The Impeachment of George W. Bush

Science > Abortion > The Impeachment of George W. Bush

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"james g. keegan jr."
Date:	12 Jan 2006 01:09:21 PM
Object:	The Impeachment of George W. Bush

The Impeachment of George W. Bush
By Elizabeth Holtzman
The Nation
30 January 2006 Issue
Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching
President George W. Bush - not in hushed whispers but openly, in
newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in
Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House
Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against
President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.
I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach
during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had
so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so
threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a
Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found
voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and
unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the
committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat
or Republican, Nixon was still our President.
At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong
signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I
was wrong.
Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's
breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the
United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been
disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal
laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail,
something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture
and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been
compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled
the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent
revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds,
possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - and argued that, as Commander
in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to
override our country's laws - that I felt the same sinking feeling in
my stomach as I did during Watergate.
As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds
constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President,
any President, who maintains that he is above the law - and repeatedly
violates the law - thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the
constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A
high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious
abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our
constitutional system of government.
The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok
and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While
impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a
principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill
Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that
tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to
commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.
But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the
American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair
inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must
commence now.
Warrantless Wiretaps
On December 17 President Bush acknowledged that he repeatedly
authorized wiretaps, without obtaining a warrant, of American citizens
engaged in international calls. On the face of it, these warrantless
wiretaps violate FISA, which requires court approval for national
security wiretaps and sets up a special procedure for obtaining it.
Violation of the law is a felony.
While many facts about these wiretaps are unknown, it now appears
that thousands of calls were monitored and that the information
obtained may have been widely circulated among federal agencies. It
also appears that a number of government officials considered the
warrantless wiretaps of dubious legality. Reportedly, several people
in the National Security Agency refused to participate in them, and a
deputy attorney general even declined to sign off on some aspects of
these wiretaps. The special FISA court has raised concerns as well,
and a judge on that court has resigned, apparently in protest.
FISA was enacted in 1978, against the backdrop of Watergate, to
prevent the widespread abuses in domestic surveillance that were
disclosed in Congressional hearings. Among his other abuses of power,
President Nixon ordered the FBI to conduct warrantless wiretaps of
seventeen journalists and White House staffers. Although Nixon claimed
the wiretaps were done for national security purposes, they were
undertaken for political purposes and were illegal. Just as Bush's
warrantless wiretaps grew out of the 9/11 attacks, Nixon's illegal
wiretaps grew out of the Vietnam War and the opposition to it. In
fact, the first illegal Nixon wiretap was of a reporter who, in 1969,
revealed the secret bombing of Cambodia, a program that President
Nixon wanted to hide from the American people and Congress. Nixon's
illegal wiretaps formed one of the many grounds for the articles of
impeachment voted against him by a bipartisan majority of the House
Judiciary Committee.
Congress explicitly intended FISA to strike a balance between the
legitimate requirements of national security on the one hand and the
need both to protect against presidential abuses and to safeguard
personal privacy on the other. From Watergate, Congress knew that a
President was fully capable of wiretapping under a false claim of
national security. That is why the law requires court review of
national security wiretaps. Congress understood that because of the
huge invasion of privacy involved in wiretaps, there should be checks
in place on the executive branch to protect against overzealous and
unnecessary wiretapping. At the same time, Congress created special
procedures to facilitate obtaining these warrants when justified.
Congress also recognized the need for emergency action: The President
was given the power to start a wiretap without a warrant as long as
