One Decision down, Two to go...is Mr. Bush Daring Congress to Impeach Him? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 01-10-2007, 01:43 AM

Mr. Bush has just rolled back a moratorium signed by former president Clinton on oil drilling in Bristol Bay, in Alaska, an environmentally sensitive area projected to yield $2 billion per year in commercial fishing revenue, versus an estimated "one time and it's gone", $8 billion yield in petroleum resources.

Mr. Bush is poised to sign a 2004 treaty with Mexico, the details of which his administration fought FOIA lawsuits for 3-1/2 years to keep secret. The treaty is reported to contain a provision that will qualify Mexicans with just 18 months of work time in the US, with Social Security benefits that native US workers must work 10 years to qualify for. The main criticism by the GAO is that there is no accurate prediction of how much this treaty provision will end up costing the already overburdened and underfunded Social Security Agency, which is solely funded by contributions of workers and their employers, not by federal tax revenue. If Mr. Bush signs this treaty, isn't he giving away some of the retirement money and survivors and disability insurance funds of every US worker, to Mexicans who have not contributed nearly as much into the SSI fund?

Mr. Bush is expected to announce a troop surge order of up to 20,000 US troops into Baghdad, and he talks of "winning" the "war" in Iraq. The newly written "US Army Manual on Counterinsurgency, authored under the direction of Gen. David Petraeus, makes it quite obvious that the US has never deployed anyway near the "20 combat troops per 1,000 Iraqis that the new Army field manual determines as a minimum for such a mission". Today, there are only 70,000 US combat troops in all of Iraq, (support and rear echelon troops are not "combat" troops) nowhere close to the 100,000 combat troops that the Army manual displays as a "minimum" to man a counterinsurgency military mission to deal with the 5 million population in Baghdad, alone, plus a minimum 300,000 additional combat troops to control a population of 20 million, across the rest of that country.

The field manual brings new support, in hindsight, to General Shinseki's late 2002 estimate of an US Iraqi occupation force requirement of 400,000 troops.
The numbers demonstrate that Mr. Bush has never committed to the combat force size necessary to "win" in Iraq, and that he is not doing so, now....so, what is he doing by ordering a "surge" which his "commanders on the ground", spoke publicly against, beginning in Dec., 2006?

Cumulatively, does it seem to you that Mr. Bush's decision making ability, if he signs the treaty with Mexico, and orders a troops surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq, and waging an unnecessary war with a poorly manned and managed military force and strategy, coming on the heels of the decision to put one of the most delicate, profitable, and productive marine fisheries in the world at risk from oil spills, are grounds to hold impeachment hearings in the US congress....or not?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010901647.html
Bush Lifts Oil-Drill Ban in Alaska's Bristol Bay
Royalties to Rise for Some Offshore Wells in Advance of Democrats' Plans to Roll Back Tax Breaks

By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page D01

...Congress first barred drilling in Bristol Bay in 1989 after the huge Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill damaged Alaska's coast. Congress lifted the ban in 2003 at the urging of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). But a moratorium President Bill Clinton declared on drilling in the area in 1998 remained in effect, so it took Bush's action yesterday to open it to development. Bush also lifted a presidential moratorium on part of the Gulf of Mexico that Congress opened for drilling in December.

Kempthorne said the offshore drilling in both areas and the increase in royalty fees would "enhance America's energy security by improving opportunities for domestic energy production, and will also increase the revenues that the federal government collects from oil and gas companies on behalf of American taxpayers."

Bob Greco, group director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said that "increasing access to those resources is an important step toward meeting our growing energy demand." But he said that goal would be offset in part by the increase in royalty payments, which he said would undercut industry's enthusiasm for drilling in deep waters off U.S. coasts, where a single well can cost $100 million. Higher royalties could also result in lower bids for leases in deep water, Greco said.

"President Bush's decision to lift this moratorium is welcome news for people who live and work in the Bristol Bay region," Stevens said in a written statement. "Imported farmed salmon, high energy costs, and the area's remoteness have limited economic development and contributed to high poverty in the region."

Other Alaskans decried the decision, saying development would bring in less than $8 billion once all the energy was tapped while undermining a fishing industry that brings in $2 billion a year.

"This decision borders on irresponsible, from our perspective," said Eric J. Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. The bay has the world's biggest wild sockeye salmon run as well as abundant red king crab, Pacific halibut and Bering Sea pollock and cod fisheries, he said. "The wise thing to do is to invest in the health of that sustainable economy."

Kempthorne said that any proposed project in Bristol Bay or the Gulf of Mexico "would receive thorough environmental reviews."

But Siy noted that a 1985 federal environmental impact statement suggested that the region posed a danger of a major oil spill. "This is a place with hurricane-force winds, with floating sea ice," he said. An oil spill could be "a nightmare" in an area home to 1 million migrating waterfowl and such marine mammals as endangered right whales, he added....

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/?nav=tap3
war stories: Military analysis.
Mission ImpossibleBush's smart new general can't save Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, at 7:04 PM ET

Gen. David Petraeus. Click image to expand. Gen. David Petraeus
George W. Bush has named a new man to take charge in Iraq as a prelude to his announcement of (allegedly) a new strategy. Will either make any difference?

The new commander, Lt. Gen. (soon to be promoted to simply Gen.) David Petraeus, is probably the smartest active-duty general in the U.S. Army today. Late last year, he co-authored the <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf">Army's field manual on counterinsurgency</a> —its first in over 20 years. During the early phase of the Iraq occupation, as commander of the 101st Airborne Division, he was one of the very few American officers who understood how to win over the populace, not just bash down their doors. In those halcyon days of the summer of '03, commanders had free access to Saddam Hussein's captured <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2091857/">slush funds</a>, and Petraeus used the money shrewdly to build local projects and to build trust with local leaders. It may be no coincidence that things started going to hell in northern Iraq, the 101st Airborne's area of operation, when the commanders' fund dried up—and no further funds poured in.

Alas, Petraeus is in much the same situation he found himself back then—loaded with enormous responsibility, the right skills, but not enough resources, either in money or, especially, in troops.

