Vermont pushes bid to impeach Bush

[Koios]

"The senate in the northeastern US state of Vermont passed a resolution Friday calling on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush, senate officials said.

The largely symbolic move, which stands little chance of going much further, was approved by 16 votes to nine and followed a public rally this week in the state capital Montpelier calling for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to go."

[Source] (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Vermont_pushes_bid_to_impeach_Bush_04202007.html)

[Dave]

"Largely Symbolic?" Try completely symbolic. Doesn't a state legislature have anything better to do with its time than sit around holding mock votes that don't carry any weight? They must be coming up on an election year.

[n0spam4me]

Please see DIY Impeachment
on the web, Congress has been working very hard at ignoring the FACT that George W. Bush is very impeachable and there are a lot of voters and taxpayers who want JUSTICE. Nixon was able to resign and get the VP to pardon him, this time around I'd like to see the crooks have to serve jail time for their crimes.

[vyo476]

If this measure ever managed anything (and here in reality it won't) we'd wind up with President Nancy Pelosi.

Now that's something to wrap your brain around.

[TheWaffle]

Please see DIY Impeachment
on the web, Congress has been working very hard at ignoring the FACT that George W. Bush is very impeachable and there are a lot of voters and taxpayers who want JUSTICE. Nixon was able to resign and get the VP to pardon him, this time around I'd like to see the crooks have to serve jail time for their crimes.

Are you serious? I'm sorry but to imply that Bush should be impeached is completely ridiculous. It steals away credibility from criticisms against him. And most importantly we want a functioning nation. Not only does it look like revenge for Clinton's impeachment but it sets a dangerous precedent where we start impeaching every president who's party is different from the Congress. You should not try to impeach someone simply because you don't agree with their actions.

Also establishing this idea that impeachment something to be taken lightly poses a dangerous threat to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. And as much as I don't approve of Bush's tactics I can't say that I would rather have this load of political oppurtunists we have in office calling the shots.

Most of the complaints that are levied against Bush regard actions they believe to be unwise but the majority are in no way illegal. The only truly illegal and dangerous action in my opinion was the release of the CIA agent's name. It was a digusting act of political suppression. Most of the administrations questionable actions (such as that one and Guantanamo Bay detentions) cause self-inflicted wounds that hurt them more than they help.

Our country cannot go through another impeachment scandal. Clinton's impeachment started this awful seperation between the parties in this nation and I don't want to see that worsen.

[marilynj55]

Are you serious? I'm sorry but to imply that Bush should be impeached is completely ridiculous. It steals away credibility from criticisms against him. And most importantly we want a functioning nation. Not only does it look like revenge for Clinton's impeachment but it sets a dangerous precedent where we start impeaching every president who's party is different from the Congress. You should not try to impeach someone simply because you don't agree with their actions.

Also establishing this idea that impeachment something to be taken lightly poses a dangerous threat to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. And as much as I don't approve of Bush's tactics I can't say that I would rather have this load of political oppurtunists we have in office calling the shots.

Most of the complaints that are levied against Bush regard actions they believe to be unwise but the majority are in no way illegal. The only truly illegal and dangerous action in my opinion was the release of the CIA agent's name. It was a digusting act of political suppression. Most of the administrations questionable actions (such as that one and Guantanamo Bay detentions) cause self-inflicted wounds that hurt them more than they help.

Our country cannot go through another impeachment scandal. Clinton's impeachment started this awful seperation between the parties in this nation and I don't want to see that worsen.


You say the majority of Bush's actions are in no way illegal. This is incorrect.

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.

2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.

3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.

4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.

5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.

7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.

8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.

9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.

10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.

11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.

12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.

13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.

14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.

Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Clinton's "crimes" are NOTHING compared to what this criminal Bush has done to our country!

[Dave]

Marilyn, half of what you posted is debatable, what isn't debatable isn't illegal and doesn't come close to meating the requirement for impeachment.

Waffle, as for the CIA leak, we're force to get into another debate of who knew what, and when, but I don't really see why the White House would need to discredit Joseph Wilson when Congress had already made a fool out of the guy when he testified before the Senate intelligence committee.

[vyo476]

Marilyn, half of what you posted is debatable, what isn't debatable isn't illegal and doesn't come close to meating the requirement for impeachment.

