liberal tabloid.[/quote]

Well, I may have agreed with this assessment of yours earlier, except for this fact…

One of the stories, the last one quoted I believe (though I can’t recall for certain), talks about Tony Blair and President Bush addressing the contents of the memo.

The fact that they have addressed the memo in this way, suggesting it is not an accurate portrayal, but not that it was altered or falsified, lends credence to the memo itself and it’s accuracy with respect to the words that were published.

Yes, we do still get to argue as to the meaning of those words.

329

vroom once again you twist.

My initial post–after 4 personally negative/unresponded to posts by you, was in fact, a gesture of peace.

Your response was a blistering attack on me. I responded in kind after that.

I mean, do you even read before you hit send. The posts are here for scrutiny should anyone wish, but you need to stop inappropriately quoting people (me) to make your points for you. It’s nice that you try hard to make others seem responsible for all your travails, but you seriously are in need of help.

You have too much of yourself tied up in these threads and you aren’t even cognizant of your manipulations and actions. I tried–Bush lied.

Do I really need to drag every derogatory remark made to me up here? I think not. There is enough blame to go around and I have, on more than one ocassion attempted to accept my share. You are unable and unwilling to do the same.

Wear your badge of ignorance and arrogance proud, you certainly have earned it

Peace out.

330

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
vroom, I honestly think you’ve lost your mind at this point.

No, really. Not trying to be dramatic, not trying to make a cheap point–I really think you’ve gone 'round the bend.

How sad.
[/quote]

You know what’s sad Joe… it’s that you are not dumb, but you have the maturity level of a thirteen yr. old. If you ever emotionally advance past the teenage years it would be interesting to debate with you.

331

Sigh, in response to what looked to be a reasonable post by you, concerning the impeachment issue, I went and searched for recent news.

So, publishing them, admitting up front they were from liberal sources, due to the nature of the topic, leaves you to assume I’ve lost my mind?

What happened to the “I’m all about discussing the topic if only you would” schtick?

332

[quote]vroom wrote:
As for the famous memo this thread was based upon:
An ubsubstantiated document from less than reputable sources printed in a somewhat biased ultra-liberal tabloid.

Well, I may have agreed with this assessment of yours earlier, except for this fact…

One of the stories, the last one quoted I believe (though I can’t recall for certain), talks about Tony Blair and President Bush addressing the contents of the memo.

The fact that they have addressed the memo in this way, suggesting it is not an accurate portrayal, but not that it was altered or falsified, lends credence to the memo itself and it’s accuracy with respect to the words that were published.

Yes, we do still get to argue as to the meaning of those words.[/quote]

Does not the fact that “it is not an accurate portrayal” say all the things you assume it didn’t.

We have already discussed the term fixed and set that little ditty aside.

What else is there. So your whole theory that this is so is still this one document which does not accurately portray the facts.

I know you’re better than this.

333

I’m not sure I understand Assquatch. I posted exactly what you said. I say how it reads. Then you tell me I’m twisting your words.

How the hell can I quote you inappropriately when I quote exactly what you wrote? You are damned right the words are here for everyone to read, and I’m damned glad for it too.

You are so damned blind about your own behavior it is shocking.

By the way, you just passed on the opportunity to drop the sword. There was a clear opening here. Both you and Joe choose to bypass the real topic, when I tried to kickstart it, and get back to dumping on me.

Give me an H. H.
.
.
.

HYPOCRITE!

334

[quote]Does not the fact that “it is not an accurate portrayal” say all the things you assume it didn’t.

We have already discussed the term fixed and set that little ditty aside.[/quote]

Heh, let me use your phrase. Did you read the article?

They are not arguing that the memo is wrong, they are arguing that it doesn’t mean that the information was being fixed, as the memo might indicate. Look at the wording of their rebuttal carefully.

After the Clinton fiasco they know not to lie, so they are playing their words very carefully on this topic.

Also, sure the term fixed was discussed, but the fact that you have an opinion on it does not imply that everyone agrees with your opinion. Set it aside all you like, you are not the person who gets to decide on what words mean.

They obviously mean one thing to you, and they obviously can mean another thing to others. This is precisely the point of discussing these issues… there are in fact various possible interpretations… no matter how much you would like to assume yours is correct.

Frankly, I’m not sure I trust your judgment, given recent events. I’m not asking you to trust mine, nor am I suggesting mine is the “agreed upon” meaning.

I can see the difference. Can you see the difference?

335

For the last time blind man You see and write what you want

You say we missed an opporttunity when in fact my response, first on this page was directly in response to your post.

Do you see that?

Then becuase of timing issues which are clearly visible in the way the posts lay out, I responded to your attack once again.

You continue to name call and twist facts and timeissues wrt posts. Cool. Now I know this can’t be saved, but at least try and answer honorably and honestly. I"ve hid nothing. I’m not the great paster and editor you have had to become to hide your actions.

Grow up and come back with a sack and a clue. By the way, I’m betting that Joe’s post about going off the deep end had little to do with your ultra-liberal post. But I’m kinda low on the comprehension scale ya know.

336

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You know what’s sad Joe… it’s that you are not dumb, but you have the maturity level of a thirteen yr. old. If you ever emotionally advance past the teenage years it would be interesting to debate with you. [/quote]

Elk…I fail to see how my saying that I really do think vroom’s hit a low spot here is a sign of my being stuck at 13.

That being said, what the hell does it say about you when the best you can manage at any given time is to attack me based on shit of which you have no knowledge or evidence–and while I’m approaching you by trying my hardest to be polite and treat you with respect.

You’re coming across as a pretty small man, all things being equal.

And frankly, I grow increasingly weary of you and your blather.

Wake me when you have something to say that’s not based in la la land or parroting vroom.

337

[quote]vroom wrote:
I mean, do you even read before you hit send. The posts are here for scrutiny should anyone wish, but you need to stop inappropriately quoting people (me) to make your points for you. It’s nice that you try hard to make others seem responsible for all your travails, but you seriously are in need of help.

I’m not sure I understand Assquatch. I posted exactly what you said. I say how it reads. Then you tell me I’m twisting your words.

How the hell can I quote you inappropriately when I quote exactly what you wrote? You are damned right the words are here for everyone to read, and I’m damned glad for it too.

You are so damned blind about your own behavior it is shocking.

By the way, you just passed on the opportunity to drop the sword. There was a clear opening here. Both you and Joe choose to bypass the real topic, when I tried to kickstart it, and get back to dumping on me.

Give me an H. H.
.
.
.

HYPOCRITE![/quote]

And really vroom

I’ve tried 2 times to move this thread forward and you chose reverse both times. And the Asssquatch thing was funnny when a-payne said it in reference to my anal sex question, but really, it’s overdone now and not hardly as original as you would like others to think.

338

[quote]vroom wrote:
Does not the fact that “it is not an accurate portrayal” say all the things you assume it didn’t.

We have already discussed the term fixed and set that little ditty aside.

Heh, let me use your phrase. Did you read the article?

They are not arguing that the memo is wrong, they are arguing that it doesn’t mean that the information was being fixed, as the memo might indicate. Look at the wording of their rebuttal carefully.

After the Clinton fiasco they know not to lie, so they are playing their words very carefully on this topic.

Also, sure the term fixed was discussed, but the fact that you have an opinion on it does not imply that everyone agrees with your opinion. Set it aside all you like, you are not the person who gets to decide on what words mean.

They obviously mean one thing to you, and they obviously can mean another thing to others. This is precisely the point of discussing these issues… there are in fact various possible interpretations… no matter how much you would like to assume yours is correct.

Frankly, I’m not sure I trust your judgment, given recent events. I’m not asking you to trust mine, nor am I suggesting mine is the “agreed upon” meaning.

I can see the difference. Can you see the difference?[/quote]

Is this your idea of a constructive post and rebuttal. Nice try vroom, but I stand by my assertions, and say let’s sit and wait and see whose thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and ideas prove themselves as accurate. You can disregard me all you want, that doesn’t make your fairy tale true or give it any more credence by attempting to belittle me.

339

Excuse me master and commander of the known universe, but use of the cut and paste, especially when accurately portraying the words of another, is certainly not an attempt to hide actions.

Also, to move on to your next little gem, I told you why your attempts to “move the thread forward” failed. You cannot and will not get me to move forward by insulting me. See, that was where the quotes came up.

I am so thankful the thread is here to record this clear inability to see that the things you ascribe to me are so blatantly also applicable to you.

I keep admitting my faults, my actions, what I do and don’t do, and I live up to them. Okay, it’s very possible I’ve messed up on the timing issue, I was going by the order of the posts as I saw them.

You on the other hand give these grand pronouncements like you think anyone gives a shit. Do you really think your glorified e-penis waving about your role as the master and commander of the known universe means that anyone has to give your opinion any weight here?

I’m glad the real world is treating you well Assquatch, I really am. That’s a good thing.

However, I think your success has made it difficult for you to realize you are the same type of ass clown as the rest of us, and yes, surprise, I’ll be happy to include myself in that phrase as well.

So, now, please tell me how everything is my fault, how I keep passing up opportunities and yada yada yada. Who the hell do you think you are, my boss? The master and commander of the known universe? Get over it.

340

Given our recent history it was a very reasonable post. I can see you wouldn’t like me asking you if you’d read it, or the fact that I questioned your judgement.

However, those are not huge massive insults that cannot be ignored. No, what really frosts you is that I’m not willing to accept your judgment as the obviously correct judgment.

I’m not making up any damned fairy tale. I’m not making any claims. I’m saying that it is fine that you have your opinion, but that doesn’t mean it is fact.

People don’t disagree with you much do they? Are you surrounded by yes men in your organization? Did you commit the sin of getting used to having everyone kissing your ass because you are their boss?