You say that like it's a bad thing.... ;0)

Posted by: Jack Cluth at June 6, 2003 10:41 AM

A "baker's dozen" of reasons to Impeach Bush

1-Stealing the election.

Sure the election was stolen fair and square, using tactics that most government officials are guilty of. But they crossed the line when they purged the Florida voter database of tens of thousands of predominately democratic voters’ months before the election. It is clear collusion between Jeb, Harris and the company that handled the actual purge. Although most of the press lightly covered it is well summed up in "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. Here is an article from the guardian as the story was breaking. http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html

2-"Our Nations Energy Policy"

Cheney met in secret with industry leaders, that he will not disclose, to develop our nations' energy policy. Although he boldly told the press that environmental groups were invited, it turned out that 46 different groups collectively got one afternoon with one of his aids. Ken Lay in contrast had over 6 full meetings. Many of the other companies he met with are currently in court; accused of fabricating an energy crisis in California that cost the taxpayers Billions of Dollars.

The General Accounting Office sued Cheney over the issue but he used executive privilege to skirt the suit. The energy policy itself has been called a give-away to the energy industry and a disaster for environmental concerns. It is an unprecedented action and a blow to open government. The companies he met with have since been found to be so corrupt and the policy itself so rife with corporate giveaways that an investigation is warranted.

This article provides some background.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030208cheneynat7p7.asp

and a list of legal documents submitted by Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_1270.shtml

3-Bush Administration Closes Door on Open Government

Bush uses executive privilege to lock away past presidential documents at a time when his fathers’ papers should have been made public. Access to the documents are particularly sensative now because they could shed light on Bush 41 administration involvement in funding and arming Iraq. Especially documents that could shed light on the Iraqgate investigation that is mentioned later in this document.

Here’s the public citizen suit

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=941

Here’s an example of what kid of information would be lost under the new guidelines.

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm

4- Bush and Ashcroft subvert the freedom of information act from the top down.

Ashcroft has ordered all federal employees to be more cautious when proving documents, that may sound benign but it can be dangerous. For instance: In November 2002 Ashcroft decided to seal all of the documents from the Department of Health and Human Services concerning autistic children that may have been affected by a particular vaccine. At that time congress was confronted with an omnibus bill that had a clause protecting the company (Eli Lilly) that made the vaccine from being sued. No one in the senate will admit to having added the clause to the bill but after it was discovered the Senate repealed it. That’s the kind of abuse that this administration is fostering. Ashcroft denied congress documents to protect Eli Lilly at the expense of autistic children?!? Can someone look into this please!!!

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200212/121102.html

We will probably see something similar in the homeland security department. This is a dangerous precedent. The ability to access government documents is key to our democracy, reporters and researchers rely on this tool to keep us informed. Restricting access is criminal and goes against our basic notion of freedom. Here is a recent assessment from the National Security Archive.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB84/press.htm
5- Corporate crimes

Both Bush and Cheney have shady business dealings that should be investigated, much in the manner that we investigated whitewater. The administration itself is stacked with an unprecedented amount of industry insiders that are in a position to help their friends. Given the historic rollback of environmental regulations, boosts to the defense industry and in general policy that goes beyond industry-friendly we should be investigating these ties.

Cheney

He converted Halliburton over to an Enron style accounting practice that misrepresented profits by Billions. Other executives are being prosecuted for doing the same thing. Recently Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary, was found guilty of cheating the government and paid 2 million in fines. Now Brown and Root just scored a controversial long-term governmnet contract worth Billions on top of their contracts in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and most recently to help rebuild Iraq’s oil fields.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020805-55254544.htm

http://weeklywire.com/ww/08-28-00/austin_pols_feature2.html

Bush

His Harken Energy stock sale just months before it tanked was never investigated thoroughly and should be. It looks like insider trading. The Bush family itself is a major stockholder of the Carlysle Group, of which Bush Sr. consults, and it ranks in the top 12 of government defense contracts and does Billions of dollars worth of business in the middle east. The company also had sizable investment from the Bin Laden family. Can the Bush family money involved in this company be effecting our foreign policy? It’s worth a look!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/bush.cheney/

6- Bush was AWOL during his service in the National Guard

There’s evidence that he blew off up to 18 months of his duty. His commanding officers admit that they didn’t see him. Let’s investigate or at least let anyone that wants out of this war get out whenever they feel like it too! It’s only fair.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+.shtml

7- Bush Pulls US out of international treaties in a reckless manner

Bush refuses inspections of chemical makers, effectively destroying the Chemical Weapons Convention. Working against the will of 140 nations that are trying to rid the world of chemical weapons.