court permission was obtained within three days.
FISA can scarcely be claimed to create any obstacle to justified
national security wiretaps. Since 1978, when the law was enacted, more
than 10,000 national security warrants have been approved by the FISA
court; only four have been turned down.
Two legal arguments have been offered for the President's right to
violate the law, both of which have been seriously questioned by
members of Congress of both parties and by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service in a recent analysis. The first -
highly dangerous in its sweep and implications - is that the President
has the constitutional right as Commander in Chief to break any US law
on the grounds of national security. As the CRS analysis points out,
the Supreme Court has never upheld the President's right to do this in
the area of wiretapping, nor has it ever granted the President a
"monopoly over war-powers" or recognized him as "Commander in Chief of
the country" as opposed to Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. If
the President is permitted to break the law on wiretapping on his own
say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own say-so - a
formula for dictatorship. This is not a theoretical danger: President
Bush has recently claimed the right as Commander in Chief to violate
the McCain amendment banning torture and degrading treatment of
detainees. Nor is the requirement that national security be at stake
any safeguard. We saw in Watergate how President Nixon falsely and
cynically used that argument to cover up ordinary crimes and political
misdeeds.
Ours is a government of limited power. We learn in elementary
school the concept of checks and balances. Those checks do not vanish
in wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not
swallow up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights. Given the framers'
skepticism about executive power and warmaking - there was no
functional standing army at the beginning of the nation, so the
President's powers as Commander in Chief depended on Congress's
willingness to create and expand an army - it is impossible to find in
the Constitution unilateral presidential authority to act against US
citizens in a way that violates US laws, even in wartime. As Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, "A state of war is not a blank
check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's
citizens."
The second legal argument in defense of Bush's warrantless
wiretaps rests on an erroneous statutory interpretation. According to
this argument, Congress authorized the Administration to place
wiretaps without court approval when it adopted the 2001 resolution
authorizing military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the
9/11 attacks. In the first place, the force resolution doesn't mention
wiretaps. And given that Congress has traditionally placed so many
restrictions on wiretapping because of its extremely intrusive
qualities, there would undoubtedly have been vigorous debate if anyone
thought the force resolution would roll back FISA. In fact, the
legislative history of the force resolution shows that Congress had no
intention of broadening the scope of presidential warmaking powers to
cover activity in the United States. According to Senator Tom Daschle,
the former Senate majority leader who negotiated the resolution with
the White House, the Administration wanted to include language
explicitly enlarging the President's warmaking powers to include
domestic activity. That language was rejected. Obviously, if the
Administration felt it already had the power, it would not have tried
to insert the language into the resolution.
What then was the reason for avoiding the FISA court? President
Bush suggested that there was no time to get the warrants. But this
cannot be true, because FISA permits wiretaps without warrants in
emergencies as long as court approval is obtained within three days.
Moreover, there is evidence that the President knew the warrantless
wiretapping was illegal. In 2004, when the violations had been going
on for some time, President Bush told a Buffalo, New York, audience
that "a wiretap requires a court order." He went on to say that "when
we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
getting a court order before we do so."
Indeed, the claim that to protect Americans the President needs to
be able to avoid court review of his wiretap applications rings
hollow. It is unclear why or in what way the existing law, requiring
court approval, is not satisfactory. And, if the law is too cumbersome
or inapplicable to modern technology, then it is unclear why the
President did not seek to revise it instead of disregarding it and
thus jeopardizing many otherwise legitimate anti-terrorism
prosecutions. His defenders' claim that changing the law would have
given away secrets is unacceptable. There are procedures for
considering classified information in Congress. Since no good reason
has been given for avoiding the FISA court, it is reasonable to
suspect that the real reason may have been that the wiretaps, like
those President Nixon ordered in Watergate, involved journalists or
anti-Bush activists or were improper in other ways and would not have
been approved.
It is also curious that President Bush seems so concerned with the
imaginary dangers to Americans posed by US courts but remains so
apparently unconcerned about fixing some of the real holes in our
security. For example, FBI computers - which were unable to search two
words at once, like "flight schools," a defect that impaired the
Bureau's ability to identify the 9/11 attackers beforehand - still
haven't been brought into the twenty-first century. Given Vice
President Cheney's longstanding ambition to throw off the constraints
on executive power imposed in response to Watergate and the Vietnam
War, it may well be that the warrantless wiretap program has had much
more to do with restoring the trappings of the Nixon imperial
presidency than it ever had to do with protecting national security.
Subverting Our Democracy