Waffle, as for the CIA leak, we're force to get into another debate of who knew what, and when, but I don't really see why the White House would need to discredit Joseph Wilson when Congress had already made a fool out of the guy when he testified before the Senate intelligence committee.

How many people had even heard of Joseph Wilson before the Plame scandal even happened?

[vyo476]

Well, as much as they might dislike George Bush, it looks like Dennis Kucinich dislikes Dick Cheney even more.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.+Res.+333:

[God]

Bush doesn't even like me, deep in his heart he hates me. Impeach that cockroach before I blow up the planet.

[TheWaffle]

Bush doesn't even like me, deep in his heart he hates me. Impeach that cockroach before I blow up the planet.

Jesus Christ God you're everywhere!

[God]

Jesus Christ God you're everywhere!

Tha'ts right. What did you expect?

[TheWaffle]

You say the majority of Bush's actions are in no way illegal. This is incorrect.

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.

2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.

3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.

4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.

5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.

7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.

8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.

9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.

10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.

11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.

12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.

13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.

14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.

Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Clinton's "crimes" are NOTHING compared to what this criminal Bush has done to our country!

Look dude, I'm on your side. I think that Bush is a scumbag. But I'm also saying that if you impeach him now you are doing more damage to America than it's worth. Also most of these facts, thought generally common knowledge would be almost impossible to make them stand up in court.

And many of them that used to be illegal are now not illegal because our congressmen passed the Patriot Act. Any complaint of wiretapping and the retaliation of whistle blowers can easily be discounted because the act was intentionally vague.

Other points you made are not illegal, just lacking in foresight. This sets another dangerous precident. If we started judging the actions of our government after the fact you'd have to go back and convict all of the Vietnam presidents.

Also don't completely judge all of Bush's actions until you take another look at some of our other past presidents, particularly John Kennedy. He took deliberate military action to protect the country, and while I believe Iraq posed no threat to America whereas Cuba did, there is no way of proving it and so you end up with an empty impeachment trial that looks like nothing more than a political side show. And what our congress needs to do is establish themselves as a real congress rather than one obsessed with showboating.

[GraceAustin]

"Largely Symbolic?" Try completely symbolic. Doesn't a state legislature have anything better to do with its time than sit around holding mock votes that don't carry any weight? They must be coming up on an election year.>>>>

Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. While the House has the power alone to impeach, it appears they don't have the power alone to initiate the process.

[El Jefe]

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.Er, that's not an impeachable act under US law.2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq. Ditto.3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda. 3 for 3.4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams. That would be four acts that are not grounds for impeachment under US law.5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq. Make that five. Just because you don't like something, or even if something is evil, doesn't mean you can remove a president from office because of it.6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA. Now, here you would have something, except that I suspect these illegal wiretaps all took place after passage of the Patriot Act. Now, while I believe those portions of the Patriot Act to be in violation of the US constitution, the Supreme Court has not ruled that yet. I would find impeachment under those grounds to be quite dubious...what congress would impeach a president who followed an (illegal) law that the very same congress passed?7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush. Er, examples, please? I haven't heard of any of these, and I'm somewhat sceptical that the mainstream media would suppress verifiable reports of same. I mean, what sells more newspapers than a big, juicy government scandal?8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO. I strongly suspect that when you do the research, you'll find that the signature on the contract belonged to someone at a much lower level than the president. And although this might be a dubious and even unamerican practice, (repeat after me) it isn't necessarily an impeachable offense. Blatant contract fraud would almost certainly be impeachable, but simple no-bid contracts may not be necessarily so. Like the Patriot Act, there's a good chance that there's some bad law protecting the president's butt.9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America. In order for this to be impeachable, you'll have to show that it was part of a conspiracy to preserve Osama Bin Laden's status as a viable and hated enemy. Good luck with that one.10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy. Dumb, but definitely not impeachable.11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example. Not even close to being impeachable under the constitution (and some people would like to give him a medal for this, not throw him out).12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina. Sadly, the Supreme Court is not on your side on this one. And that's just with respect to doing things with the National Guard that he's purportedly not allowed to. As to weakening the country's response to natural disasters, you'll have to show that this was deliberate. Again, good luck.13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA. Oooh, that word, unqualified. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try using the word, "incompetant". It's much more accurate. Unfortunately, that's even less impeachable.14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so. Thank God that merely proposing something constitutes an offense only in certain narrowly-defined circumstances, or else the First Amendment would effectively be dead. To say nothing of the fact that merely proposing something would only be an impeachable offense in very nearly the same narrow circumstances.Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.Um, nope, not even close, not by a country mile. Even losing a war is still not an impeachable offense, at least not by itself.

