Congratulations and thanks to all the "young'uns" here in San Francisco, and elsewhere, who pulled off all the 'actions' on Wednesday. A Giant Step. Keep On Trucking. The Torch is in good hands. For an example of a really effective piece of agitprop in your face street theatre that can can be staged by a few committed (or committable) folks, I recommend checking out what the students at Hunter College did. Brilliant sisters and brothers. Way to go. Go to:-
'worldcantwait.org':-'media':-'protesters arrested'.
Bush Out Now. Shut The Mother Down. patrickmonk.rn.sf.

The President acts and demands the power of a king. If that isn't reason for impeachment what is?

I heard on the radio yesterday that the President was giving all the money contributed from foreign governments to aid ciitzens after Katrina to the Methodist church. What!!! Is this not abuse of power?

This violates the Constitution period. He and our government leaders all swore to protect and defend it. They act like it doesn't exist ignoring their duty to protect our democracy and the Constituton at all costs. It's like a foreign army invaded us and removed our democracy, our Constitution, our rigths, and all our jobs for a few elite's dream (Neo Cons) of power and profit.

Money given by a President to a religious organization? Just like that?

Hey...media...Congress are you in a drugged state? Congress controls the purse...including money from foreign countries. They decide where this money goes not the President to his favorite religious leader who will bring him votes. The money should have been decided by Congress. They should demand it back and send it to the states and cities in need in the Gulf area. Not to some religious leader who will rebuild churches while the citizens sleep in shelters and domes.

Religious organizations have tax exempt status to help the poor. They do very little. Even when their churches/temples are destroyed their members in other areas should help them rebuild.

Congress needs to do their duty regarding trade also. They are supposed to go back to their constituents who decide how to trade with other countries. It is not a one way deal. The President does not have the power to go and meet behind closed doors with foreign leaders to form his own huge corporate country called the "Americans". This is treason.

Congress failed to vote on war or hold those responsible for the lies and fraud...dead innocents in the ME. Blood is on their hands. No...we didn't want war as they say. They lied to bring us to war. Some of us protested the war and lies. We were called "unpatriotic Americans". Who wears that label now?

The meetings in Argentina for WTO AFTA, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) and negating our laws and borders, laws, etc...just plain illegal!

President Bush as leader demanded and got all these unconstitutional powers from our Congress. He is a traitor of the highest level. They who gave him this king like power need to go. They are Fascists (combination of government and trade). They don't represent us but act like it everyday on TV and in the news.

The President's polls are low so are the Congresses. We are angry and sick of their lies and fraud.

Impeachment is necessary right now. Further investigations needed also to place them in jail. Bush senior escaped jail only to come back with his son to murder, defraud, and steal from us again. Their conspiracy is to destroy our democracy for their own dream of world government. It is treason no matter how you look at it.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

AND >> (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002603102_poll04.html)

"The war has taken a toll on the administration's credibility, with 55 percent now saying the administration deliberately misled the country in making its case for war with Iraq."

SO...

The majority of the nation WANTS THIS NOW!

Hello!?! Earth to Euphemedia! Come In! Is Anybody Home?!?

www.january6th.org

This may be interesting...

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_112.shtml

Here's actual text:

Twenty questions about impeaching a vice president
By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.

Nov 4, 2005, 15:33

1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.

2. Q: Why is it so simple?

A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.

3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?

A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices cronyism.” We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” President Gerald Ford was correct when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history.”

4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice president based on the notion that the person of greater authority – the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his administration?

A: No, none whatsoever.

5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of evidence?

A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

6. Q: Doesn’t the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of justice here?

A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice president.

7. Q: Has this ever happened?

A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two presidents – Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly resigned.

8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like?

A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” The man of the hour may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In 1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.

9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are dissatisfied?

A: Yes, it’s a snap. It takes only one House member to propose impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219 House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is “Yes, if they feel that it is in their interest” - whatever way they may calculate that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.

10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be possible to get that many votes?

A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are asking about is ‘possibility’. In reality, during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton’s trial, the vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the second one, it was 50-50.

11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant, Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?

A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr. Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining specifically to him.

12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of impeachment?

A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.

13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?

A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president, could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from interfering in the process of impeachment.

14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment.

15. Q: Are you suggesting that President Bush could pardon a person’s crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?

A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger’s trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.

16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?

A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult or dangerous circumstances.

17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of impeachment start to swirl?

A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become president.