A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy
than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support
a military action or war. It is not just that it is cowardly and
abhorrent to trick others into giving their lives for a nonexistent
threat, or even that making false statements might in some
circumstances be a crime. It is that the decision to go to war is the
gravest decision a nation can make, and in a democracy the people and
their elected representatives, when there is no imminent attack on the
United States to repel, have the right to make it. Given that the
consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands
of people - as well as the diversion of vast sums of money to the war
effort - the fraud cannot be tolerated. That both Lyndon Johnson and
Richard Nixon were guilty of misleading the nation into military
action and neither was impeached for it makes it more, not less,
important to hold Bush accountable.
Once it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be
found in Iraq, President Bush tried to blame "bad intelligence" for
the decision to go to war, apparently to show that the WMD claim was
not a deliberate deception. But bad intelligence had little or nothing
to do with the main arguments used to win popular support for the
invasion of Iraq.
First, there was no serious intelligence - good or bad - to
support the Administration's suggestion that Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda were in cahoots. Nonetheless, the Administration repeatedly
tried to claim the connection to show that the invasion was a
justified response to 9/11 (like the declaration of war against Japan
for Pearl Harbor). The claim was a sheer fabrication.
Second, there was no reliable intelligence to support the
Administration's claim that Saddam was about to acquire nuclear
weapons capability. The specter of the "mushroom cloud," which
frightened many Americans into believing that the invasion of Iraq was
necessary for our self-defense, was made up out of whole cloth. As for
the biological and chemical weapons, even if, as reported, the CIA
director told the President that these existed in Iraq, the
Administration still had plenty of information suggesting the contrary.
The deliberateness of the deception has also been confirmed by a
British source: the Downing Street memo, the official record of Prime
Minister Tony Blair's July 2002 meeting with his top Cabinet
officials. At the meeting the chief of British intelligence, who had
just returned from the United States, reported that "Bush wanted to
remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction
of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy." In other words, the Bush Administration was
reported to be in the process of cooking up fake intelligence and
facts to justify going to war in Iraq.
During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, I drafted the resolution
of impeachment to hold President Nixon accountable for concealing from
Congress the bombing of Cambodia he initiated. But the committee did
not approve it, probably because it might appear political - in other
words, stemming from opposition to the war instead of to the
President's abuse of his warmaking powers.
With respect to President Bush and the Iraq War, there is not
likely to be any such confusion. Most Americans know that his
rationale for the war turned out to be untrue; for them the question
is whether the President lied, and if so, what the remedies are for
his misconduct.
The Failure to Take Care
Upon assuming the presidency, Bush took an oath of office in which
he swore to take care that the laws would be faithfully executed.
Impeachment cannot be used to remove a President for
maladministration, as the debates on ratifying the Constitution show.
But President Bush has been guilty of such gross incompetence or
reckless indifference to his obligation to execute the laws faithfully
as to call into question whether he takes his oath seriously or is
capable of doing so.
The most egregious example is the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Unconscionably and unaccountably, the Administration failed to provide
US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately armored vehicles.
A recent Pentagon study disclosed that proper bulletproof vests would
have saved hundreds of lives. Why wasn't the commencement of
hostilities postponed until the troops were properly outfitted? There
are numerous suggestions that the timing was prompted by political,
not military, concerns. The United States was under no imminent threat
of attack by Saddam Hussein, and the Administration knew it. They
delayed the marketing of the war until Americans finished their summer
vacations because "you don't introduce new products in August." As the
Downing Street memo revealed, the timeline for the war was set to
start thirty days before the 2002 Congressional elections.
And there was no serious plan for the aftermath of the war, a fact
also noted in the Downing Street memo. The President's failure as
Commander in Chief to protect the troops by arming them properly, and
his failure to plan for the occupation, cost dearly in lives and
taxpayer dollars. This was not mere negligence or oversight - in other
words, maladministration - but reflected a reckless and grotesque
disregard for the welfare of the troops and an utter indifference to
the need for proper governance of a country after occupation. As such,
these failures violated the requirements of the President's oath of
office. If they are proven to be the product of political objectives,
they could constitute impeachable offenses on those grounds alone.
Torture and Other Abuses of Power
President Bush recently proclaimed, "We do not torture." In view
of the revelations of the CIA's secret jails and practice of
rendition, not to mention the Abu Ghraib scandal, the statement
borders on the absurd, recalling Nixon's famous claim, "I am not a
crook." It has been well documented that abuse (including torture) of
detainees by US personnel in connection with the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq has been systemic and widespread. Under the War Crimes Act of