[the Left Paw]

Bush began to wage war on Iraq BEFORE getting congressional approval (illegal), and the Defence Secretary at that time refered to these bombings as, "spikes of activity.":
http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200505300013

Contrary to some previous comments, knowingly misleading the congress into a war IS a crime:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C15F73B5C0C708CDDA90994DC4044 82
Numerous sources told the administration that the yellow cake claims were untrue:
Cheney requested an investigation, and when Wilson arrived in Niger the Ambassador there said she has already told the administration it was false - and Wilson's report concluded it was extremely unlikely. George Tenet advised White House officials and the National Security Advisor that Bush should not include the yellow cake claim in his Oct. 7th speech. Former head of covert ops in Europe (a 28yr. vet of the agency) said the allegations did not hold together - he not only told White House officials that the evidence was weak but that Intel from Saddam's inner circle indicated that Iraq, "had no active weapons of mass destruction program." The Director General of the IAEA sent a letter to the White House and the NSC warning senior officials that he believes the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMD. In spite of several follow-up calls to the WH, the NSC and the State Department there was never any response to either the letter or the calls. In January of 2003 the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence reports containing the uranium claims were based on forgeries: <a href="http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/data/fordmemo.pdf">Declassified Memo</a>

AND the UN declared the documents were "obvious fakes" in March 2003:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

So don't tell me that the administration didn't KNOWINGLY mislead the public and the congress - a crime.

The <a href="http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/data/alleightdowningstreet.pdf">Downing Sreet Documents</a> are infamous because British Intelligence reported that Bush was determined to attack Iraq even though the evidence was far too thin to warrant such action, and so the "...intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." High crime to knowingly mislead the people and the congress into war, and abuse of power.

Bush failed to meet requirments laid out in the Oct 2002 approval, such as enforcing "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," and removed inspectors before they could complete their job so he could attack.

In fact, Bush said he was going to attack no matter if the UN found evidence of weapons or not and that he told Blair that, "The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,"
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

A note on another comment I'd seen here: The illegal wiretapping did indeed begin BEFORE the Patriot Act was enacted, but to my knowledge, the PA did not overturn the FISA Act anyway. Either way, the wiretapping that happened before, even long before 9/11, was indeed criminal. As is well documented in Part 2 below.

There's a four part series that lists several impeachable offences committed by Bush, all linked to everything from news reports, videos and official documents:
<a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=340571&rel_no=1&back_url=">Part 1</a>
<a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=340571&rel_no=2&back_url=">Part 2</a>
<a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=&no=340571&rel_no=3&back_url=">Part 3</a>
<a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=340571&rel_no=4">Part 4</a>


Whatever your position on impeachment, now is the time to cast your historic vote (yes or no) with the House. Speaker Pelosi's office is taking YOUR calls on the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x79062

Call her office directly at: 202-225-0100
Or use any one of these toll free Capital Hill switchboard numbers here:
1 (800) 828 - 0498 1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803 1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015 1 (877) 851 - 6437

[Dave]

The President is allowed to deploy troops abroad for a period of 90 days before Congress declares war, so those bombings were nowhere near illegal. Learn a little history.

The yellowcake documents were, at best, disputed. Some said they were real, some said they were fake. A couple of sources outside the U.S. government have even claimed that the fake documents were churned out by the Italian press and have absolutely no connection to the reports the intelligence community had been using. Secondly, you might want to use a site that you don't have to pay for if you are trying to use it in a debate. Your NY Times article can only be viewed with a subscription, and with the leftist agenda they are pushing, I'm not about to pay to hear their propaganda.

[n0spam4me]

Just my $0.02 worth on this subject,
Richard Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11/2001
and the FACT is that that the PENTAGON got hit with something.
Now if it really was "FLT77"
WHY is it that an off course commercial airliner could fly for over half an hour in airspace that is as well monitored as our eastern seaboard? Considering the fact that all of this is AFTER the second hit to the WTC!