The big talk this past week, and probably the centerpiece of Bush's announcement (to take place <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010800237.html">Wednesday night</a> ), is the "surge"—20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to be deployed to Baghdad, as part of a classic strategy of "clear, hold, and build." This means swooping a lot of troops into a particular area (a town, a village, a neighborhood, whatever), clearing it of insurgents (i.e., killing or capturing them), and leaving behind enough troops or police to maintain order so that reconstruction can take place—while other troops move on to clear, hold, and build in the next troubled area on the list.

Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. <h3>One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.</h3>

In the short term, then, say for a year or so, enough troops might be concentrated in Baghdad if troops now deployed in Iraq have their tours of duty extended, troops due for redeployment to Iraq are mobilized several months ahead of schedule, nearly all these troops are transferred to Baghdad, and enough Iraqi troops can be mobilized to make up the remaining slack.

Meanwhile, how will Petraeus be able to keep Baghdad's insurgents from simply slipping out of town and wreaking havoc elsewhere? This is what happened in Fallujah when U.S. troops tried to destroy the insurgents' stronghold in that city.......

http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/pagenum/2/
......The purpose of an Army field manual is to lay down the requirements of combat—in the case of this field manual, a type of combat that the U.S. Army hasn't focused on for decades. It generally takes years, if not decades, for a new culture—which this field manual calls for and outlines—to take hold of any military. Petraeus is a brilliant officer, but it's questionable whether even he can force-feed a new culture in just a matter of months.

If he manages to succeed in Baghdad, how will he be able to "hold" it while proceeding on to Iraq's other troubled cities? (Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, who came up with the "surge" strategy, proposes expanding the Army's ranks by 30,000 combat soldiers over the next two years. The problem is, well-placed officers calculate that, even if enough recruits can be found, the Army could support an expansion of just 7,000 combatants per year.)

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...03/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Battle on the Hill; Bush Calls for Unity to Tackle Nation's Problems; U.S. Military Outlines New Plans for the Iraqi Army

Aired January 3, 2007 - 18:00 ET

............And the Bush administration appears determined to give amnesty to illegal aliens and benefits that hard-working Americans have taken years to earn.

We'll have that special report, a great deal more still ahead.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: An agreement with Mexico awaiting the president's signature could put benefits from our overburdened Social Security system in the hands of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

And Immigration Customs Enforcement finds itself under legal attack over its raids that swept up more than 1,200 illegal aliens.

Christine Romans tonight reports on a government plan that will make it easier for illegal aliens to collect U.S. Social Security.

Bill Tucker reports on the Catholic Church and its efforts to attack ICE for its raids on illegal workers.

But first we turn to Christine Romans with an astounding story -- Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, after three and a half years of legal battle, details are emerging now about an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to expand Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens working in the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS (voice over): An illegal alien working with a fraudulent Social Security number has been paying into Social Security. Once that worker gains legal status, he can claim those Social Security credits and tap into Social Security benefits.

The Bush administration wants Mexico's citizens working in this country to qualify for Social Security payments and, in some cases, illegal aliens will benefit, too. The U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Act will help workers qualify even sooner, in as little as 18 months.

SHANNON BENTON, TREA SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE: As far as how much they have to work in the United States to eliminate the dual taxation and claim benefits here in the U.S., they would only have to work six credits.

ROMANS: She represents 1.2 million senior citizens who filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get a look at the agreement which awaits the president's signature. Critics say it's a costly giveaway at a time when Social Security's solvency is in doubt. But the Social Security Administration estimates the agreement will cost $105 million for the first years and will have "... a negligible long- range effect on the Social Security trust fund."

But there have been concerns for years about this. The Government Accountability Office in 2003 warned, "The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for Social Security benefits."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The White House today says the president has not yet signed this agreement and he has no immediate plans to. But under current law, many of these benefits are already available to illegal aliens once they do gain legal status -- Lou.

DOBBS: Now, let's put this in context.

ROMANS: Sure.

DOBBS: It takes an American citizen 10 years to gain Social Security eligibility and benefits? ROMANS: That's right.

DOBBS: An illegal alien, under this law, should the president have the temerity to sign it -- and he's shown no reluctance to work on behalf of the Mexican government -- how long do they have to work?

ROMANS: Six credits they call it. That's 18 months. So they work eight and a half years in Mexico, and then the U.S. government recognizes that time in Mexico as part of the 10 years it's needed in the United States.

DOBBS: That is absolutely insane. How do they excuse this? And how do they come up with an estimate of $105 million?

This government doesn't even know how many illegal aliens are in this country. Somewhere between 11 million and 20 million are the estimates.

So how can they have an estimate of any kind?

ROMANS: Well, that's something the GAO pointed out. They said any -- any risk would be to the high side of any kind of estimates. But the Social Security Administration disputed that GAO finding.

In terms of how they can -- how they can, you know, say that they want to do this with Mexico, they do it with 21 other countries. But those are industrialized countries. And the critics point out that their Social Security operations in, say, Switzerland, in Canada and some of these other countries, the U.K., are far, far different than Mexico's.

DOBBS: And this president, with the audacity to go forward with this -- I mean, this is -- just when you think that this government can't show more arrogance or more ignorance on the issue of border security and immigration, it outdoes itself.

Christine, thank you very much.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

DOBBS: Christine Romans.

That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight.

Do you believe our already broken Social Security system can handle the demand of paying benefits to illegal aliens who have worked in this country a whole 18 months? Yes or no?

Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. The results coming up here later........

Quote:

http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/102800.asp
Social Security Agreement with Mexico Released After 3-1/2 Year Freedom of Information Act Battle

Illegal Mexican Workers Could Receive Billions of Dollars from U.S. Social Security System

January 4, 2007 (Washington, DC) – After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government made the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group.

The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund.

A loophole in current Social Security law could allow millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on the Social Security Trust Fund.

If an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time, that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met eligibility requirements.

In addition, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the U.S. illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number. Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number – whether a legal citizen or not – wages earned while in the U.S. unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.

The Congressional Research Service reports the earnings suspense file currently stands at approximately $520 billion. According to the congressional testimony of SSA Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll in February 2006, "We believe the chief cause of wage items being posted to the earnings suspense file instead of an individual's earning record is unauthorized work by non citizens."

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it.

"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy – yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. "Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't sacrifice through difficult times so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally."

The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S.

For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.