1996 it is a crime for any US national to order or engage in the
murder, torture or inhuman treatment of a detainee. (When a detainee
death results, the act imposes the death penalty.) In addition, anyone
in the chain of command who condones the abuse rather than stopping it
could also be in violation of the act. The act simply implements the
Geneva Conventions, which are the law of the land.
The evidence before us now suggests that the President himself may
have authorized detainee abuse. In January 2002, after the Afghanistan
war had begun, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President
Bush in writing that US mistreatment of detainees might be criminally
prosecutable under the War Crimes Act. Rather than order the possibly
criminal behavior to stop, which under the Geneva Conventions and the
War Crimes Act the President was obligated to do, Bush authorized an
"opt-out" of the Geneva Conventions to try to shield the Americans who
were abusing detainees from prosecution. In other words, the
President's response to reports of detainee abuse was to prevent
prosecution of the abusers, thereby implicitly condoning the abuse and
authorizing its continuation. If torture or inhuman treatment of
prisoners took place as a result of the President's conduct, then he
himself may have violated the War Crimes Act, along with those who
actually inflicted the abuse.
There are many other indications that the President has knowingly
condoned detainee abuse. For example, he never removed Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld from office or disciplined him, even though
Rumsfeld accepted responsibility for the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib,
admitted hiding a detainee from the Red Cross - a violation of the
Geneva Conventions and possibly the War Crimes Act, if the detainee
was being abused - and issued orders (later withdrawn) for Guantnamo
interrogations that violated the Geneva Conventions and possibly the
War Crimes Act.
More recently, the President opposed the McCain Amendment barring
torture when it was first proposed, and he tacitly supported Vice
President Cheney's efforts to get language into the bill that would
allow the CIA to torture or degrade detainees. Now, in his signing
statement, the President announced that he has the right to violate
the new law, claiming once again the right as Commander in Chief to
break laws when it suits him.
Furthermore, despite the horrors of the Abu Ghraib scandal, no
higher-ups have been held accountable. Only one officer of any
significant rank has been punished. It is as though the Watergate
inquiry stopped with the burglars, as the Nixon coverup tried and
failed to accomplish. President Bush has made no serious effort to
insure that the full scope of the scandal is uncovered or to hold any
higher-ups responsible, perhaps because responsibility goes right to
the White House.
It is imperative that a full investigation be undertaken of Bush's
role in the systemic torture and abuse of detainees. Violating his
oath of office, the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act would
constitute impeachable offenses.
Next Steps
Mobilizing the nation and Congress in support of investigations
and the impeachment of President Bush is a critical task that has
already begun, but it must intensify and grow. The American people
stopped the Vietnam War - against the wishes of the President - and
forced a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President
Nixon. And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has
three elements: building public and Congressional support, getting
Congress to undertake investigations into various aspects of
presidential misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in
the 2006 elections.
Drumming up public support means organizing rallies, spearheading
letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, organizing petition drives,
door-knocking in neighborhoods, handing out leaflets and deploying the
full range of mobilizing tactics. Organizations like
AfterDowningStreet.org and ImpeachPac.org, actively working on a
campaign for impeachment, are able to draw on a remarkably solid base
of public support. A Zogby poll taken in November - before the wiretap
scandal - showed more than 50 percent of those questioned favored
impeachment of President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.
An energized public must in turn bear down on Congress.
Constituents should request meetings with their Senators and
Representatives to educate them on impeachment. They can also make
their case through e-mail, letters and phone calls. Representatives
and Senators should be asked specifically to support hearings on and
investigations into the deceptions that led to the Iraq War and
President Bush's role in the torture scandals. Senators should also be
asked to insure that the hearings already planned by the Senate
Judiciary Committee into warrantless wiretaps are comprehensive. The
hearings should evaluate whether the wiretaps were genuinely used for
national security purposes and why the President chose to violate the
law when it was so easy to comply with it. Representatives should
specifically be asked to co-sponsor Congressman John Conyers's
resolution calling for a full inquiry into presidential abuses.
Finally, if this pressure fails to produce results, attention must
be focused on changing the political composition of the House and
Senate in the upcoming 2006 elections. If a Republican Congress is
unwilling to investigate and take appropriate action against a
Republican President, then a Democratic Congress should replace it.
As awful as Watergate was, after the vote on impeachment and the
resignation of President Nixon, the nation felt a huge sense of
relief. Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President Bush
has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him
from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our
constitutional system and preserve our democracy.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011206K.shtml
.