Bush thwarts the International Criminal Court and actively tries to coerce other nations to do the same. The court is the first International body that can prosecute war criminals and dictators.

Bush refuses to sign Kyoto treaty against international outcry and solid evidence that the world is warming.

Ties AIDS money in Africa to abortion issues that will stall millions in direly needed money.

Calls into question the UN Security Council.

Pushes for a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq that will thwart international law and open the world to further chaos.

These represent a serious threat to our long-term security and financial well being. Most of these were handled without the consent of Congress.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/july01/2001-07-27-bush-treaties-usat.htm

8- Bush Disregards the Geneva Convention

Hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo and Thousands in Afghanistan are not being treated in accordance with international law. Many people where willing to look the other way for a few months but it has been over a year and this sets a dangerous precedent.

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510152002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

9- Bush Implements Vast New Spying Powers on US citizens Through the Patriot Act, Patriot II (proposed) and CAAPS.

Through these bills the government can:

Collect DNA of anyone involved in an investigation

Use of secret evidence in court

Hold people indefinitely without access to a lawyer

Spy on people using the Internet

Search homes without notification of owner

Monitor peoples use of libraries and what books the buy

Attain travel information of anyone who leaves the country

They have also enriched the DARPA program that, among other things, builds technologies to spy on US citizens.

Most analysts agree that these measures have little to do with counter-terrorism investigations and more to do with spying on the American public.

Some useful information

http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-074202-1742r

http://www.darpa.mil/ - This Darpa web site will blow your mind…

10- Bush Intentionally Deceives the American Public

While this may not be a crime it should be. Some examples:

Bush acts as though Bin Laden is some demon from outer space yet… The Bush family has ties to the Bin Laden family through the Carlyle Group and the eldest brother of Osama was an investor of Arbusto, Bush’s first oil company.

Bush continues to lie about the true facts and figures of the tax cuts he is proposing. The figures he gives greatly exaggerate the benefit to the middle class.

Bush claims that he is modernizing Medicare, when in reality he is privatizing Medicare. Pushing elderly to private plans in order to gain access to prescription drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/politics/04MEDI.html

Bush calls the Clear Skies Act an improved Clean Air Act, when in reality it is a rollback of the CAA and will allow power companies to delay cleaning up mercury emissions for decades. Confusing an environmentally unsound bill with one that has been touted, as a major success for a decade is clear manipulation.

Bush claimed that he brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas. In fact he vetoed that bill and then when he was presented with a veto-proof majority he refused to sign it. It went into law without his signature. This came out as he released his pre-emptive proposal of a nationwide bill of rights that would counter the most beneficial aspects of the Texas law. Mostly the ability of patients to sue their insurance companies.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/24/hmos/index3.html

Bush claims that he got to know Ken Lay when he became governor, when in truth the two worked on his Fathers 88 campaign together. Ken Lay is an old family friend of the Bush family.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/interviews/lay.html

Bush claims that no one had ever thought that someone would smash a plane into a building yet he was informed of that possibility just two months before it happened.

Bush repeatedly makes the claim that we were attacked because they hate our freedoms, yet when Al Qaeda attacked our embassies they said they attacked us because of the war on Iraq in 1991 including sanctions, the funding of Israel and the continued support of the Saudi government. Why he chooses to mislead us about something so crucial is baffling.

Specific lies about Iraq:

Iraq gassed his own people. Yes he did. After that incident Bush Sr. helped deceive the international community about the Halabja incident to prevent a censure of Iraq and thwarted congress to get an additional 2 Billion worth of loans to Iraq in 89 —90. Bush 43 likes to leave those parts out as he vilifies our favorite villain.

http://www.iht.com/articles/86720.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/83625.html

Read these, you will want to throw up!!!