My take on this is that either Cheney intended for the PENTAGON to get hit,
OR he is so incompetent as to be unemployable at ANYTHING.

WE_THE_PEOPLE pay taxes to support a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and on 9/11/2001 said DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FAILED to DEFEND!

I don't know about all the other taxpayers around here, but I feel like I've been SCREWED!

[Dave]

Just my $0.02 worth on this subject,
Richard Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11/2001
and the FACT is that that the PENTAGON got hit with something.
Now if it really was "FLT77"
WHY is it that an off course commercial airliner could fly for over half an hour in airspace that is as well monitored as our eastern seaboard? Considering the fact that all of this is AFTER the second hit to the WTC!

My take on this is that either Cheney intended for the PENTAGON to get hit,
OR he is so incompetent as to be unemployable at ANYTHING.

WE_THE_PEOPLE pay taxes to support a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and on 9/11/2001 said DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FAILED to DEFEND!

I don't know about all the other taxpayers around here, but I feel like I've been SCREWED!

I've explained this to you half a dozen times already, but you just don't listen. Stop trying to hijack the thread.

[n0spam4me]

Note for Dave
Do you know about H.Res.333 ?

Do you as a taxpayer feel that your money was spent properly,
when the so-called leaders of this country can NOT defend even this nations CAPITAL? If you where to write a job performance review on Richard Cheney, would you give him high praise for his excelent performance?
Personally I'd have him fired for case!

The fact is, there are grounds for impeaching Cheney and Bush.

This administration has
Using 9/11/2001 as the EXCUSE
enacted UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation in the form of the
"Patriot act" an the "Military Commissions act" and other laws.

A!
Where are we going
and why are we in this handbasket?

[Dave]

Note for Dave
Do you know about H.Res.333 ?

Do you as a taxpayer feel that your money was spent properly,
when the so-called leaders of this country can NOT defend even this nations CAPITAL? If you where to write a job performance review on Richard Cheney, would you give him high praise for his excelent performance?
Personally I'd have him fired for case!

The fact is, there are grounds for impeaching Cheney and Bush.

This administration has
Using 9/11/2001 as the EXCUSE
enacted UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation in the form of the
"Patriot act" an the "Military Commissions act" and other laws.

A!
Where are we going
and why are we in this handbasket?

House Resolution 333? You mean Dennis Kucinich's feable attempt to get his name in the papers for his election campaign? Dennis Kucinich is the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party.

If the subjective view of job performance was enough for impeachment, then half of the Presidents in America's history would have been kicked out of office. Simply because they are unpopular doesn't mean you can impeach them. If the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are truly unconstitutional, then let the Supreme Court say so. Personally, I can't think of a single U.S. President that hasn't had at least one piece of legislation overturned by the Supreme Court at some point or another. By your logic, does that mean every U.S. President should be impeached? Also, these laws were passed by Congress. The President just merely signed them into law.

[n0spam4me]

You may think HR333 is somekinda publicity stunt ..... HOWEVER ....

Have you seen this lawsuit http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html

You can have your opinion, however there are people who are seriously seeking JUSTICE here. There is considerable suspicion that the "official" 9/11 report is nothing but a cover-up and that Cheney and Rumsfeld are involved.

Do you really believe the "official" 9/11 report?

If Cheney really was criminally involved in 9/11 - then we MUST bust him.
and a LOT of evidence points to Cheney!

[vyo476]

If anyone's looking for justice it isn't Dennis Kucinich.

I can't speak for everyone, but I do believe the official 9/11 report - mostly. What I believe is that when something so large and cataclysmic happens there are necessarily pieces that don't quite fit - because we can't ever know everything about what happened. Some things don't quite add up - well, yeah...that's just how life is.

[n0spam4me]

Check out who doesn't believe the "offical" white wash job.....

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_willis_from_unlikely_quarters_bruce_willis_end s_jfk_debate.htm

[vyo476]

Check out who doesn't believe the "offical" white wash job.....

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_willis_from_unlikely_quarters_bruce_willis_end s_jfk_debate.htm

Oh my! Celebrity endorsement! While we're at it, let's all convert to Scientology and have those 55 hour marriages that are so much fun!

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, really. Who the hell cares what Bruce Willis, or any other idiotic celebrity thinks. What makes him more qualified to give an opinion than me?

[Dave]

You may think HR333 is somekinda publicity stunt ..... HOWEVER ....

Have you seen this lawsuit http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html

You can have your opinion, however there are people who are seriously seeking JUSTICE here. There is considerable suspicion that the "official" 9/11 report is nothing but a cover-up and that Cheney and Rumsfeld are involved.

Do you really believe the "official" 9/11 report?

If Cheney really was criminally involved in 9/11 - then we MUST bust him.
and a LOT of evidence points to Cheney!

If Cheney knew the Pentagon was going to be hit, Why was he in it at the time? Wouldn't the logical thing be to get far away from the site? There's plenty about your story that doesn't add up either.

[tiredofnonsense]

Just the State, the House and Senate have repeated passed resolutions that had no chance, rather than negotiate and get a bill that they could pass with republican support the pushed forward with partisan pollitics, so much for the campaigne promisses.

[The Founders Intent]

"Largely Symbolic?" Try completely symbolic. Doesn't a state legislature have anything better to do with its time than sit around holding mock votes that don't carry any weight? They must be coming up on an election year.

I think it's great. Doing this helps keep them from spending time screwing the citizens of Vermont.

[The Founders Intent]

Just the State, the House and Senate have repeated passed resolutions that had no chance, rather than negotiate and get a bill that they could pass with republican support the pushed forward with partisan pollitics, so much for the campaigne promisses.

What the heck are you talking about?

[vyo476]

I think it's great. Doing this helps keep them from spending time screwing the citizens of Vermont.

It'd be hard to screw with anything in Vermont...largely because there isn't much of anything in Vermont. They have decent maple syrup and a big lake that just wasn't quite cool enough to be one of the Great Lakes...and yeah, that's it.

[The Founders Intent]

My point is still valid.

[Rokerijdude11]

only in your little head missy

[Fred]

House Resolution 333? You mean Dennis Kucinich's feable attempt to get his name in the papers for his election campaign? Dennis Kucinich is the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party.

If the subjective view of job performance was enough for impeachment, then half of the Presidents in America's history would have been kicked out of office. Simply because they are unpopular doesn't mean you can impeach them. If the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are truly unconstitutional, then let the Supreme Court say so. Personally, I can't think of a single U.S. President that hasn't had at least one piece of legislation overturned by the Supreme Court at some point or another. By your logic, does that mean every U.S. President should be impeached? Also, these laws were passed by Congress. The President just merely signed them into law.

Bullsh7t

[Dave]

Bullsh7t

Very mature. Well thought out argument. I guess you got me on that one.

If you can't actually contribute to a discussion and debate the points I bring up, stay on the sidelines.

[Abraxis Axis]

He cant answer you? look below his name ,he has been BANNED<<<<<So i think the problems of the pest are over.No need to post to someone ,who cant respond huh?

[TheWaffle]

House Resolution 333? You mean Dennis Kucinich's feable attempt to get his name in the papers for his election campaign? Dennis Kucinich is the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party.

If the subjective view of job performance was enough for impeachment, then half of the Presidents in America's history would have been kicked out of office. Simply because they are unpopular doesn't mean you can impeach them. If the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are truly unconstitutional, then let the Supreme Court say so. Personally, I can't think of a single U.S. President that hasn't had at least one piece of legislation overturned by the Supreme Court at some point or another. By your logic, does that mean every U.S. President should be impeached? Also, these laws were passed by Congress. The President just merely signed them into law.

I agree with Dave on this one. In my opinion the big names in Bush's legislation have been ineffective (NCLB, Patriot Act), and some misleading (Clear-skies Initiative). [Note I'm not trying to start fighting over the validity of these pieces of legislation]

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to exercise its power and carefully review the legislation and take care of it. We should take lessons from mistakes not make new ones by impeaching another president.

[Dave]

I didn't see that one. I don't usually make it a point to look at that part of the post, but it is good to see that some problem people have been banned. Thanks for pointing that out.

[The Founders Intent]

only in your little head missy

Little missy, who you talking to boy?

[vyo476]

He cant answer you? look below his name ,he has been BANNED<<<<<So i think the problems of the pest are over.No need to post to someone ,who cant respond huh?

Anyone else feel like laughing hysterically at this guy?

[Lindsay]

Doesn't a state legislature have anything better to do with its time than sit around holding mock votes that don't carry any weight?

It IS Vermont.

[ramblingwreck]

Your post is filled with "facts" that are not. Even those where you come close to the truth are not impeachable offenses.

[ramblingwreck]

You say the majority of Bush's actions are in no way illegal. This is incorrect.

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.

2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.

3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.

4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.

5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.

7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.

8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.

9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.

10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.

11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.

12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.

13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.

14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.

Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Clinton's "crimes" are NOTHING compared to what this criminal Bush has done to our country!

Wow! The above statement(s) are so filled with inaccuracies and "points" that have nothing to do with impeaching a president as to be ludicrous. For example, the U.S. is not obligated to get the UN's approval before we take military action anywhere (nor is anyother country). You seem to conveniently forget that the president had the approval of our Congress to take the actions he did.

A second fallacy that you post as "fact" is that Bush stated in his state of the union address that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". What he stated was the British intelligence reported that as fact.

I could go on and point-out other fallacies with your contentions, but they are too numerouos to deal with in a single post. I do recomend that you look at the U.S. Constitution (that's the basis of our law, not the UN) to begin to get an idea of what constitutes (no pun intended) impeachable offenses.

[n0spam4me]

Have a look at this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
comments anyone?

is the frog "well done" yet?

[Dave]

Have a look at this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
comments anyone?

is the frog "well done" yet?

So the government wants to be able to continue critical functions after a crisis. What does this have to do with impeachment of the President?

[n0spam4me]

You probably don't like references like this...
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/337175877.html
However I didn't want to plagarize the entire article and this one is really good.

The neo-cons are on an anti-productive path.


A! Have you ever seen a movie called "DAVE"
great stuff!

oh well, This gets to be one of those .. either you get it or you don't
and really each of us could point to the other and say
"You just don't get it" .... so be it.

Bush seeks to become the UBERDOOD,
unfortunately a Fourth Reich is NOT sustainable and what it really means is that Our kids and grand kids will have a world that is grossly poluted with stuff like DU munitions and chemicals (etc...) and in fact things like drinkable water will be scarce.

Watch for another false flag attack before the 2008 election, so bush can call off the election and remain in office, or appoint a successor.

[Dave]

You probably don't like references like this...
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/337175877.html
However I didn't want to plagarize the entire article and this one is really good.

The neo-cons are on an anti-productive path.


A! Have you ever seen a movie called "DAVE"
great stuff!

oh well, This gets to be one of those .. either you get it or you don't
and really each of us could point to the other and say
"You just don't get it" .... so be it.

Bush seeks to become the UBERDOOD,
unfortunately a Fourth Reich is NOT sustainable and what it really means is that Our kids and grand kids will have a world that is grossly poluted with stuff like DU munitions and chemicals (etc...) and in fact things like drinkable water will be scarce.

Watch for another false flag attack before the 2008 election, so bush can call off the election and remain in office, or appoint a successor.

What makes you so confidant about this? There were a ton of conspiracy theorists clammoring that the government would pull bin Ladin out of hiding and say we captured him right before the 2004 election. They were also claiming that there would be another attack right before the 2004 election to scare people into voting for Bush. Guess what, didn't happen. We've heard it all before, and its been wrong all before. Leave the fortune telling to the psyhic phone lines, because conspiracy theorists have proven that they are no good at it.

[marilynj55]

Wow! The above statement(s) are so filled with inaccuracies and "points" that have nothing to do with impeaching a president as to be ludicrous. For example, the U.S. is not obligated to get the UN's approval before we take military action anywhere (nor is anyother country). You seem to conveniently forget that the president had the approval of our Congress to take the actions he did.

A second fallacy that you post as "fact" is that Bush stated in his state of the union address that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". What he stated was the British intelligence reported that as fact.

I could go on and point-out other fallacies with your contentions, but they are too numerouos to deal with in a single post. I do recomend that you look at the U.S. Constitution (that's the basis of our law, not the UN) to begin to get an idea of what constitutes (no pun intended) impeachable offenses.


Well, I think you are misinformed. I don't know why people of your persuasion keep on drinking the Kool-Aid and watching our country be ripped apart by this dismal little man we now have in the White House.

People far more learned than me who actually know the law agree that Bush has committed impeachable offenses:

"Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush 'the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.'"

Regarding domestic spying authorized by Bush: "The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.

"Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

I'm not going to debate all your other "points" but just wanted to bring this to your attention.

[Freethinker]

We have a congress who have neglected their mandated duty to follow the principals and letter of the constitution they were sworn to uphold by not invoking the articles of impeachment. There NEVER has been a more impeachable president than junior and certinly there has never beem a more impeachable VP than "Shooter" Cheney. When Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table " She might as well have said the constitution is off the table as well.

[Pats&sox]

If this measure ever managed anything (and here in reality it won't) we'd wind up with President Nancy Pelosi.

Now that's something to wrap your brain around.

Only until '08. Cant imagine anyone being worse than Bush

[Justinian]

I'll say one with with a non-partisan intention: Vermont is very liberal.

[vyo476]

Only until '08. Cant imagine anyone being worse than Bush

Than you, my friend, have an extremely limited imagination.

[top gun]

Than you, my friend, have an extremely limited imagination.

Ok... Cheney would be worse!:D

GO VERMONT!

[top gun]

Subject: Three Surgeons...

Three Texas surgeons were playing golf together and discussing Surgeries they had performed.

The first said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident. I reattached them and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England."

The second said, "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident. I reattached them and 2 years later he won a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a cowboy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. Now he's president of the United States.":D

[WileE]

Just my $0.02 worth on this subject,
Richard Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11/2001
and the FACT is that that the PENTAGON got hit with something.
Now if it really was "FLT77"
WHY is it that an off course commercial airliner could fly for over half an hour in airspace that is as well monitored as our eastern seaboard? Considering the fact that all of this is AFTER the second hit to the WTC!
Could be because NORAD is/was designed to monitor air traffic coming from outside our continent rather than wandering around inside it.

My take on this is that either Cheney intended for the PENTAGON to get hit,
OR he is so incompetent as to be unemployable at ANYTHING.
Could be. But, I imagine NORAD's protocol for situation-handling was set long before Cheney was in charge, and that protocol did not envisage our own airliners being used as a weapon against us.

WE_THE_PEOPLE pay taxes to support a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and on 9/11/2001 said DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FAILED to DEFEND!

I don't know about all the other taxpayers around here, but I feel like I've been SCREWED!

I think you can rest assured that if you were really "screwed", as you put it, it was entirely unintentional.:o

[WileE]

I'll say one with with a non-partisan intention: Vermont is very liberal.

Actually, Vermont is quite conservative for being on another planet in another galaxie.:)

[Mare Tranquillity]

You say the majority of Bush's actions are in no way illegal. This is incorrect.

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.

2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.

3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.

4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.

5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.

7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.

8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.

9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.

10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.

11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.

12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.

13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.

14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.

Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Clinton's "crimes" are NOTHING compared to what this criminal Bush has done to our country!

My bumper sticker says, "Impeach that son of a Bush!"

[WileE]

You say the majority of Bush's actions are in no way illegal. This is incorrect.

1. On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter.
The aforementioned charters belong in the round file.

2. He provided misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
Not necessarily his fault...but, so what?

3. He repeatedly manipulated the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
In a way, Iraq was linked, even if indirectly.

4. He repeatedly claimed that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
That's funny! The inspection teams were required to give 24 hours notice of an inspection at a specified location. And each time, satellite surveillance showed furious truck activity at said location, and when the inspection teams finally showed up, they found empty buildings.

5. He stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
I have yet to see any evidence to prove that accusation. Regardless, the Good Thing is getting done.

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
All through our history, there have been instances of emergency measures taken which worked around provisions of the Constitution. I have never been wiretapped; have you? If you were, then you must have been guilty of something.

7. He retaliated against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
Show some proof of that.

8. He directed millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
...of which Cheney was once CEO. That is the operative word: ONCE.

9. He diverted military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.
He persued the best and only way of defeating Islamofascist terrorism.

10. He generated ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.
Not to worry. They'll get over it, and then everything will be fine.

11. He weakened the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.
Again: A Good Thing.

12. He diverted the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.
Highly unlikely that many of the troops in the Middle East would have been called for that. Their presence abroad is extremely important.