User: "Deopatra"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 01:45:10 PM

X-No-archive: yes
Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned from
the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's impeachment, it's
that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea after all. Think of it!
There's a moral to this story.
If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit the
lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books scooped up
by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also get to lecture
the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just like they now lecture
us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how can the guy lose?
I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the history
of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide. Go for it!
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 02:18:44 PM

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

X-No-archive: yes

Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned from
the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's impeachment, it's
that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea after all. Think of it!
There's a moral to this story.

If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit the
lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books scooped up
by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also get to lecture
the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just like they now lecture
us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the history
of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide. Go for it!

Sen. Joe Biden, long time Democrat and favorite in Delaware is being HIGHLY
criticized for his questioning during the hearing of Judge Alito. He
criticized his college, not Judge Alito, but Princeton University. This
outraged people from across the nation and they found a speech given by Sen.
Biden not to long ago in where he PRAISED Princeton and even said he would
want his kids to go there.
This showed he is a hypocrite.
He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President. But since when
did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in some
areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his representation of my
state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.
.

User: "George"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 04:11:50 PM

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

X-No-archive: yes

Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned from
the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's impeachment, it's
that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea after all. Think of it!
There's a moral to this story.

If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit the
lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books scooped up
by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also get to lecture
the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just like they now lecture
us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the history
of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide. Go for it!

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he even
wore their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He
riticized Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned Alumni of
Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to women and
bringing in more minorities. Of course you would relate to them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in some
areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his representation
of my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls
before you claim that.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 04:30:42 PM

"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006011214115016807%ggains@waddfredu...

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

X-No-archive: yes

Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned from
the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's impeachment, it's
that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea after all. Think of it!
There's a moral to this story.

If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit the
lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books scooped up
by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also get to lecture
the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just like they now lecture
us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the history
of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide. Go for it!

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he even wore
their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He riticized
Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton,
known for its opposition to opening the school to women and bringing in
more minorities. Of course you would relate to them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before
speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in some
areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his representation of
my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls before
you claim that.

Explain why you lie. I never made ANY such comment about being sexually
aroused by little girls.
Other than that, I have nothing to discuss with you. If you are going to
lie though, I will challenge you to support your lie..only for the purpose
that your response will support my claim that you lied.
You can't support your statements...period.
Buzz off now.
.

User: "Dave Lister"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 04:48:28 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:_u6dnTm5GrP5RVveRVn-hw@comcast.com:

"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006011214115016807%ggains@waddfredu...

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

X-No-archive: yes

Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned
from the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's
impeachment, it's that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea
after all. Think of it! There's a moral to this story.

If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit
the lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books
scooped up by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also
get to lecture the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just
like they now lecture us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how
can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the
history of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide.
Go for it!

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he even
wore their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He
riticized Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned Alumni
of Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to women
and bringing in more minorities. Of course you would relate to them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before
speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in
some areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his
representation of my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls
before you claim that.

Explain why you lie. I never made ANY such comment about being
sexually aroused by little girls.

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 05:29:09 PM

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974996CFC4A81retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:_u6dnTm5GrP5RVveRVn-hw@comcast.com:

"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006011214115016807%ggains@waddfredu...

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

X-No-archive: yes

Ya know, come to think of it if there's any lesson to be learned
from the Nazicrats' deliriously happy reaction to Bubba's
impeachment, it's that impeaching Bush may not be such a bad idea
after all. Think of it! There's a moral to this story.