Read my Iraq — US relation’s timeline at http://politicalclothing.com/timeline.html to learn more.

11- Iraqgate

Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Wolfawitz, James Baker, Condaleezza Rice, Richard Perle and others may be guilty of illegally arming and financing the Saddam Hussein in a way that thwarted international and domestic law. The case has legs but was dropped after Bush 41 lost the presidency. Don’t get me wrong other national leaders are involved as well including France and Germany, but we put down the money and we sold just as many chemical weapons as they did. Currently Bush 43 is passing laws to conceal documents that implicate his father and members of his administration. Read the following reports:

http://www.nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm

http://www.politicalclothing.com/timeline.html

12- Bush places 3 individuals from Iran-Contra into important positions

Otto Reich, John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter. 2 convictions two indictments. All lied to congress and contributed to a disinformation campaign that facilitated the illegal trade of drugs, hostages and arms. Mostly to secretly arm Iran against Iraq whom we publicly backed. . Reich is now Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, Negroponte is UN Ambassador, Abrams is on the National Security Council, and Poindexter is in charge of a DARPA program to datamine personal information about Americans spending habits in an operation called Total Information Awareness.

13- Bush stonewalled the investigation into 9/11.

The families of victims have repeatedly accused Bush of holding up the investigation, trying to alter its mission, and under-funding it. Bush originally didn’t want the independent panel to exist and worked hard to keep it from happening. Once it was inevitable he commandeered the situation and shifted the original intent. He then appointed Kissinger to lead it who stepped down after refusing to name his clients, many of whom are Saudi, in a possible conflict of interest. He then appointed Thomas Kean who also has business ties to Saudi companies, one of which is partly owned by Osama’s brother-in Law. Bush also refuses to release key documents that came out of the joint congressional report last year. It is thought that they show a Saudi money trail. Families currently claim that the current panel is stacked with representatives from the airlines, security companies and airports who are trying to protect their interests. What the!?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/05/eveningnews/main542868.shtml

Posted by: Hank Chinaski at June 6, 2003 12:38 PM

Geez Hank, your really going to be hating life when Bush kicks the Democrats asses in 2004. Move to Canada you Leftist asshole.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 12:54 PM

The speed of your answer demonstrates the usual problem with trying to communicate with republiCons. You REFUSE to take the time to read the facts! Doesn't it piss you off that 160-some americans lost their lives fighting for nothing but a bunch of assholes' bottom lines? Let alone thousands of Iraqis, including over 7,000 civilians. If not, why not? Are you really a monster? Or just stupid?

Open your eyes, clown, they're making a chump out of ya.

Posted by: Hank Chinaski at June 6, 2003 1:14 PM

No Hank, you are a f*cking idiot leftist who always thinks the worst of the United States. I have seen your type over and over and you must have some kind of martyr complex because you continue to live in a country you so obviously hate. Your screed is the usual list of leftist pablum that typeslike you scream is the truth when it is really a tired retread of policy differences.
---Doesn't it piss you off that 160-some americans lost their lives fighting for nothing but a bunch of assholes' bottom lines?

--No it pisses me off that we have to put up with leftist jackholes like you because we have to tolerate your right to free speech. If one tenth of what you types say was true all of you would be long dead.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 1:23 PM

Hank,

If that is your real name. I have a few tips for you.

First, I seldom take the comments seriously, that include inflammatory fake email addresses that poke fun at my mother.

Second, any argument that starts out with the words "stealing the election" loses all credibility, and I immediately stop reading.

Third, I don't really like plagiarism. Next time you do a blanket cut and paste, at least have the courtesy to credit the source.

Posted by: Ravenwood at June 6, 2003 1:26 PM

Fisking #7

7- Bush Pulls US out of international treaties in a reckless manner

Bush refuses inspections of chemical makers, effectively destroying the Chemical Weapons Convention. Working against the will of 140 nations that are trying to rid the world of chemical weapons.

--These inspections would be a gross violation of our national soverignity and are probably Unconstitional.

Bush thwarts the International Criminal Court and actively tries to coerce other nations to do the same. The court is the first International body that can prosecute war criminals and dictators.