18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up, how is he replaced?

A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older. That nomination must then be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate before the person can be sworn in as the new vice president.

19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?

A: By ‘talking it up,’ by seeking publicity for the idea, and by persuading a Congressperson to propose it. Since 2001 when President George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed his petition. Number 16 in Clark’s list of complaints sounds particularly relevant to the vice president, namely “refusal to provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of executive functions.”

20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?

A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if appropriate. ‘RICO’ stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York because it accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v. Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.

Mary Maxwell, P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA, is a political scientist. She can be emailed as ‘mary’ at her website marymaxwell.us. She hereby permits anyone to distribute this article as long as it is unaltered and credits the author

I do not understand why anyone supports impeaching Bush. Why impeach a pitiful messenger boy when we have one of the real criminals in our sights? The spector of Cheney as president of the US sends cold chills down my spine. This man and his mentors and sycophants compose the most dangerous cabal this planet has witnessed with the possible exception of Hitler and his cronies.

Cheney's role in instigating and sheperding the effort to discredit Wilson is becoming more clear with each new revelation from the special prosecutor. we've got him in the crosshairs, now is the time for a concerted effort with a realistic chance of succeeding.

Tradition, unwillingness to admit a mistake, fear of the unknown and many other factors converge to render impeachment of a sitting president unlikely. Who, except a few corporate military/industrial thiefs, would defend the bastard Cheney?

I am importuning the Progressive Democratic Caucus of California to suspend agitation to impeach Bush and instead concentrate on an effort to impeach Cheney, who lies and actions were far more egregious than GWB's.

Doug Hunter

An interesting SUSA Poll finds 63% feel that Libby intentionally lied and of that 34% feel he was told to lie.

View the full results here:
http://intoxination.blogspot.com/2005/11/poll-most-believe-libby-intenti...

Jamie

Impeach them all !

cheney, bush, and all the rest... Let's not forget the 3 supreme traitors and how they voted on 12-12-2000 on bush vs. Gore.

The repugs, if they had any brains (a dubious proposition), would go along with that. The bushes are a cancer on them too. Already the traditional republican party no longer exists, it has become the fascist oligarchy party of the world... is this what these guys really wanted to become? Could it be that they too have been played, snookered and taken over by bushscum? I never liked repubs much... but there used to be some I could respect... Now I don't respect any of them (even mcCain-capo). How can you respect fascists? and how else can one qualify what is happening in US today? How much more proof do you need? What's your euphemism?

Impeachment is THE provision of our Constitution to cleanse this cancer...

I read somewhere that there is also a survey out that is showing that not only do more Americans favor impeachment, but that a growing number are saying that is not enough. They want to see prosecution for war crimes and treason. I'm on that boat, too. Given the miracle that we succeed on impeachment, it won't be enough unless we haul these people to justice. They can't just return to their homes or 'ranches'. They need to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Crowded prisons. Prisons filled with angry inmates....

Unfortunately, the will and the way don't follow the same clock.
Impeachment efforts, unless the proof is so damning, take such a long time. Meanwhile, the country is going to hell and more people are being sacrificed.
I do not say abandon the effort; I say augmented with the kind of proof that even a republican congressman or senator cannot sweep under the rug.

New evidence has come up that make the argument in the article even stronger. Based on the new evidence, an new article is being written and it will be published or posted in the near future.
You can contact me through the email address on the website.
Maher

Bump.

Let's be relentless and attack these fascits repugs on all fronts, all the times... Do the same in your own state, in your own town, in your local newspaper. Put a big sign in front of your house: i.e. "repugnicans almost succeeded in highjacking America, I want my country back"... Let it become widely recognized as shameful to be a repug, in effect a traitor who reveals covert agents, a torture supporter, a destroyer of the Bill of Right, a gulag supporter, a war criminal, a big spender and destroyer of our children's financial future, etc, etc..

refuse to have any contact whatsoever with any repug... shun them.

(link to piece below)

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-w/ratchet.htm

"Shallow Throat":
Ratchet It Up, Take 'Em Down

By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
November 8, 2005

"The wheels are coming off the bus," a giddy Shallow Throat said. "Now that the Bush Administration is imploding from within, it's time for those of us on the outside to set more political charges.

"So many who have wanted to 'get' these creeps, but who have been silent before, are leaking damaging information about them. The Establishment conservatives -- those who were pushed out of influence and power by the neo-cons who hijacked our party -- are getting their message out daily: It's OK to get rid of these Bush guys because if we don't, they'll take us all down with them -- the party, the economy, the Constitution, the military, the veterans, whatever's left of respect for the U.S. in the world."

I hadn't seen Shallow Throat like this in a long, long time. The high-ranking Bush Administration GOP mole, who previously had revealed so much of the motivations and weaknesses from inside the White House, just let the words come pouring out.

"In short, we're at the shores of Lake Critical Mass, my friend -- but not quite to the Promised Land. Tell your liberal Dem colleagues to ratchet up the pressure and join us traditional conservatives in pushing this crew off the political cliff. If we each work our respective constituencies with intelligence and determination, the long nightmare will soon be over."

"But where to push the hardest?" I asked. "Where are they weakest? We don't want to scatter-shot our energies."

DRY-ROT CAN DO WONDERS

"Their main points of weakness? Try anywhere. Their whole foundation, built on lies and fraud and corruption and in-your-face arrogance and bullying, has rampant dry-rot at the core. Just hit it hard, anywhere, and more structure will fall off, by this time almost on its own."

"Good metaphor," I said, "but give us some specific guidance here. Should we concentrate on the Iraq war? Supreme Court nominees? Corruption? Torture? Where?"

"What I'm saying," Shallow Throat responded, "is that it's Shadow-Cabinet time. The Dems, if they're smart, will organize their forces accordingly. Certain Democrat Senators and Representatives should have specific portfolios of attack. Some, those with special expertise, should concentrate on Iraq. Some on corruption, focusing on DeLay, Frist, Abramoff, Cheney. Some on our electoral system rife with fraud and vote-tabulation manipulations. Some on the Constitution and abuse of police power. Some should be shadowing Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush. Some on the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales torture policies. Some on following out the Scooter Libby and Niger Yellowcake chain. Some on Alito and his way-out-of-the-mainstream ideological jurisprudence and open conflicts of interest. Some on foreign policy, especially how the Bush neocons are anxious to move the U.S. to war with Syria and/or Iran.

"To change metaphors, the Bush Administration is like a Great White Shark beached right now, mostly by its own actions. In such a position, it's extremely vulnerable, but in order to ensure that it doesn't escape at the next HardRight tide, you've got to tie it up tightly. You've got to organize the various teams so that everyone knows how and where to throw the ropes over the carcass, where the nodal points of weakness are.

"If everyone's merely running around shouting and cheering, you'll just get your ropes all tangled up and little will be accomplished, except to make everyone temporarily feel good. We don't want to feel good, we want to get this batch of crooks and liars and power-hungry zealots out of the peoples' White House. Then we can set about the long process of undoing years of Bush&Co. damage, and start the restoration process.

GOP ELITE MAKES ITS MOVE

"That's one reason why I'm suggesting that you make as many alliances as you can, even if some of them are only tangential, with the traditional elements of the GOP, the Establishment conservatives, the moderate rank-and-file, those good reasonable conservatives in the Congress worried about their chances for re-election," said ST. "Use what they're saying about this Bush crew -- Bill Buckley, Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, John Danforth, the leakers in the CIA, those who published the Downing Street Memos, et al. These are not dastardly 'liberals'; these make up the backbone of traditional center-right rule.

"Those speaking out against the Busheviks are taking giant risks right now saying what they're saying, and they need all the support they can get. Yes, of course, they should have revealed all this stuff years ago, but don't waste energy denouncing them for their belated courage, the point is that they're saying it now. Use it."

"But how," I asked, "can we ensure that the Democrats will not falter, that they are willing to take the lead in attacking the Bush Administration consistently and frontally on all these issues?"

"Look, Bernie," said ST, "for years, your progressive friends have been pointing out how spineless the Democrats have been in the face of Karl Rove's mendacious assault on them and the democratic process as a whole. But now, sensing the weaknesses and openings in the crumbling Bush&Co. facade, they're starting to make forays, try out some political jui-jitsu moves, rack up a few victories. In some ways, as unbelievable as it sounds, they are starting to make noises as if they finally understand what the word 'opposition' means. (A few already have taken the necessary giant step: admitting they were wrong in granting Bush authorization to take the country to war in Iraq, because the Administration lied and misled them as they also lied and deceived the public at large.)

"As these Democrat leaders begin to speak out -- especially Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House -- don't bad-mouth them for their earlier timidity; praise them and encourage them for what they're doing now. Keep your eyes on the prize: cleansing the White House of this ruinous, reckless, incompetent crew. You can fight among yourselves later."