If we Republicans adopt the same attitude these Nazicrats did to
Bubba's own impeachment, Bush will become a national treasure, hit
the lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books
scooped up by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then also
get to lecture the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just
like they now lecture us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how
can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the
history of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide.
Go for it!

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he even
wore their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He
riticized Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned Alumni
of Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to women
and bringing in more minorities. Of course you would relate to them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before
speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in
some areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his
representation of my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls
before you claim that.

Explain why you lie. I never made ANY such comment about being
sexually aroused by little girls.

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.
Let me know when you are grown up.
.

User: "Dave Lister"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 06:03:16 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:jbmdnQyxYvCMe1veRVn-
sw@comcast.com:

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974996CFC4A81retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:_u6dnTm5GrP5RVveRVn-hw@comcast.com:

"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006011214115016807%ggains@waddfredu...

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>

said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

hit

the lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books
scooped up by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then

also

get to lecture the Nazicrats on what it's OK to lie about, just
like they now lecture us on Bubba's little white lies. Like, how
can the guy lose?

I say impeach the guy! He'll be the most loved president in the
history of the republic if what happened to Clinton is any guide.
Go for it!

Sen. Joe Biden, long time Democrat and favorite in Delaware is

being

HIGHLY criticized for his questioning during the hearing of Judge
Alito. He criticized his college, not Judge Alito, but Princeton
University. This outraged people from across the nation and they
found a speech given by Sen. Biden not to long ago in where he
PRAISED Princeton and even said he would want his kids to go

there.

This showed he is a hypocrite.

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he

even

wore their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He
riticized Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned

Alumni

of Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to

women

and bringing in more minorities. Of course you would relate to

them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before
speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in
some areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his
representation of my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls
before you claim that.

Explain why you lie. I never made ANY such comment about being
sexually aroused by little girls.

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Let me know when you are grown up.

Of course you lied, loon. You said that Biden said something he didn't.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 06:07:36 PM

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9749A38F3CA28retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:jbmdnQyxYvCMe1veRVn-
sw@comcast.com:

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974996CFC4A81retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:_u6dnTm5GrP5RVveRVn-hw@comcast.com:

"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2006011214115016807%ggains@waddfredu...

On 2006-01-12 12:18:44 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>

said:

"Deopatra" <Rumprider_Ridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137095110.586200.244140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

hit

the lecture circuit at 200K a pop and write best selling books
scooped up by adoring Republicans. Not only that, we will then

also

Sen. Joe Biden, long time Democrat and favorite in Delaware is

being

there.

This showed he is a hypocrite.

Quit your fucking whining! He wasn't criticizing Princeton - he

even

wore their cap during the questioning, which was kind of weird. He
riticized Alito's membership in a university group, Concerned

Alumni

of Princeton, known for its opposition to opening the school to

women

and bringing in more minorities. Of course you would relate to

them.

He has just blasted his chances of a good run for President.

I doubt you could know that.

But since when did some of the liberal Democrats ever think before
speaking?
As one who admires Sen. Biden and thinks he has done some good in
some areas, I am deeply embarrassed and dissappointed in his
representation of my state at this moment.
He went WAY overboard.

Explain your comments about being sexually aroused by little girls
before you claim that.

Explain why you lie. I never made ANY such comment about being
sexually aroused by little girls.

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Let me know when you are grown up.

<snip>
When will the left wing liberals grow up?
When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there. Until then, if you
want to act like a child go sit with the other left wing liberals. I know
what I read from various articles, newspapers, and heard on the news.
.

User: "Dave Lister"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 06:19:01 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:DpmdnSWEVMSNclvenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Let me know when you are grown up.

<snip>
When will the left wing liberals grow up?

When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there. Until then, if
you want to act like a child go sit with the other left wing liberals.
I know what I read from various articles, newspapers, and heard on
the news.

In other words, rightard, you lied again, you got caught again, and now you
want to bleat about your opponents.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 07:42:03 PM

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9749A63E22C34retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:DpmdnSWEVMSNclvenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Let me know when you are grown up.

<snip>
When will the left wing liberals grow up?

When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there. Until then, if
you want to act like a child go sit with the other left wing liberals.
I know what I read from various articles, newspapers, and heard on
the news.