The_Jazz · 01-10-2007, 05:48 AM

1) Like it or not, if Clinton had the ability to block development in Alaska, Bush as the ability to remove that block. He's broken no laws by doing so. It may be a bad idea (as I happen to think), but it's certainly not against the law for him to allow the drilling.
2) The Senate has to ratify all treaties, and there's no guarantee that this will pass. After NAFTA, they've been very hesitant to ratify any new treaties. Presidential approval will not turn this into law. The US signed the Kyoto Acords, and that was never ratified by the Senate. If the Senate doesn't ratify, it's just failed foreign policy.
3) No President has every been impeached for the manner in which a war has been prosecuted. I doubt anyone in the Senate will have the balls to even suggest that Bush is ultimately at fault for any failures on the ground, and personally I have doubts that the responsibility for those failures lies in the White House. I see it as more of a command-on-the-ground failure, but that's just my opinion.

ratbastid · 01-10-2007, 08:23 AM

Bad decisions don't constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, not even the staggering volume of staggeringly bad decisions this president has made.

You want to talk impeachable offenses, you have to get into the civil liberties erosion, the destruction of constitutional rights, and the lies used to get into Iraq. I think any of those could be the foundation of a writ of impeachment.

Whether it would be politically wise for the new Congress to do such a thing is another question entirely, of course. I don't expect we'll see him impeached. I do expect we'll see him go down as the biggest nose-dive the presidency has ever seen.

host · 01-10-2007, 11:34 AM

I just voted for impeachment, because president Bush, by his actions, convinces me that he is daring the congress to impeach him, or he is suffering from incapacity to perform the duties of his office, or a combination of both.

IMO, your responses are thoughtful and measured, and may be justified if you are correctly interpreting what the impeachment process is, and what the criteria (and precedent) for proceeding with it are, but first, I'm posting timely reporting on a sign of his inconsistency and irrationality:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901872_pf.html
With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; A01

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."......

IMO impeachment is the only available tool to subject the president to a competency hearing, and I think his behavior and the official decisions that are a fruit of it, warrant such a hearing. For some Americans, the consequences of not examining the president's competency ASAP include the immediate jeopardy of life or limb, depending on what the president, acting as their CIC, decides to order them to do, next. For the rest of us, the security and viability of the country's currency, environment, military readiness, and the integrity of the constitutionally guaranteed Bill of Rights, are at stake.

Here is some support, from the founding fathers, from historical precedent, and from members of the president's own party, for justifying impeachment:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...879270,00.html
The Proper Grounds for Impeachment
Monday, Feb. 25, 1974

IMPEACHMENT. Rarely has a word stirred such passions or borne such grave implications for the future governance of the U.S. And rarely has a word been given such a latitude of meaning. On the broad side, there is the interpretation offered in 1970 (and since qualified) by Vice President Gerald Ford when he was the leader among 110 Congressmen trying to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." On the narrow side, there is the argument that a President can be impeached and removed only for an indictable criminal offense.

These are the poles, but if an impeachment is to have any validity, it must surely be based on a middle ground between them. This week the lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee are scheduled to issue their opinion on what offenses are impeachable. Precisely how the report is phrased may have a great deal to do with whether the House votes to impeach President Nixon. And though the point may be heatedly debated, if history and precedent are to be the guides, it is unlikely that the Judiciary Committee's lawyers will find that the President can be impeached only for clear-cut criminal offenses. Most authorities now agree that impeachment is basically a political process, though one still closely responsive to legal precedents.

The founding fathers thought impeachment to be a "heroic medicine, an extreme remedy," as Lord Bryce later called it. They were not looking for a weapon to punish small transgressions. But what should be done if, as Benjamin Franklin asked during the Constitutional Convention, a President "rendered himself obnoxious"? To Alexander Hamilton, the most persuasive apostle of a strong Chief Executive, impeachment was the answer—the ultimate device for checking power in a democracy. In Hamilton's words, it was "a method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men," to be conducted by "the inquisitors for the nation" in Congress.

Treason and bribery, it was readily agreed during the debate on the Constitution, would be obvious grounds for impeaching a President. What else? "Abusing his power," Edmund Randolph of Virginia suggested. James Madison favored protection against "incapacity, negligence or perfidy in the chief magistrate." But when George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" to treason and bribery, Madison thought the word "so vague as to be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate." Borrowing a catchall phrase from English usage, Mason thereupon substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors." Without debate, this curious phrase, which has bedeviled political discourse ever since, became part of the Constitution......

.....(2 of 5)

The phrase may be vague, but it is not meaningless and has a long history behind it. The English Parliament, struggling through the centuries against arbitrary Kings (who were, of course, immune from impeachment), used the charge to get at unsatisfactory advisers for offenses both criminal and noncriminal; significantly, the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors does not derive from normal English criminal law. Thus, Parliament impeached various magistrates for misleading their Sovereign, a Lord Chancellor for putting the seal of trust to an ignominious treaty, an admiral for neglecting the safeguard of the sea, and others for appointing bad men to office, taking bribes, purchasing jobs, subverting the fundamental laws, delaying justice. When the Americans adopted the impeachment process, they made it plain that impeachment was designed to cleanse an office, and not to impose punishment. Impeachment, wrote Justice Joseph Story in a famous commentary, is "a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors." Charles Evans Hughes, writing in 1928, agreed that "according to the weight of opinion, impeachable offenses include, not merely acts that are indictable, but serious misbehavior." The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, in a cogent committee study issued last month, is the latest to conclude that "acts that undermine the integrity of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they happen to constitute offenses under the general criminal law." .....

.....Former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, in a variation on the Ford formulation, once cynically defined the politics of impeachment: "You don't need facts. You don't need evidence. All you need is votes." Nixon must hope that Congress will not take the advice of his former chief legal officer.....

If the points in the preceding article are still relevant, I believe that Mr. Bush is not just daring congress to impeach him, by his actions, he is begging for it to happen......

It is a mistake to believe that the senate must ratify the SSI agreement with Mexico. If the congress does not specifically move to rescind president Bush's approval, the agreement goes into effect. The SSI's own estimate shows that it would save Americans working in Mexico, $30 million per year, and cost SSI $105 million per year !