--The ICC is blatantly Unconstitional and if Bush was to sign it, then there would be real grounds for impeachment.

Bush refuses to sign Kyoto treaty against international outcry and solid evidence that the world is warming.

--Which had no chance of passing Congress and was deliberately designed to harm the economy of the United States.

Ties AIDS money in Africa to abortion issues that will stall millions in direly needed money.

--This is just a policy difference with the Bush administration. The AIDS money to Africa is a waste and would be better spent here.

Calls into question the UN Security Council.

--???? The UN is a f*cking joke. It is more than past time it was called into question

Pushes for a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq that will thwart international law and open the world to further chaos.

--An attack on Iraq was completely justified due to Iraq's ignoring of the cease fire accord that ended the Gulf War. It should have happened long ago.

These represent a serious threat to our long-term security and financial well being. Most of these were handled without the consent of Congress.

--No these are a collection of leftist whines that if implemented would be incredibly harmful to our security and financial well being. The Senate never ratified those treaties thus we were never a part of them. You just have a problem with a President that puts the United States above a bunch of quasi legitimate international bureaucrats.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 1:33 PM

Ravenwood,

If that is your real name. I have a few responses to you.

First, wether you, personally take my comments seriously matters very little to me. The only reasons I ever post anything on sites like your is A) for fun, it's a kick to toy with minds that are saddled with authority-worship B) because, just maybe, thare may be someone out there reading it who still has the capacity to think critically.

Second, if you were a person who could think critically and had an interest in seeking out the truth you would find that 80,000 legally registered voters were purged from Florida's voter rolls, illegally. Their votes would certainly have won the election for Gore (who I didn't vote for, by the way), as blacks tend to vote upwards of 80% Democratic. Read Greg Palast's "The best democracy money can buy".

Third, plagiarism, schmagirism. Reasons are reasons. Information is information. I didn't post it as a form of self-expression, I posted it as a response to your idiotic implication that the only reason Democrats might be angry about the fact that Governor Bush has deceived the American people is for political ammunition. You know, some people still demand integrity in their leaders, and Bush has zilch. But then, if you really cared, you'd understand that already.

P.S. BillE, the fact that it "pisses you off" that you have to "tolerate" my right to free speech demonstrates how fundamentally Un-American you are. I cherish the first amendment, as it's a value I deeply respect and admire. You would prefer Berlin, 1939 perhaps?

Posted by: Hank Chinaski at June 6, 2003 1:44 PM

"Third, plagiarism, schmagirism. ... Information is information."
Have you ever worked for the New York Times?

"some people still demand integrity in their leaders"
What does that have to do with Democrats? I suppose Clinton had integrity? What does "impeachment" mean? What does "perjury" mean? What does "disbarred" mean?

Posted by: Ravenwood at June 6, 2003 1:51 PM

P.S. BillE, the fact that it "pisses you off" that you have to "tolerate" my right to free speech demonstrates how fundamentally Un-American you are. I cherish the first amendment, as it's a value I deeply respect and admire

--OOOOhhh a leftist called me Un-American. I'll take that as a complement because you so obviously hate this country. If an Anti-American calls you Un-American what does that make you?

You types don't cherish squat about this country. This is from the political group that gave us speech codes and hate crimes. BTW, I totally support your right to free speech, but my right to free speech says it pisses me off to listen to your Anti-American ravings. Free speech goes both ways ass clown.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 1:59 PM

--You would prefer Berlin, 1939 perhaps?

I almost forgot this. It wouldn't be a complete leftist commentary without the veiled Nazi reference.
You guy's are totally worthless.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 2:01 PM

Responses for BillE's attempts

7- Bush Pulls US out of international treaties in a reckless manner

Bush refuses inspections of chemical makers, effectively destroying the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Working against the will of 140 nations that are trying to rid the world of chemical weapons.

--These inspections would be a gross violation of our national soverignity and are probably Unconstitional.

*Unconstitutional? Have you ever read the constitution? International treaties, entered into by our

government, are constitutionally regarded as the "supreme law of the land". Something Bush maybe forgot

whne he illegally violated the UN Charter by dragging us into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Speaking of Iraq, would you apply the same standard of "national soverignity" [sic] to their keeping chemical weapons inspectors off their land? Somehow I doubt it.