In other words

If I want to talk to little children who feel better by calling people
names, I will talk to the children. But I don't expect to find children in
this newsgroup. So when you can stop acting like a child, then and only
then, we can discuss the issue.
I am sure you will have a barrage of clever little names you have probably
been saving up on, go ahead and share them with the other liberals in here.
They will not come across my screen though.
.

User: "Dave Lister"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 09:34:50 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:De2dnbr1c7m6mFreRVn-sA@comcast.com:

"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9749A63E22C34retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:DpmdnSWEVMSNclvenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

So it's ok for you to lie but nobody else, loon?

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Let me know when you are grown up.

<snip>
When will the left wing liberals grow up?

When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there. Until then,
if you want to act like a child go sit with the other left wing
liberals.
I know what I read from various articles, newspapers, and heard on
the news.

In other words

If I want to talk to little children who feel better by calling people
names, I will talk to the children. But I don't expect to find
children in this newsgroup. So when you can stop acting like a child,
then and only then, we can discuss the issue.

I am sure you will have a barrage of clever little names you have
probably been saving up on, go ahead and share them with the other
liberals in here. They will not come across my screen though.

You should talk to children, rightard, they appreciate lies just as much
as you seem to. You'd be playing with your equals in a manner of
speaking.
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 08:49:37 PM

osprey lied:

I
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en

"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	13 Jan 2006 12:17:21 AM

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there.

When you can stop lying your sorry ***** off at every opportunity then
maybe you'll start to earn some respect.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 06:26:19 PM

osprey lied:

User: "Katherine OFlaherty"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	13 Jan 2006 06:42:09 AM

osprey wrote:

<snip>
When will the left wing liberals grow up?

Well, the right wing can't fly without the left and the left wing can't
fly without the left. Maybe the whole political bird should just crash
land and call it a day.

When you can discuss the issue, we can go from there. Until then, if you
want to act like a child go sit with the other left wing liberals. I know
what I read from various articles, newspapers, and heard on the news.

And you repeat exactly what is reported, to hell with formulating your
own opinions.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 06:41:18 PM

In article <Xns9749A38F3CA28retsildivad33hotmail@70.169.32.36>,
Dave Lister <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:jbmdnQyxYvCMe1veRVn-

I don't lie..but thanks for confirming they did.

Of course you lied, loon. You said that Biden said something he didn't.

oh that. coward bobby posts lies like that about everyone. he didn't
single biden out.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	12 Jan 2006 05:58:24 PM

In article <jbmdnQyxYvCMe1veRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

I don't lie

"Liar. Having NO credibility.
.....
IMMATURE liar."
-xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) to ospery
Message-ID: <3e003cb4.45015725@netnews.mchsi.com>
"All you do is demonstrate that you are
a coward that can't support his position.
You toss this ***** around and
when people call you on it you claim
you won't discuss it. Cowardly.
....
And, again, don't expect to be treated with
any respect on this newsgroup if you continue
to avoid the difficult issues and only want
to talk about the easy ones. It is cowardly."
-David Barnes <dbarnes@barnsco.com> to ospery
Message-ID: <110320031640052091%dbarnes@barnsco.com>
"You're a chickenshit coward who hides behind
bars on the prison system. They know that
you have the entire state legal system to
protect your chickenshit little *****.
....
You don't respect anybody, chickenhawk.
That's why you keep running away every time
you're proven to be a dishonest coward."

(Ray Fischer) to ospery
Message-ID: <b4gb16$j03$1@bolt.sonic.net>
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."

(pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
"You're like the child who has cake all over his face, yet denies
having eaten the cake."