Quote:

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/facts...SandMexico.htm
UNITED STATES/MEXICO TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT
June 2004

......An agreement with Mexico

*

An agreement with Mexico would save U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first 5 years of the agreement.
*

An agreement would also fill the gaps in benefit protection for U.S. workers who have worked in both countries, but not long enough in one or both countries to qualify for benefits.....

.....Costs of an agreement with Mexico

*

Social Security actuaries estimate that a totalization agreement with Mexico would have a negligible long-range effect on the Trust Funds.
*

Costs to the U.S. Social Security system are estimated to average about $105 million per year over the first five years. These costs are for additional benefits to eligible U.S. and Mexican workers and reduced Social Security tax contributions under the dual taxation exemption.
*

To put this in perspective, in 2002, costs to the U.S. system for the existing agreement with Canada were about $197 million.

Effective date of an agreement with Mexico

*

In the United States, once the agreement is signed, the President will submit the agreement to Congress where it must sit in review for 60 session days. If Congress takes no action during this time, the agreement can move forward....

In 1999, the reported population of Kosovo was between 1.9 and 2.4 million. the US sent a force of 40,000 troops there to restore and maintain security. To be equally effective, the equivalent number of troops needed in Iraq to deal with a more challenging insurgency would be over 400,000.....

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...005/46471.htm+
population+of+kosovo+40,000+us+troops&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
Kosovo: Current and Future Status

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Statement before the House Committee on International Relations
Washington, DC
May 18, 2005

....The UN and NATO remain committed to the tasks we assumed in 1999, under UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Today, the very able and effective Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) Soren Jessen-Petersen of Denmark leads the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). An equally able retired American Foreign Service Officer, Ambassador Larry Rossin, assists as his principal deputy. The troops of NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) have drawn down over time as the security situation has improved. From a peak of 40,000 troops in late 1999, today KFOR has around 18,000 troops on the ground, from 34 countries, who ensure a safe and secure environment for all of Kosovo’s ethnic groups. From an original deployment of nearly 15,000

U.S. troops, today roughly 1800 Americans serve as an essential part of KFOR. President Bush has made clear that having gone in to Kosovo with our Allies, we will stay there with them until the job is done. We seek, of course, to hasten the day when peace is self-sustaining and our troops can come home.......

www.rep.org is a republican grassroots environmental protection and conservation organization, check out their website and their report on environmental issues voting scores assigned to republican members of congress.

Quote:

http://www.rep.org/opinions/pressrel...ase1-9-07.html

Bristol Bay Drilling Endangers World-Class Fishery
January 9, 2007

Contacts: Jim DiPeso, (253) 740-2066; David Jenkins, (703) 785-9570

Anyone who values fine seafood, fiscal responsibility, and a rational energy policy should be alarmed at the administration's lifting of an oil and gas drilling prohibition in Alaska's Bristol Bay, Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national grassroots organization that includes elected officials as members, said today.

The administration's action, which lifted a presidential drilling moratorium that was not scheduled to expire until 2012, clears the way for including Bristol Bay leasing in the Interior Department's offshore oil and gas program that will be released this spring.

"Every American who enjoys high quality seafood ought to be outraged at this latest oil and gas industry giveaway," said REP Government Affairs Director David Jenkins. "If I were the owner of a seafood restaurant I would be very nervous right now."

Bristol Bay is one of the world's most productive marine ecosystems. Its clean, cold waters produce some of the highest quality, wild-caught seafood in the world - sockeye and Chinook salmon, king crab, cod and halibut - which support the local fishing economy and supply grocery stores and fine dining establishments across the nation.

"To put all of that natural bounty and economic activity at risk is not only reckless, it defies logic," Jenkins said.

Opening Bristol Bay to oil and gas drilling would amount to throwing away the $95 million that the federal government spent to buy back leases that had been issued in the late 1980s.

Opening Bristol Bay to drilling raises doubts about the administration's stated commitment to ending the nation's oil addiction.

"It strains credulity for the administration to talk about ending America's oil addiction and then endanger one of America's richest fishing grounds for 10 days worth of oil and three months worth of gas," REP Policy Director Jim DiPeso said.

REP called for swift bipartisan action in Congress to protect Bristol Bay and its abundant bounty by reinstating a congressional oil and gas drilling moratorium that expired in 2003.

True energy security for America will be found through greater fuel efficiency and diversifying the nation's energy choices, not in the pristine waters of Bristol Bay, DiPeso said.

The situation is not as simple as Mr. Bush rescinding restrictions put in place by former president Clinton. The "door" was opened by the influence of lobbyists on the 2003 republican majority in congress. President Bush is making the unsound financial and environmental decision, to support the 2003 effect on congress of a campaign waged by oil and gas industry lobbyists.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: December 4, 2006

....Last summer the Interior Department recommended reopening several areas of the outer continental shelf, including the southern part of Bristol Bay, which lies just north of where the Aleutian Islands meet the Alaskan mainland, to energy exploration. ,The report said that 14 oil and gas companies had supported the idea. The department has estimated that such a move could create up to 11,500 jobs, part of what it describes as “net benefits” of $7.7 billion.

In a letter to President Bush on Friday, a coalition of environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, citing the impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, called the bay “an economically critical salmon fishery,” adding that “it provides essential habitat for the endangered northern right whale.”......

......When Congress, acting at the urging of Alaska’s senior senator, Ted Stevens, a Republican, rescinded its protections for Bristol Bay in 2003, the area remained protected by earlier presidential decisions, first by President George Bush in 1991 and then, in 1998, by President Bill Clinton, who put the area off-limits to energy leasing until 2012.

There has been widespread speculation among environmental groups and fishing industry representatives that President Bush would end the moratorium during the lame-duck session of Congress, allowing the Interior Department to proceed with its plans to market oil and gas leases in the southern section of the bay, along the north coast of the Aleutian Islands.

The Associated Press reported over the weekend that the administration was considering ending the moratorium, a report that was confirmed by a White House spokeswoman, Emily Lawrimore. She would not comment on the merits of the debate but said the president was considering whether to end the leasing moratorium........

....update ! This just in:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ews+%2F+Nation
Details of Bush's new Iraq strategy

By The Associated Press | January 10, 2007

Details of President Bush's new strategy for Iraq, as outlined by White House officials on Wednesday:

U.S. TROOP INCREASE

-- Bush will commit 17,500 additional U.S. combat troops, the equivalent of five combat brigades, to Baghdad. The first brigade is to arrive Jan. 15; the next on Feb. 15; the remainder in separate waves every 30 days.

