Nope - can only impeach, and unfortunately stupidity

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I did not say the article said impeach..I SAID IMPEACH..It is my opinion that if the republicans can try to impeach a wonderful president who brought prosperity and calm to his land through the 1990s over a personal private matter, most definitely we can impeach a warmonger who has thrown us into a war that will be endless and will last for over 100 years, as one of the terror specialists has said. You see, you guys dont read or interpret what is really being said..Geez..

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, �The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Cheney and the Bush administration.�

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dik Cheney

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an AL Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

If you want to spread lies, you need to go back to the board where that happens frequently.

In the meantime, you should take this opportunity to educate your ignorant self and actually READ the article rather than inventing words that don't even exist in it.

Experts fear 'endless' terror war
Analysts say al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren�t encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of �endless� war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, �I don�t think it�s even started yet.�

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London�s bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

'Self-sustaining' jihad
Now, he said, �we�re at the point where jihad is self-sustaining,� where Islamic �holy warriors� in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida�s bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Thursday�s attacks on London�s transit system mirrored last year�s bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration � but little more � to local �jihadists� who carry out the strikes.

Although no arrests have been made in the London attacks, a group using al-Qaida�s name made a claim of responsibility, otherwise unconfirmed. Experts say the bombings bore hallmarks of al-Qaida.

The movement�s evolution �has given rise to a �virtual network� that is extremely adaptable,� said Jonathan Stevenson, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies� Washington office.

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to the �softer� targets of mass transit.

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, �are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century,� said the University of North Carolina�s Cynthia Combs, co-author of a terrorism encyclopedia.

Cycle of recruitment
Combs said the so-called Earth and Animal Liberation fronts in the United States are examples � if less lethal ones � of �leaderless� militant movements based on isolated cells. She also said it�s not unrealistic that another American example � far-right �militia� cells � might make common cause someday with foreign terrorists against the U.S. government.

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who fears an �endless war,� dismisses talk of al-Qaida�s �back� having been �broken� by the capture of some leaders.

�From the terrorists� point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties,� said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

What should be broken, he said, is the cycle of terrorist recruitment through the generations. �Here you come to the main challenge.�

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world�s richer powers must address �underlying causes� � lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries.

Combs cited bin Laden�s use of Afghanistan as his 1990s headquarters. �If we hadn�t been ignoring Afghanistan and instead offered real assistance, would it have become a base for bin Laden?� she asked.

'Depressing' outlook
Not all agree this is an answer. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar in the field, prescribes stoicism.

The American, British and other target publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge, said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.

�The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents,� he said.

Scheuer, who headed the CIA�s bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out � through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership�s �willful blindness� to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end �unqualified support� for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state �tyrannies.�

He acknowledged such actions aren�t likely soon, but said his longtime subject bin Laden will �make us bleed enough to get our attention.� Ultimately, he said, �his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies.�

For James Kirkhope, the outlook is �depressing.�

His Washington consultancy, Terrorism Research Center, sometimes �red-teams� for U.S. authorities, playing a role in exercises, thinking like terrorist leaders. That thinking increasingly seems focused on a struggle for Islamic supremacy lasting hundreds of years, he said.

And for the moment they just �want to be kept on our radar screen,� Kirkhope said. For all the terror and carnage, he said, last week�s London attacks carried a simple message: �We�re still around.�

I insinuated that that is how we have evolved, into 2 main separate parties. No, I don't think we have to have 2 parties. One would be fine so long as decisions that are made are made in the best interest of the people. That's one thing I like about Obama, his willingness to work with the other side, regardless of whether or not they return the favor. However, quite frankly, the republican side of the equation is not doing very well. They have managed to stampede all over the constitution (founding father stuff, btw), take away rights, left us with a deficit when they started with a surplus (while they are calling us the spending party), and completely destroyed any credibility we had worldwide. What I see in the democratic party IS common sense.

The couple that just had the union would also have the same opportunity to practice whatever ceremony that applied to them, and just like the christians, would not be recognized legally without a union.

Look at it like this (and this is probably a bad analogy, but I'll try it anyway): Everyone has to go to high school (unions), but if they want to go that extra mile to excell they go to college (practice whatever religious beliefs).

And before you guys start, yes, I do know that not everyone goes to high school.

Most, if not all, of YOUR posts are incredibly tasteless, in addition to being rude, crude, offensive and frequently untrue. Yet, NO liberal has accused you of saying they aren't allowed to speak.

Are you agreeing that the poster lied in saying that Army Mom was told she wasn't allowed to speak?

as long as libs wan't to dig up dirt we'll continue throwing the mud you throw from your huge pig stye right back at ya...