(pr0r3p) writing to
coward osprey (bobby heishman)
in <1686c3b8.0401290731.17ace3b1@posting.google.com>
"You start with your scummy lies every time somebody
dares to tell the truth about you. You have so little
understanding
of morals that you have used every despicable lie and then tried
to justify it by whining "they did it first""

(Ray Fischer) writing to coward bobby
heishman in <c71c0u$2ml$1@bolt.sonic.net>
"That osprey is a liar."
From: "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: NeoCon Moron "Osprey" Continues To Make a Fool Of Himself
(Why
Are NeoCon Such Dishonest Idiots?)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0500
Message-ID: <cj9p6j$ehp$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
"Obviously critical thinking skills is not a job requirement for prison
guards."
From:

Message-ID:

"Ignorance is Bliss, and you are full of it."
From: "kurttrail" <dontemai...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org>
Message-ID:

"Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand."
Message-ID:

"Osprey is a moron, every post just proves that beyond a shadow of a
doubt. Of course, Osprey isn't interested in the facts"
From: Brian Henderson <BrianL.Hender...@NOSPAM.verizon.net>
Message-ID:

Will you EVER stop spouting this claptrap???? EVER???
Message-ID:

"But since we all know that the chick_hen_hawk heishman is an idiot, a
liar
and a hypocrite, it doesn't really matter what the fool thinks or
says."
Message-ID: Xns9460763D4707CSD@153.80.109.11
"So, this proves one of two things. Either Osprey is too stupid to
understand he is making a totally illogical argument, or he does
recognize that it is an illogical argument buts uses it anyway."
Message-ID: 090920032159472190%john@amelgmm.com
"Will someone who lives in the same alternative reality as Bobby PLEASE
call the following to his attention?"
Message-ID:

"The point was that Heishman is an idiot, and his fucked up attitude
will
garner him no support whatsoever"
Message-ID: <Clhcb.85976$z32.63132@twister.austin.rr.com>
"But it is still a specific number so you lied about that. And it is
wrong."
Message-ID:

"osprey has given new meaning to the word "coward.""
Message-ID: <Xns947E593D7D3FEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>
"I have never seen someone defend a misreading as strongly as you
do. I am sorry you can't understand a sentence that complex.
Now is there anyone else out there who reads my comment the way
Osprey did?
I judge your reading comprehension when you show you can't read a
simple sentence."
From: Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom>
Message-ID: <509240tfhfcur48mv4fjfrgcfcsfjs30ee@4ax.com>
"Osprey is a moron who blindly agrees with whatever the Republican
White
House does. He is this newsgroups version of Bill O'Riley, Ann
Coulter, or Joe Scarborough."
From: John Signorelli <j...@amelgmm.com>
Message-ID: <020820032022410314%john@amelgmm.com>
"Osprey is a moron. Feel sorry for him and let him go."
Message-ID: 271020042011286317%spam@aol.com
"poor coward bobby lies about his lies."
Message-ID: Xns93A18A599AEEkeegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165
"In spite of my low opinion of Bobby, I believe that if he took the
intiative to unravel his over-lapped web of blatant lies, accept
responsibility for his action, he might find the right path to
adulthood."
From: krisblake4...@cs.comnospam (Krisblake4eva)
Subject: Re: Heishman's double-speak
Message-ID:

"You lied, Heishman."
Subject: Re: Robert Heishman is a liar
Message-ID: bd0n59$5cq$1@bolt.sonic.net
"Why don't you just apologise to the people
you keep misrepresenting and give it up.
All of the names on your list that I recognise
are people that are well known to be
pro-choice, and not "pro-abortion"."
Message-ID:

"Why must you lie?"
Message-ID:

"And Bobby *still* can't understand the written word. Oh well, it's not
like I expected him to be able to address the point, so he's reduced
to making ***** up, as usual."
Message-ID:

"***** Heishman implicitely admits that he was lying.
But nobody is surprised."
Message-ID: cso0c9$pdt$1@bolt.sonic.net
"Why can you never state
your case without lying, Bobby?"
Message-ID:

"I did not expect anything "honest" coming from the fingers of
Robert Heishman, USENET's most prolific liar. ;-)"
Message-ID: <20030619130209.09323.00001689@mb-m07.news.cs.com
And my personal favorite:
"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say
that Heishman is the pussiest of them all."
From: Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Subject: Re: Osprey gets caught lying again
Date: 28 Jan 2004 00:02:35 -0800
Message-ID:

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: The Impeachment of George W. Bush	13 Jan 2006 12:56:36 AM

In article <jbmdnQyxYvCMe1veRVn-sw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote: