did you know Bush commited 10 violations

[DemocratLupis]

he should be Impeached look up Bush's 10 violations, or 10 reasons to Impeach Bush

SAY NO! to funding this false war

 

[jickybob]

Next, you should post something to join your mentally impaired group... It would all be relative to your intelligence or lack thereof! Why don't u post the so called "10 Violations of President Bush"? Is it because you know they're not real and they are worthless, or what? Goodluck going nowhere with your rants~

 

[MarkVI]

It would definitely help if he were to post these 10 violations.
(In my opinion there are many more than 10, but 10 would be a good start.)

Now now, jickybob. No name calling, having one's own opinions does not make one mentally impaired.

Btw, about 60% of Americans are in this so-called "mentally impaired group," or at least they don't approve.
(not for impeachment, there needs to be hearings first.)
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

 

[Dave]

Violations of what? American law? International law? Mickey Mouse Club rules and regulations? Youre being pretty vague here Lupis.

 

[palerider]

he should be Impeached look up Bush's 10 violations, or 10 reasons to Impeach Bush

SAY NO! to funding this false war

Here are the reasons we went to war. The real reasons. The ones the house and senate voted on. Perhaps you can list those 10 "violations" in the context of the reasons the congress authorized the president to go to war.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[Castle]

Another topic that can be squashed with a quick shot of common sense.
Is there anyone here that denies the venomous hatred that leftist politicians and there minions have for Bush? If not, then we can move to the next level. If there was one drop of glue that they could use to make their constant accusations stick....would they not have used it long ago? Would we not have seen impeachment proceedings long ago? Is it not possible that the mere accusations themselves do exactly what the accusers intend them to do. Bush is constantly on the defensive doing damage control even though leftists have nothing to justify an impeachment trial. They have had control of Congress for many months now and still there are only accusations and rhetoric. I expect little else for some time to come unfortunately.

-Castle

 

[vyo476]

Another topic that can be squashed with a quick shot of common sense.
Is there anyone here that denies the venomous hatred that leftist politicians and there minions have for Bush? If not, then we can move to the next level. If there was one drop of glue that they could use to make their constant accusations stick....would they not have used it long ago? Would we not have seen impeachment proceedings long ago? Is it not possible that the mere accusations themselves do exactly what the accusers intend them to do. Bush is constantly on the defensive doing damage control even though leftists have nothing to justify an impeachment trial. They have had control of Congress for many months now and still there are only accusations and rhetoric. I expect little else for some time to come unfortunately.

-Castle

I could hug you. I really could.

Mind you, I'm no fan of George Bush. Still, all these cries for impeachment, all this talk of Bush's "imperialism," and all the cute little posters with slogans like "The Emperor is Naked" with a picture of his face and a naked cartoon body are just detracting from the real issues that I and other level-headed people have with his presidency.

 

[marilynj55]

I could hug you. I really could.

Mind you, I'm no fan of George Bush. Still, all these cries for impeachment, all this talk of Bush's "imperialism," and all the cute little posters with slogans like "The Emperor is Naked" with a picture of his face and a naked cartoon body are just detracting from the real issues that I and other level-headed people have with his presidency.

I wouldn't call that level-headed. I would call it severely uninformed!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Mind you, I'm no fan of George Bush. Still, all these cries for impeachment, all this talk of Bush's "imperialism," and all the cute little posters with slogans like "The Emperor is Naked" with a picture of his face and a naked cartoon body are just detracting from the real issues that I and other level-headed people have with his presidency.

You're exactly right. They choose those slogans as a punchline because it means that they don't have to have a real discussion - do any real debate of the issues. The American political process needs more real discussion. As I always do, I'll point back to the last election where it degenerated into an election between forged National Guard documents and the Swift Boat Veterans.

Is that really what we want?

 

[Castle]

I could hug you. I really could.

Mind you, I'm no fan of George Bush. Still, all these cries for impeachment, all this talk of Bush's "imperialism," and all the cute little posters with slogans like "The Emperor is Naked" with a picture of his face and a naked cartoon body are just detracting from the real issues that I and other level-headed people have with his presidency.

I have found much to complain about in GWB's presidency as well. I try to stick with solid, tangible concerns as opposed to smoke and mirrors.

I wouldn't call that level-headed. I would call it severely uninformed!

How So? Can you explain why the leftist controlled Congress has made no attempt to run Bush out on a rail? They're running out of time. If they have the dirt on him, as you appear to, then it would make sense to have dropped the hammer long ago. Of course, Congress may be severely uninformed in which case you may want to enlighten them and soon.

-Castle

 

[r0beph]

I think a large amount of what the left says of the right is just trash talk. But then the right is by NO means any better. I mean 10 minutes of either Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly is enough to prove this rather quickly. I'm by no means a fan of anything neoconservative. I am also not a fan of the conspiracy mongering and unwarranted accusatory statements made by some of the further of the left. The closure you move away from the middle the more insane things become. There is a reason all descriptive words used to describe the less reasonable members of a political view all are indicators of gradation from the center towards the edges. Fringe, Periphery, Far-Right/Far-Left... Typically these carry a bit of negative connotation. There IS reason for this. Stop thinking with your hostile emotions and take a look at it objectively. Balance serves everyone much better than any far leaning regulation. Even when you seem to come across without the accusatory notions and personal attacks. The posts tend to reek of it, even if just an undercurrent. You ask why castle? The same reason you're post comes across as it does rather than being a simple polite response. Mind you it isn't rude, but it is mildly inflammatory, which will in turn garner a similar response. And just like politics in general, will get us no where. It's just the manner in which people typically debate serves to bring more anger than objectivity. It's a fine and strange line where that sits. What can be said that isn't inflammatory, a passion for political discussion is a passion nonetheless and is emotional by virtue. It's truly hard to separate your belief and opinion that is based on deeply ingrained personal values for objectivity. I just want facts. Everyone wants to toss a couple facts in with their mishmash of opinion that muddles the whole picture. Opinion is ok, but it can't be asserted/implied to be factual by it's inclusion within a group of facts.

 

[DemocratLupis]

Happy Impeachment Day!
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been playing a leading role in battling the Bush administration's attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law, has declared today to be Impeachment Day, with teach-ins scheduled around the country.

Seems like a great occasion to offer up 10 reasons for impeaching the president, as presented in Barbara Olshansky's and my new book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.



The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus.

What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush's justification for his Guantanamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Crimes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and possibly crimes 1, 2 and 6 have all been justified by the president using the claim of "special powers" in his role as commander in chief, the claim that was ruled invalid by the High Court, in relation to crime number 3.

 

[vyo476]

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

Or you could call it initiating a preemptive invasion against an aggressive, murderous totalitarian regime that committed numerous human rights violations. The war has taken the lives of 2550 US servicemen, all of whom were volunteers for the armed forces. The 100,000 Iraqi dead includes terrorists and insurgents. There were legitimate reasons for going there and if you can't look at both sides of the argument you're half blind.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

There is no proof that the President lied, only that he said something that later turned out not to be true. This is easily explainable using intelligence documents - intelligence documents that Congress saw too, by the way, shortly before voting in favor of the war.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

Whether or not they are indeed prisoners of war is a debate unto itself. Calling the detainees at Gitmo POWs is a politically minded maneuver when the detainees don't actually fit the requirements of being known as prisoners of war. They are terror suspects and while no matter which way you spin it the whole thing has been mishandled, the President has not violated the Geneva Convention because the Geneva Convention isn't exactly applicable here.

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

Suspension of habeas corpus is the right of the President during wartime and it was only done in a very select few cases. If you're so against this particular statute you should go take a piss on Abe Lincoln's grave, since he was the first one to actually do it.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Actually the wire-tapping program does not violate FISA, which is how they got away with it in the first place. While I agree that it is wrong and should be stopped, I also don't think that this is an impeachable offense.

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

As with Watergate, do you really believe this goes all the way to the top? It was a dirty political maneuver and believe me, not all of those cross the President's desk before being implemented. Nearly none of them do, actually. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

Proof? And while we're at it...why would he do that? Is this going to turn into another 9/11 conspiracy theory?

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

What are you talking about? If this was really happening you'd think that the news agencies, which are already vehemently anti-Bush, would have latched onto it by now.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

That refusal was an ideological statement, not an actual set of actions. He said that he wouldn't uphold laws he found to be unconstitutional, but when it came down to it he's upheld most of these laws - there was no way for him not to. You have him going against the laws of the United States in other ways but this isn't one of them.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

You notice how two of these points seem to contradict each other? They needed body armor...how dare you go to war with a weak third-world nation!There was a reconstruction plan, it just turned out that there weren't enough coalition troops in Iraq to carry it out. New Orleans was FEMA's fault, not Bush's. Refer to our Global Warming thread and you'll see that it hasn't even been proven yet. You can't implement policy in a democracy is still so heavily divided over it - if you do you wind up with unrest, disorder, and potentially civil war.

Crimes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and possibly crimes 1, 2 and 6 have all been justified by the president using the claim of "special powers" in his role as commander in chief, the claim that was ruled invalid by the High Court, in relation to crime number 3.

They've been justified by you as being justified by the president's claim of special powers. He didn't come out and say, "I've done these things. This is why." He said, "I have special powers," you made these inferences, and then connected the two together.

 

[vyo476]

You're exactly right. They choose those slogans as a punchline because it means that they don't have to have a real discussion - do any real debate of the issues. The American political process needs more real discussion. As I always do, I'll point back to the last election where it degenerated into an election between forged National Guard documents and the Swift Boat Veterans.

Is that really what we want?

We're pushing ourselves closer and closer to extremism. As the elections break down and both sides get more and more polar we're just inching closer and closer to that awful day when everything falls apart. As actual discussion dies so does democracy.