-- Bush will commit 4,000 more Marines, in two waves, to Anbar, a province that is a base of the mostly Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.

-- The president's upcoming supplemental budget request will include $5.6 billion to pay for his new commitment of troops.

-- Expand embedding of U.S. advisers into Iraqi security forces....

aceventura3 · 01-10-2007, 11:57 AM

No doubt he is daring Congress to impeach him. He (and I) don't think Democrats in Congress have the balls (or overies) to take such an action. It would take some conviction, a strong belief in right and wrong to proceed with impeachment . It is difficult to even find more than a few Democrats in congress who even agrees with votes he/she has taken.

powerclown · 01-10-2007, 12:20 PM

No impeachment. If Bush is the war president, its only because he had a war congress. From what I understand, the surge represents a change of tactics that I'd like to see play out. Focus on protecting civilians and wiping out militias. If this surge doesn't work, I want to see a large reduction of American troops (bases maintained), because after 4 years, there is apparently no will or plan to destroy the militias.

pan6467 · 01-10-2007, 12:26 PM

This goes with the whole "He called the party by the wrong name, he took off the "ic"." If all the Dems are going to do is cry and threaten impeachment their run of power in Congress will last all of 2 years and there won't be a chance in '08 for a Dem President.

You keep badmouthing Bush and throwing BS out.... people will start feeling sorry for the man and he'll get that underdog groundswell support and the Dems will look like hate filled power hungry idiots.

The President weilds no more power than Congress allows him to. With Dems controlling Congress, each and every one of those 3 actions can be revoked by the Dems, now or in '08.

Unless the Dems can get a groundswell going and get the majority of Americans behind ANY action against the President, the mere mention and ideas like these... will do nothing but piss off moderate Dems like me, and the GOP base to where again, I reiterate THE DEMS WILL LOSE EVERYTHING AGAIN IN '08................

Let Bush fry the GOP. Let him take them down. You vote no on the issues the GOP votes yes, You make a platform that goes with the majority that betters this country and let Bush Veto and the GOP badmouth and throw hate and negatives all over and in '08 when the results come back and they show who was right.... you then say, "see we have a plan and it will work, the GOP kept backing this lame duck and look where he led us."

Show me how you are going to better this country.... don't show me this hate bullshit on how you want to keep partisan hatred at all time highs and get nothing done but hate filled agendas.

The GOP can do that much better, much more efficiently and at least as they put the knife in they don't smile and say, "We're doing this because we love you, but you're just too stupid to understand so we have to do this."

The GOP just say, "Fuck yas all, the people with the money want this and hey, we're in power."

cj2112 · 01-10-2007, 12:33 PM

While I consider myself to be slightly right of center, I completely agree with Pan on this issue.

host · 01-10-2007, 12:53 PM

cj2112 and pan....you can criticize my political sentiments, but as far as the "ic" thread, I think that I supported my argument that it was not possible to take the "day after" conciliatory tone of president Bush, seriously, since he went out of his way to use the knowingly insulting reference to the democratic leadership that insinuates that they are not "democratic", and must be called "democrat".
I pointed out that renaming the party, and constantly using the renamed description in speeches, indicated zealot level, extreme partisanship.

In this thread I have offered support to describe the damage already done, as well as the potential, if left unchecked for the next two years, for Bush to do much more damage, not the least of which is setting up the needless and avoidable deaths and permanent injuries to more of our troops. I've cited the precedents for impeachment.

I would like you to consider that my posts are reliably documented with "in depth" support that would make it difficult to argue that my posts are "shrill".
Can the two of you describe your posts and arguments as balancing to the ones I've made, because I don't see that they are.....

pan6467 · 01-10-2007, 01:19 PM

That's the thing Host... Politics and how people vote are controlled more by emotion than fact.

What you presented may in fact be, BUT you must convince the majority that it is fact and not hate mongering. You need to appeal to the emotions.... reason and politics do not go hand in hand and never will. If that were the case we would have a perfect nation and the parties would do what is best and totally get things done... doesn't happen that way because of emotions and ideals and values.

If this is what the Dem leadership is going to be like.... ya lost me and I have voted for 2 Republicans my entire life... but if the Dems aren't going to show me how they plan to better this country, if all the Dems are going to do is piss and moan and go after Bush..... then I'm done with them... I'd rather live in BushCo than to see a party so full of hate they refuse to even try to better the USA.

dc_dux · 01-10-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Bad decisions don't constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, not even the staggering volume of staggeringly bad decisions this president has made.

You want to talk impeachable offenses, you have to get into the civil liberties erosion, the destruction of constitutional rights, and the lies used to get into Iraq. I think any of those could be the foundation of a writ of impeachment.

Whether it would be politically wise for the new Congress to do such a thing is another question entirely, of course. I don't expect we'll see him impeached. I do expect we'll see him go down as the biggest nose-dive the presidency has ever seen.

I agree with Rat for the most part....incompetence, dishonesty (lying to the American people, but not under oath) and ideological extremism are not grounds for impeachment.

The Dems can correct many of the actions through legislative solutions and by exposing the lies about Iraq, and at the same time, raise the public trust in Congress

The issues of the excessive use of Executive power through signing statements and the erosion of Constitutional privacy rights and civil liberties by defending it as part of his "war powers" to fight terrorism are far more serious and precedent-setting in the long term and should be initially addressed through open and comprehensive Congressional hearings so the American people truly understand what is at stake. Constitutional scholars are spilt on both these issues and impeachment should be the last resort and based on the rule of law and not ideological or partisan emotions.

If the Dems in Congress preceed in a manner that shows greater respect for the Constitution (as it relates to security needs) and responds to the aspirations of the American people (regarding social issues, energy/environment, economic disparities, fiscal discipline) than I believe Bush and the former Repub Congress have, they will continue to have the support of the people, particularly the growing number of those independents in the middle of the political spectrum.

djtestudo · 01-10-2007, 06:02 PM

No laws have been broken.

host · 01-11-2007, 03:07 AM

Here is some of what I have been reading....and taken together, it is, IMO, a highly probable "round up" of what we have to "look forward to", and why.

I predict that it won't be long until you are wondering, "what was I (and congress....) thinking", by not considering impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, as a credible remedy and a way to change to a saner, safer, constructive foreign policy and a constitutionally restorative course, on January 11, 2007....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...urce=whitelist
Shuttle without diplomacy

After signaling support for James Baker's Iraq proposals, Condi caved and stood faithfully by the president's failing policies -- assuring her irrelevance, and that of the State Department.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Jan. 10, 2007 | James Baker, the consummate Republican political operator over the past 30 years, did not expect that President Bush would accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group he co-chaired simply on its merits. Baker's hidden political hand was unrevealed in the report's dire analysis or in its urgent suggestions for diplomacy or force redeployment. Baker summoned as witnesses the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military commanders in Iraq past and present (including the recently named commander there, Gen. David Petraeus) and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair. But he understood that enlisting all of these formidable figures was insufficient. Baker privately negotiated with Bush, but he did not rest solely on his own powers of persuasion to convince the president, as the report put it, that the "situation is grave and deteriorating" and his policies are "not working."

Ultimately, Baker's political strategy counted on the decisive intervention of one person in the president's closed inner circle -- who sees him alone and could not be kept from him, and on whom he has become dependent for support and trusts implicitly -- to deliver the bad news that continuing those policies would only deepen the disaster and explain that he had no way out except to change course......

Quote:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001861.php

Woodward Book Underestimates Cheney's Influence

« "Surging" is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance | Main | Evaluating the President's Iraq Escalation Proposal »

January 07, 2007
Woodward Book Underestimates Cheney's Influence

While the book exposed a lot of the systemic rot in the Bush administration's Iraq-related decision-making process, there were several things wrong with Bob Woodward's State of Denial.

To discuss one of these, Woodward was duped about the diminishing power of Vice President Cheney and his team. Woodward clearly spent a lot of time with Defense, State, and intelligence officials, but he failed to see the forest for the trees in his analysis of who was driving and influencing America's national security portfolio.

Clearly, the President is important and calls a lot of the shots, but the key question that Woodward never gets to is who really controls the national security bureaucracy. As former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson so clearly put it on October 16, 2005, a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" hijacked the national security decision-making process. Woodward puts most of the responsibility for failure on Rumsfeld with a weak President and national security team too frequently acquiescing to Rumsfeld's outrageous behavior.

But what Woodward completely misses is that Dick Cheney is the only figure in this presidential administration who has followers -- or what one might otherwise call disciples and acolytes.

The President has no followers -- or very few. They just don't know what his "world view" is. Some are loyal to the persona of George W. Bush, but that is different than knowing what the President would think about some policy or situation. Rice has few followers in the administration. Hadley none. Rumsfeld was despised, and his brilliant "snowflake" strategy helped keep everyone on edge and also helped him evade accountability at every turn. Such types don't generate "followings."

George Tenet, John Negroponte, and others in the intelligence community never cultivated a crowd dedicated to institutionalizing and pursuing their policy prerogatives.

The closest anyone came to challenging Cheney's many followers was Colin Powell who with Richard Armitage and Lawrence Wilkerson at his side tried to breed "sensibility" and "caution" among those who made national security policy -- but at the end of the day, Powell and his team tended to matter when they were in the room and didn't matter when they weren't. Any followers he had dissipated with his departure from the Bush administration.

But Cheney's followers populate the entire national security bureaucracy. He has allies, spies, and fellow travelers in State, Defense, the CIA, the NSA, the DNI, the DIA, all of the uniformed services, and throughout the government. They know his world view and don't need instructions on what to do or what he might think. They know it. They know he wants a war with Iran -- and his team of followers are doing what they can to move us in that direction.....

Quote:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/In...hose_0108.html
Officials believe White House chose new Intelligence chief in effort to darken Iran Intelligence Estimate, broaden domestic surveillance
01/08/2007 @ 1:27 pm
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna

Nominee's company audited SWIFT banking spy program

The nomination of retired Vice Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell to be Director of National Intelligence is part of an effort by the Vice President to tighten the Administration’s grip on domestic intelligence and grease the wheels for a more aggressive stance towards Iran, current and former intelligence officials believe.

If confirmed, McConnell will replace current National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who was tapped Friday to become Deputy Secretary of State under Secretary Condoleezza Rice. According to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, Negroponte’s exit followed a lengthy internal administration battle between the Office of the Vice President and the two-year-old Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

According to officials close to both men, two issues surround Negroponte’s departure and McConnell’s nomination: a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iran – which the White House could use to buttress a case for military force – and pressure from the Vice President to augment domestic surveillance.

Negroponte had resisted both efforts. Tensions soared after Negroponte made a public statement last year that countered the administration position that Iran was an immediate threat and that its alleged nuclear weapons program was in an advanced stage.

“The NIE on Iran is at issue,” said one former senior intelligence officer close to Negroponte.......

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 08:54 AM

The whole Iraq thing was not a mistake. The word 'mistake' suggests that Bush made an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc. The thing is, he ignored intel that suggested he was wrong. That's willful. While one could call it careless, it's hardly a mistake. At the very least, he was in denial...but that's really a horrible thing for a President to be. It's neglecful of his duties to protect the population, and the military. There is proof that the invasion of Iraq was planned for years in advance (PNAC), the World Tribunal on Iraq declared the Bush Administration guilty of starting a War of Aggression, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, there is a clear revolving door process going on between military corporations and the Bush administration, and the idiot now wants to send over 20,000 troops...not even making up for the troops injured or killed. He should be impeached, and so should many others in the administration. Pelosi would do fine until the 2008 election.

Edit: just one of the three reasons listed above warrants investigation. None have been investigated. The president is above the law until the people hold him responsible. Remember Nixon? Stand up and shout, people. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

Jinn · 01-11-2007, 09:12 AM

There's a major flaw with your poll.

The poll asks: "If President Bush Does the 3 Things Described, Is he daring Congress to Impeach Him?", yet both of your possible responses speak to validity and justification, not "daring."

If I select No, am I saying that "No, I don't think he is daring Congress", or "No I don't think it's enough justification to impeach him" ? It is ambiguous.

Further still, if I select Yes, am I saying that "Yes, I think he is daring Congress" or "Yes, I think this is enough to impeach him."