Bush thwarts the International Criminal Court and actively tries to coerce other nations to do the same. The

court is the first International body that can prosecute war criminals and dictators.

--The ICC is blatantly Unconstitional and if Bush was to sign it, then there would be real grounds for

impeachment.

*Again, have you ever read the constitution? Do you also think the Geneva convention was unconstitutional? How about the Nuremberg Trials?

Bush refuses to sign Kyoto treaty against international outcry and solid evidence that the world is warming.

--Which had no chance of passing Congress and was deliberately designed to harm the economy of the

United States.

*The economic policy of the United States is deliberately designed to harm the environment. Considering the fact that the economy of the U.S. will disappear when the planet becomes uninhabitable, which do you think should take priority?

Ties AIDS money in Africa to abortion issues that will stall millions in direly needed money.

--This is just a policy difference with the Bush administration. The AIDS money to Africa is a waste and

would be better spent here.

*Policy difference? Well, I suppose if you consider genocide a policy... I happen to think the $?,000,000,000s we'll end up pouring into Iraq (in the form of cluster bombs, etc.) would be better spent here, or for that matter, just about anywhere.

Calls into question the UN Security Council.

--???? The UN is a f*cking joke. It is more than past time it was called into question

*Remember what I said about the "supreme law of the land"?

Pushes for a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq that will thwart international law and open the world

to further chaos.

--An attack on Iraq was completely justified due to Iraq's ignoring of the cease fire accord that ended the

Gulf War. It should have happened long ago.

*I love how you hawks struggle to "justify" wars, rather than avoid them. No, on second thought, I don't love it. All I can say is if you seriously thought Iraq was a threat to the United States, you are a hard-core chickenshit.

These represent a serious threat to our long-term security and financial well being. Most of these were

handled without the consent of Congress.

--No these are a collection of leftist whines that if implemented would be incredibly harmful to our security

and financial well being. The Senate never ratified those treaties thus we were never a part of them. You

just have a problem with a President that puts the United States above a bunch of quasi legitimate

international bureaucrats.

*Have you been listening to too much AM radio? FYI, The U.S. Senate ratified the UN Charter with only two dissenting votes. As for the other treaties, the whole POINT is that we weren't a part of them. We should be. Globalisation is real, and it'll happen either democratically (through the UN probably, and through international treaties that focus on co-existence, democratic principles and a sustainable planet) or it will happen un-democratically (through the WTO, IMF and World Bank, probably, and through international "trade" agreements that cut away at that "national sovereignty" you're so worried about at the expense of citizens, for the benefit of the extremely wealthy).

If you don't believe me about that last bit, read this: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/nafta_gatt/lawsuit.htm

How does that stack up on your "national sovereignty" scale? Fat cats (in Canada, the place you want me to move to) are getting rich from YOUR tax dollars just so they don't have the right to poison you. Funny how twisted things can get when there are billions of dollars to be made, in'it?

*Well, all in all, BillE, I'd have to say your efforts at logic aren't particularly promising. However, I don't know your age, so this could be just a sample of your first adolescent efforts at reasoned debate. If so, thanks for letting me be a part of your growing experience, and keep trying! One more word of advice and then Daddy has to go to work... A person can hate an administration, even a government, without hating the country. Do you think the Germans who fought against Hitler didn't love their country? Considering the fact that you support an administration that is doing it's best to turn our country into a broke-ass, fascist shithole, and hand whatever's left over to a dozen or so multi-billionaires, I'd have to say you're the one who hates our country.

God Bless the USA and Everybody Else!

Posted by: hank chinaski at June 6, 2003 2:44 PM

By the way BillE, as far as my reference to Nazis... If the shoe doesn't fit, stop wearing it.

I'm done bothering y'all.

Peace.

Posted by: hank chinaski at June 6, 2003 2:46 PM

God you really are a f*cking idiot.

"*Unconstitutional? Have you ever read the constitution? International treaties, entered into by our government, are constitutionally regarded as the "supreme law of the land". Something Bush maybe forgot "

When did we ratify ICC, Kyoto. Crickets chirping. BTW, the Supreme Law of the Land is the US Supreme Court, not a freaking treaty. That's why the ICC is unconstitutional. It would usurpt the Supreme Court. It sounds like you are the one who needs to read the Constitution. Giving away our soverignity to a bunch of unelected UN bureaucrats is Anti-American as you get.

"*Policy difference? Well, I suppose if you consider genocide a policy"

What genocide? Do you mean the aborted babies or the Africans. Did someone give them Aids. In your perverted world view you probably think the US did.

*I love how you hawks struggle to "justify" wars, rather than avoid them. No, on second thought, I don't love it. All I can say is if you seriously thought Iraq was a threat to the United States, you are a hard-core chickenshit.

--Yeah nothing is worth fighting for to you assholes. We should just take what is coming to us. As far as I'm concerned Iraq is just the beginning. Saudi Arabia, Syria and the whole Islamist nest needs flushing. I bet that scares the crap out of you.

The U.S. Senate ratified the UN Charter with only two dissenting votes.

--The UN was organized as a international debating society not a nascent world government run by two bit third-world dictators. It needs major reforms or it needs to go.

*The economic policy of the United States is deliberately designed to harm the environment. Considering the fact that the economy of the U.S. will disappear when the planet becomes uninhabitable, which do you think should take priority?

--More leftist pablum. Our economy is based on the free choices of the American consumer. Your screed is just a bunch of scare mongering with no facts to back it up. The environment in this country is cleaner than it has been in the last 30 years and will continue to get cleaner.

BTW, Yes, attacking Iraq did violate Iraq's(or Saddam's) soverignity. They tried to defend against it and lost. Breaking the cease fire did give us causus belli and I think war is a justified means of foreign policy when other means fail.
Why should we voluntarily give up our soverignity?

*Well, all in all, BillE, I'd have to say your efforts at logic aren't particularly promising

--If by logic you mean believing a bunch a half baked conspiricy theories, then no I can't handle logic.

--By the way BillE, as far as my reference to Nazis... If the shoe doesn't fit, stop wearing it.

When I shoot you in the head and throw you in a shallow gave then you can call me a Nazi. That only seemed to happen in Iraq recently, though.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 3:20 PM

Article III--Section I

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.......

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

--Thus the Supreme Court has judicial authority over treaties. If the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, how could the ICC constitutionally supercede it?

Article 6:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

--I guess this is where you got supreme power from. Notice it doesn't say the Supreme Court is bound. If the Supreme Court says a treaty is unconstitutional, then it does not have the force of law.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 3:37 PM

--"national soverignity" [sic]
Pointing out spelling mistakes, the last refuge of the scoundrel. Yes I know, it is spelled sovereignty. I have a blind spot for that word.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 3:48 PM

And so another leftist moron flees the field of battle. Understandable, since they don't believe in fighting for anything. Geez, Hank probably doesn't believe we have the right to bear arms. How are you going to fight the fascist government then, Hank? All they have left is the ability to whine. Hank is a true patriot who just wants the US to fade away into the caring and sharing world of an unelected UN bureaucracy in charge. All we have to do is sign those treaties.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 3:59 PM

BillE, BillE, BillE,

First of all, by your interpretation, the constitution itself could be interpreted as "unconstitutional". I think you may be getting the judicial branch of our government confused with the legislative branch. The Supreme Court, despite the fact that it's become a rubber stamp full of corporate yes-men, only interprets the constitution, it can't re-write it. International treaties, clearly being on a par with the constitution itself, are therefore only open to interpretation by the court. They don't have 'veto power'.

Secondly, regarding "the last refuge of the scoundrel", I really wasn't pointing out your spelling error out of ridicule. [sic] is common practice when quoting someone as a way to let them know that you're quoting exactly what the person said or wrote. Anyway, I think an act more deserving of the title "the last refuge of the scoundrel" would be along the lines of a thinly veiled physical threat, like, say, "When I shoot you in the head and throw you in a shallow gave then you can call me a Nazi." posted on the internet by somebody who shook in their boots over a petty tyrant halfway around the globe.

Third, I can't help but notice how many times you've called me a "liberal asshole" and a "leftist". That's quite an assumption considering I've said almost nothing about my policy preferences. I've only been commenting on corruption and lies. That, my friend, isn't about left and right. It's about honesty in government and there are a growing number of republicans in the house and senate who are started to feel they've been lied to along with everybody else. Do you defend lying by the president? (and don't bother bringing Clinton up again. I hated him too, and maybe he should have been impeached, but NOT for lying about a freaking blowjob.)

Lastly, I didn't flee the "field of battle" as you so quaintly refer to this mental masturbation. And, I gotta say, your back-stabby behaviour is kind of icky. I mentioned to you twice that I had to go. But then, I never seriously thought you were retaining much of what I wrote anyway.

Do yourself a favor, when none of your neoCon friends are around, check out some of those links in my first chunk of text. Man to man, don't be a chump all your life. The Republicans (at least most of them), and for that matter most of the Democrats, don't give a crap about you or me. The people have to look out for themselves and that can only be done through education and active participation in society and in creating an open and responsive government, very unlike the one we have now.

Peace and brotherhood may not win every time, but I'd rather not be around if they ever lose out for good.

Okay, are you listening? I'm all done with this conversation.

Posted by: Hank Chinaski at June 6, 2003 8:25 PM

Hank, are you a native speaker of English. I think you know exactly what I meant. If I was to hypothetically do as was described then you would be justified in calling me a Nazi. Since I have no intention of doing so to anybody, then the name calling rings hollow.

---posted on the internet by somebody who shook in their boots over a petty tyrant halfway around the globe.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I didn't shake in my boots about Saddam. I felt he was a threat and supported his removal. No shaking going on here, unless it is from you who has to make up imagined threats.

--The Supreme Court, despite the fact that it's become a rubber stamp full of corporate yes-men, only interprets the constitution, it can't re-write it. International treaties, clearly being on a par with the constitution itself, are therefore only open to interpretation by the court. They don't have 'veto power'

They have veto power if the Supreme Court determines said treaties to be unconstitutional. If you can't see this then you need to do some more research.

--And, I gotta say, your back-stabby behaviour is kind of icky.

You sure are thin skinned, can't you take a humorous jibe.

--Third, I can't help but notice how many times you've called me a "liberal asshole" and a "leftist". That's quite an assumption considering I've said almost nothing about my policy preferences.

Leftist or paleocon the policies are the same. You also assume alot about me. You assume I'm a Republican, I'm not and you assume I'm a whole hearted Bush supporter, I'm not. But I won't believe in wide eyed conspiricy theories that are as silly as when the militia groups were whining about Clinton and Mena, Arkansas.

Do you defend lying by the president?
I haven't seen any proof from you or anyone else that the President has lied about anything of consequence. BTW, I couldn't have given a fig about Clinton's BJ's in the Oval office. He shouldn't have lied to the court, but I don't think that rose to an impeachable offense. He probably should have be censured.

Posted by: BillE at June 6, 2003 9:08 PM

Hank needs a damn blog of his own. With all that writing.....get thee to Blogger.com, Hank!

And get thee to spinsanity.com and read carefully. Don't filter it through your Democrat-filter, Hank. READ IT. Thoroughly. I have. All the good, the bad, the ugly. The stuff that agrees with my position and the stuff that doesn't. Everything you might possibly want to know is there.

Then, go to Blogger.com and start your own site. I recommend YACCS or Enetation as commenting systems.

Then, when you leave your comments at someone else's site.....we call all follow you back to your site and leave comments for your posts......and it won't cost you a dime.

Posted by: Da Goddess at June 7, 2003 9:30 AM

Bush has been liying often, all his life, as a businessman, as a polititian,as a student, as a National Guard enlisted officer, as a candidate, as a president?

He might be a good Christian at home and maybe never got a BJ from an intern but if he thinks his plan needs a push, he will lie, and often.

Posted by: Lujis Lora at March 29, 2004 12:48 PM

Lujis,

You'd be hard pressed to find any person, especially a politician, who hasn't.

Posted by: Ravenwood at March 29, 2004 1:48 PM