13. He appointed unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.
At least the error was corrected.

14. He proposed military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.
Ah yes...nukes. Greatest peacmaker ever invented!

Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
So say the looney left.

[Libsmasher]

6. He repeatedly ordered the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.

A clue, just for you: :D

FISA is unconstitutional - no president need bother with it.

[Dustin]

I mean people who want to impeach bush are kind of late on the ticket, and honestly he hasn't done anything illegal in that sense. At least not in US laws.

[LibertyHawk]

A clue, just for you: :D

FISA is unconstitutional - no president need bother with it.A federal check on a federal operation... Um no. You're very very wrong my friend.

[Libsmasher]

A federal check on a federal operation... Um no. You're very very wrong my friend.

A violation of separation of powers...Um no. You're very very wrong my friend.

[Castle]

I really get a kick out of this "Impeach Bush" movement. If there was evidence to support a small fraction of the wild accusations that have been leveled against Bush, impeachment proceedings would have begun LONG ago. The leftist borg collective has craved nothing else since his second term began and this last minute shot in the dark simply smacks of desperation. The possibility that "slick willy" Clinton might not be avenged appears to have the collective in a frenzy.

It could be time to move on and consider the three (soon to be two) raving incompetents to take the throne.

[Libsmasher]

A federal check on a federal operation... Um no. You're very very wrong my friend.

Uh, nooooooooooo - FISA is an attempt by congress to make itself the arbiter of what a president can and can't do - there is absolutely zeeeeeeero support for this intrustion into the president's constitutional prerogatives - it's a wholesale violation of the seperation of powers. The last few presidents including clinton have agreed that it's unconstitutional, only voluntarily "going along" with it.

[yoder]

This conversation has been a hoot to read. Not surprising, just amusing.

I agree that right now there simply is not a snowball's chance that impeachment will see the light of day. This is not because AWOL or Buckshot were not impeachable, but because the (R) leadership had not yet given the (D) leadership the okey dokey to think or act for themselves. Pelosi, Reid and company were so worried about being buddy buddy with their friends across the isle, that they plumb forgot to do their jobs.

Neither side has yet to figure out that politics and diplomacy are an art form that requires the artist to know when to shake hands and when to ***** slap. The (R) leadership have the *****slapping down pat, but need some remedial hand shaking classes. The (D) leadership have the shaking hands down pat, but piss and **** themselves at the first sign of confrontation. Beautiful combination.

[kbthiede@gmail.com]

YES!!! TEAR THE EMPORER DOWN FROM HIS THROWN!!!

I think it's a little late for an impeachment, but I would rather not see cheney take over. So, impeach him, too! But then Pelosi would be president.

GODD@MMIT!!!!!

[American First]

A Little Too Late don't you think?

[n0spam4me]

Just one point as to WHY
impeach Cheney, Bush, Rice, Pelosi, Rumsfeld .... etc...

9/11/2001, Why is it that the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?

and also, after being informed that "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK"
Bush sat on his ass in a photo-op!

Give me a break! and then Condi has to go in record delivering the lame excuse of the day by claiming that nobody could have imagined hijackers using commercial airliners as weapons.... and CHENEY was running what sort of drills that day? well DUH!

The entire scene is a FARCE! I don't know who the actual perpetrators are but Bush & Cheney are at least accessories!

Torture, VIOLATION of treaties & international law, Violations of the CONSTITUTION. Wars of AGGRESSION .... etc ... ad nausum!

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

Wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

[vyo476]

Just one point as to WHY
impeach Cheney, Bush, Rice, Pelosi, Rumsfeld .... etc...

9/11/2001, Why is it that the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?

and also, after being informed that "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK"
Bush sat on his ass in a photo-op!

Give me a break! and then Condi has to go in record delivering the lame excuse of the day by claiming that nobody could have imagined hijackers using commercial airliners as weapons.... and CHENEY was running what sort of drills that day? well DUH!

The entire scene is a FARCE! I don't know who the actual perpetrators are but Bush & Cheney are at least accessories!

Torture, VIOLATION of treaties & international law, Violations of the CONSTITUTION. Wars of AGGRESSION .... etc ... ad nausum!

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

Wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

Has it ever occurred to you that the people you're trying to convince won't, at the very least, respond to such adolescent tactics?