I think that yes, he is daring Congress, and no, this isn't an impeachable offense. If bad policy decisions were enough for impeachment, we'd have a lot more impeached Presidents. Do I think it would be a poor decision, and do I think that Bush HAS made impeachable offenses? Yes. But this alone isn't enough.

P.S. I agree with you in concept 90% of the time, but you've got to tone down the "impeach bush" argument, or you'll never swing the other 50% over to your side with such dramatic assumptions. People have a hard time agreeing with a person with such bloodlust, regardless of which side they're on.

ericdubay · 08-08-2007, 10:22 PM

Bush's Plan to Bankrupt Social Security

The Social Security system has been a safety net for the middle class since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Now, President George W. Bush is trying to burden it with incredible costs by giving millions of illegal aliens Social Security benefits to which they are not entitled. This so-called "Totalization" plan would bankrupt the system just as our baby-boom generation retires. A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned that the cost to U.S. taxpayers is likely to be vastly higher than official estimates.

Bush made this secret plan with Mexico in June 2004, and we know about it now because of a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by TREA Senior Citizens League, a million-member seniors advocacy group.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) have introduced a bill to require Totalization agreements to be treated like bilateral trade agreements, and go into effect only if affirmatively passed by both Houses of Congress. Unless this bill passes, the Totalization agreement will automatically become law without congressional action.

Totalization is part and parcel of the Council on Foreign Relations five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." The 59-page CFR document (which can claim Bush Administration approval because it is posted on a U.S. State Department website) demands that we "implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico."

Totalization would allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to collect U.S. benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social Security numbers plus virtual earnings in Mexico. American citizens must work ten years to be eligible for Social Security benefits, but the Totalization agreement would allow Mexicans to qualify with only 18 months of work in the United States, and pretend to make up the difference by assuming work and tax payments in Mexico.

The United States has totalization agreements with 21 other countries in order to assure a pension to those few individuals who work in two countries (legally, of course) by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with industrialized nations whose retirement systems are on a parity with ours.

Mexican retirement benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits. Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.

Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which covers only 40% of the workforce. Most of the Mexicans who illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, where they were unemployed, or worked in the off-the-record economy, or worked for employers who did not pay taxes into a retirement system.

The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits for themselves, as well as for their spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.

Learn about the North American Union: www.amerocurrency.com

guyy · 08-09-2007, 06:38 AM

Hmm... So you're saying Bush wants to give money to poor people.

Was that a colonoscopy or a brain transplant he had last month?

host · 08-09-2007, 09:49 AM

seven months ago, we did a thread here on this same subject:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=1

View Poll Results: If President Bush Does the 3 Things Described, Is he daring Congress to Impeach Him?
No,the 3 things described in the OP, do not justify impeachment.	9	69.23%
Yes, Impeach Bush if he adds the troop surge and the Mexican SSI deal to the Bristol Bay order.	4	30.77%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

01-10-2007, 05:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	1) Like it or not, if Clinton had the ability to block development in Alaska, Bush as the ability to remove that block. He's broken no laws by doing so. It may be a bad idea (as I happen to think), but it's certainly not against the law for him to allow the drilling. 2) The Senate has to ratify all treaties, and there's no guarantee that this will pass. After NAFTA, they've been very hesitant to ratify any new treaties. Presidential approval will not turn this into law. The US signed the Kyoto Acords, and that was never ratified by the Senate. If the Senate doesn't ratify, it's just failed foreign policy. 3) No President has every been impeached for the manner in which a war has been prosecuted. I doubt anyone in the Senate will have the balls to even suggest that Bush is ultimately at fault for any failures on the ground, and personally I have doubts that the responsibility for those failures lies in the White House. I see it as more of a command-on-the-ground failure, but that's just my opinion. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo Last edited by The_Jazz; 01-10-2007 at 05:50 AM..

01-10-2007, 11:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	No doubt he is daring Congress to impeach him. He (and I) don't think Democrats in Congress have the balls (or overies) to take such an action. It would take some conviction, a strong belief in right and wrong to proceed with impeachment . It is difficult to even find more than a few Democrats in congress who even agrees with votes he/she has taken. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-10-2007, 12:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	This goes with the whole "He called the party by the wrong name, he took off the "ic"." If all the Dems are going to do is cry and threaten impeachment their run of power in Congress will last all of 2 years and there won't be a chance in '08 for a Dem President. You keep badmouthing Bush and throwing BS out.... people will start feeling sorry for the man and he'll get that underdog groundswell support and the Dems will look like hate filled power hungry idiots. The President weilds no more power than Congress allows him to. With Dems controlling Congress, each and every one of those 3 actions can be revoked by the Dems, now or in '08. Unless the Dems can get a groundswell going and get the majority of Americans behind ANY action against the President, the mere mention and ideas like these... will do nothing but piss off moderate Dems like me, and the GOP base to where again, I reiterate THE DEMS WILL LOSE EVERYTHING AGAIN IN '08................ Let Bush fry the GOP. Let him take them down. You vote no on the issues the GOP votes yes, You make a platform that goes with the majority that betters this country and let Bush Veto and the GOP badmouth and throw hate and negatives all over and in '08 when the results come back and they show who was right.... you then say, "see we have a plan and it will work, the GOP kept backing this lame duck and look where he led us." Show me how you are going to better this country.... don't show me this hate bullshit on how you want to keep partisan hatred at all time highs and get nothing done but hate filled agendas. The GOP can do that much better, much more efficiently and at least as they put the knife in they don't smile and say, "We're doing this because we love you, but you're just too stupid to understand so we have to do this." The GOP just say, "Fuck yas all, the people with the money want this and hey, we're in power." __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 01-10-2007 at 12:33 PM..

01-10-2007, 01:19 PM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	That's the thing Host... Politics and how people vote are controlled more by emotion than fact. What you presented may in fact be, BUT you must convince the majority that it is fact and not hate mongering. You need to appeal to the emotions.... reason and politics do not go hand in hand and never will. If that were the case we would have a perfect nation and the parties would do what is best and totally get things done... doesn't happen that way because of emotions and ideals and values. If this is what the Dem leadership is going to be like.... ya lost me and I have voted for 2 Republicans my entire life... but if the Dems aren't going to show me how they plan to better this country, if all the Dems are going to do is piss and moan and go after Bush..... then I'm done with them... I'd rather live in BushCo than to see a party so full of hate they refuse to even try to better the USA. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-10-2007, 08:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Bad decisions don't constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, not even the staggering volume of staggeringly bad decisions this president has made. You want to talk impeachable offenses, you have to get into the civil liberties erosion, the destruction of constitutional rights, and the lies used to get into Iraq. I think any of those could be the foundation of a writ of impeachment. Whether it would be politically wise for the new Congress to do such a thing is another question entirely, of course. I don't expect we'll see him impeached. I do expect we'll see him go down as the biggest nose-dive the presidency has ever seen.

01-10-2007, 12:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	No impeachment. If Bush is the war president, its only because he had a war congress. From what I understand, the surge represents a change of tactics that I'd like to see play out. Focus on protecting civilians and wiping out militias. If this surge doesn't work, I want to see a large reduction of American troops (bases maintained), because after 4 years, there is apparently no will or plan to destroy the militias.

01-10-2007, 12:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	While I consider myself to be slightly right of center, I completely agree with Pan on this issue.

01-10-2007, 12:53 PM	#9 (permalink)
host Banned	cj2112 and pan....you can criticize my political sentiments, but as far as the "ic" thread, I think that I supported my argument that it was not possible to take the "day after" conciliatory tone of president Bush, seriously, since he went out of his way to use the knowingly insulting reference to the democratic leadership that insinuates that they are not "democratic", and must be called "democrat". I pointed out that renaming the party, and constantly using the renamed description in speeches, indicated zealot level, extreme partisanship. In this thread I have offered support to describe the damage already done, as well as the potential, if left unchecked for the next two years, for Bush to do much more damage, not the least of which is setting up the needless and avoidable deaths and permanent injuries to more of our troops. I've cited the precedents for impeachment. I would like you to consider that my posts are reliably documented with "in depth" support that would make it difficult to argue that my posts are "shrill". Can the two of you describe your posts and arguments as balancing to the ones I've made, because I don't see that they are.....

01-10-2007, 06:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	No laws have been broken. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

01-11-2007, 08:54 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The whole Iraq thing was not a mistake. The word 'mistake' suggests that Bush made an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc. The thing is, he ignored intel that suggested he was wrong. That's willful. While one could call it careless, it's hardly a mistake. At the very least, he was in denial...but that's really a horrible thing for a President to be. It's neglecful of his duties to protect the population, and the military. There is proof that the invasion of Iraq was planned for years in advance (PNAC), the World Tribunal on Iraq declared the Bush Administration guilty of starting a War of Aggression, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, there is a clear revolving door process going on between military corporations and the Bush administration, and the idiot now wants to send over 20,000 troops...not even making up for the troops injured or killed. He should be impeached, and so should many others in the administration. Pelosi would do fine until the 2008 election. Edit: just one of the three reasons listed above warrants investigation. None have been investigated. The president is above the law until the people hold him responsible. Remember Nixon? Stand up and shout, people. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Last edited by Willravel; 01-11-2007 at 09:07 AM..

01-11-2007, 09:12 AM	#15 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	There's a major flaw with your poll. The poll asks: "If President Bush Does the 3 Things Described, Is he daring Congress to Impeach Him?", yet both of your possible responses speak to validity and justification, not "daring." If I select No, am I saying that "No, I don't think he is daring Congress", or "No I don't think it's enough justification to impeach him" ? It is ambiguous. Further still, if I select Yes, am I saying that "Yes, I think he is daring Congress" or "Yes, I think this is enough to impeach him." I think that yes, he is daring Congress, and no, this isn't an impeachable offense. If bad policy decisions were enough for impeachment, we'd have a lot more impeached Presidents. Do I think it would be a poor decision, and do I think that Bush HAS made impeachable offenses? Yes. But this alone isn't enough. P.S. I agree with you in concept 90% of the time, but you've got to tone down the "impeach bush" argument, or you'll never swing the other 50% over to your side with such dramatic assumptions. People have a hard time agreeing with a person with such bloodlust, regardless of which side they're on. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-08-2007, 10:22 PM	#16 (permalink)
ericdubay Upright	Bush's Plan to Bankrupt Social Security Bush's Plan to Bankrupt Social Security The Social Security system has been a safety net for the middle class since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Now, President George W. Bush is trying to burden it with incredible costs by giving millions of illegal aliens Social Security benefits to which they are not entitled. This so-called "Totalization" plan would bankrupt the system just as our baby-boom generation retires. A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned that the cost to U.S. taxpayers is likely to be vastly higher than official estimates. Bush made this secret plan with Mexico in June 2004, and we know about it now because of a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by TREA Senior Citizens League, a million-member seniors advocacy group. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) have introduced a bill to require Totalization agreements to be treated like bilateral trade agreements, and go into effect only if affirmatively passed by both Houses of Congress. Unless this bill passes, the Totalization agreement will automatically become law without congressional action. Totalization is part and parcel of the Council on Foreign Relations five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." The 59-page CFR document (which can claim Bush Administration approval because it is posted on a U.S. State Department website) demands that we "implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." Totalization would allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to collect U.S. benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social Security numbers plus virtual earnings in Mexico. American citizens must work ten years to be eligible for Social Security benefits, but the Totalization agreement would allow Mexicans to qualify with only 18 months of work in the United States, and pretend to make up the difference by assuming work and tax payments in Mexico. The United States has totalization agreements with 21 other countries in order to assure a pension to those few individuals who work in two countries (legally, of course) by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with industrialized nations whose retirement systems are on a parity with ours. Mexican retirement benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits. Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed. Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which covers only 40% of the workforce. Most of the Mexicans who illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, where they were unemployed, or worked in the off-the-record economy, or worked for employers who did not pay taxes into a retirement system. The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits for themselves, as well as for their spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States. Learn about the North American Union: www.amerocurrency.com

08-09-2007, 06:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	Hmm... So you're saying Bush wants to give money to poor people. Was that a colonoscopy or a brain transplant he had last month?

08-09-2007, 09:49 AM	#18 (permalink)
host Banned	seven months ago, we did a thread here on this same subject: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=1