"What I don't understand," I asked, "is what do you guys, you traditional Republicans, get out of encouraging us progressive Democrats to lead the fight in toppling the Bushies?"

RE-OPENING THE BIG CENTER

"I thought that would be self-evident," said Shallow Throat, with a you-really-have-to-ask? look thrown my way. "We're frozen out. The Hard Rightists, neo-con crazies and religious zealots have a total lock on power in the Republican Party. The only way we can ever hope for our more realistic and moderate candidates to get back into contention is to impeach or otherwise get rid of this destructive cabal. We'd prefer to do it ourselves but we're too weak right now. This time out, the Dems must take the lead in bringing them down.

"After that, the Big Center is open once again -- you guys in the center-left, we in the center-right. In a fair fight -- which means an honest electoral system, with hand-counted paper ballots by official poll workers -- we think we can whip your butts, but even if your side wins, we still have a good shot the next time. Now do you get it? It's in our self-interest -- which just happens to be what's good for the country as a whole -- to return the federal government to the Big Center by eliminating those who don't give a fig for democratic institutions, except how to manipulate and distort them in the service of a tiny sliver of the American population."

"And you're convinced that the Bushies can be taken now, that they're that weak?" I asked.

"For sure. But with several important caveats. They may be dumb and incompetent, but they're not politically stupid, they're still in power, and they have few moral qualms. They see what you and I see, that they're in free-fall right now, and that they're no longer trusted or seen as occupying the moral/ethical high ground; they realize that unless they take some drastic action to stop that free-fall, they're going down -- with huge anchors tied around their necks: Iraq, Katrina, Libby, jobs, torture, widescale corruption, the conservative Establishment revealing even more of their mendacity and incompetence, etc.

BEWARE THE WALKING WOUNDED

"Which translates into: They will do anything, ANYTHING, to stave off their impending loss of power. If they feel they have to totally shift the focus, to distract the public from the Administration's self-created woes, they will act accordingly; launch an attack on another country; look the other way again as a large-scale terrorist attack (or public health threat) takes place inside the United States; kick their slime-machine into high gear against anyone who criticizes them. In short, don't take your eyes off the Busheviks for a second; they're wounded, cornered animals ready to do anything to strike out and escape the political noose -- and, not incidentally, likely criminal prosecutions down the line."

"But," I asked, "if the situation inside the Administration is so scary for those deemed 'disloyal,' why are you risking your neck to talk to me and get the word out to your ostensible political enemies?"

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy for us all right now is the Bush bunker crew holding the reins of federal political power. We work together now to defeat them, we fight it out later in the good, old-fashioned, civil way we've always fought. Let the best ideas win -- not the biggest lies.

"Sure, I'm frightened of what might happen to me if I were caught talking with you. But, as I tried to emphasize in our discussion tonight, the objective conditions are now there for taking down this bumbling, vicious, greedy crew. Even if my own neck is at risk, at least I'll know I'd be helping take them down with me. Not a bad bargain."

And with that, Shallow Throat, wearing a calm, big grin, vanished into the night. I sat there sipping my Negra Modelo, feeling uplifted, warm, hopeful.

Copyright 2005, by Bernard Weiner

The latest from Pew is that Bush's approval ratings have declined further, Iraq is the number one issue with the American people and that the Libby indictment is having a highly negative effect for Bush.

The summary:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=262

Poll: Most Americans Doubt Bush's Honesty

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honor and integrity" in the White House, last week ordered White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, to attend ethics classes.

The president gets credit from a majority for being strong and decisive, but he's also seen by an overwhelming number of people as "stubborn," a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.

More than eight in 10, 82 percent, described Bush as "stubborn," with almost that many Republicans agreeing to that description. That stubborn streak has served Bush well at times, but now he is being encouraged to shake up his staff and change the direction of White House policies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll

Realise this may be old news to a lot of you folks but it was new to me. Just starting to delve. Looks juicy. Have to thank the C-SPAN caller this morning who raised the topic with the delightfully deluded Michelle Malkin while she was hawking her new 'literary' endeavor. She didn't seem to be interested in pursuing the subject. Hmmm? Piqued my curiosity. Anyone familiar enough with the issue to provide a Cliff's Notes version for us simple folks.
patrickmonk.rn.sf

Thanks, I think..but you may have just hijacked my weekend !!..and the sun is shining...guess I can print out a bunch of stuff to read, pedal out to the Ocean, sit in the sand and dream the impossible dream of a better world. Give thanks y'all, the tide may be turning...but we gotta keep pushing the river. The world can't wait. patrickmonk.rn.sf.

As being reported by the Sunday Harold. Think of what an inquiry into prewar intelligence in the UK could mean for Bush. Especially if the Downing Street Memos get investigated.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print52851

Jamie

At some point during the last few months I was denied access to the 'create content' feature of this site, anyone else had similar problem ?. Anyway the result is I can not post in Forums etc. to alert others like myself who were not aware of this emerging issue. Feels a little like another restriction of Free Speech to me, only the 'acceptable' voices of the elites who control the MSM or Alternative Outlets get full voice, the rest are somehow less worthy of attention, but I guess that's par for the course in this 'democracy'. Any of you 'privileged' folks out there able to post for wider circulation. As one who originally hailed from across the pond I enjoyed the following, check it out. "A message from John Cleese to the citizens of the United States of America". God Save The Queen and Terminate Tony.
patrick.monk.rn.sf.

Americans' views of President Bush and his trustworthiness have hit new lows, a downturn that could make it more difficult for him to push his legislative agenda and to boost Republican candidates in next year's congressional elections.

Fewer than one in 10 adults say they would prefer a congressional candidate who is a Republican and who agrees with Bush on most major issues, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Even among Republicans, seven of 10 are most likely to back a candidate who has at least some disagreements with the president.

Bush's job approval rating sank to a record low 37%. The poll finds growing criticism of the president, unease about the nation's direction and opposition to the Iraq war. "All of this is a culmination: How we ended up going into Iraq, gasoline prices, the underlying economic jitters, the sense that the president is out of touch with what the average person wants," Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio says. "What good news have people heard?"

G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist and director of the non-partisan Keystone Poll in Pennsylvania, says he already sees Republican officeholders in the state react to Bush's drop in popularity. "More and more Republicans will begin to separate themselves from the president and establish independent positions," he predicts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-poll_x.htm

There have been calls for Downing Street to publish a transcript of a conversation between Tony Blair and US President George Bush.
It comes amid claims the Prime Minister persuaded Mr Bush not to launch a military strike on a TV station in a friendly Arab state.
According to unnamed sources quoted in the Daily Mirror, the memo - stamped Top Secret - records Mr Bush suggesting that he might order the bombing of al Jazeera's studios in Qatar.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13466894,00.html

2:49am Pacific time. Qatar is one of Bush's strongest allies which makes this idea of Shrub's really terrible. Qatar provided command and control when the Saudi's threw American forces out at the start of the war.

Just another torch and a can of gas on the fire Bush is building in the middle east.

I have been an active reader of this website for a couple of years now and have been a user for the same time period as well. I am always hesitant to offer my opinion since whenever someone might disagree with a certain point of view, there are many of you who immediately name call them and put them down. Very impolite and elementary like. For those of you who are democrats, like myself, but might disagree with me, I am just asking for your opinion on what I am going to post. It is always disturbing to see educated people immediately start name calling just because different points of view. Growing up I have always been one to break both sides apart and see how they work. I have done that with politics as well. I ran across this list and would be happy to provide sources at a later time if no one believes me but here is an interesting list.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Prior to 2000, the people that you have quoted DID NOT cry for an invasion of Iraq. It was only after now-proven fabricated intelligence claiming "imminent" and "grave" danger that they felt the need to authorize force. Furthermore, the authorization was given in the spirit of giving bipartisan support to a President who had not yet shown his true agenda.

As I wrote in my post I just found those quotes to be very interesting. I was not trying to make a point of anykind. I was just wanting to get input on what your opinion was related to my post. You have thoroughly explained this to me. Now in regards to you asking me why you have to explain this to a democrat, I am sitting here in my office in Plano, TX. Almost everyone around me are Republicans and I have been hearing discussions and I am trying to get more ammunition to hold my ground. My co-workers are the ones who provided me with the list I posted and I didn't know exactly how to respond.

I believe those comments were more than a year ago. Just like was said earlier that everyone is able to change their minds are their point of view, even if it does make them look like fools by changing positions. I have been talking to my neighbor who is around my age. He is trying to run for a Democratic seat in the State Senate. He is currently getting his 500 needed signatures to be placed on the ballot. I am actively helping him pursue this so that he can help reform education and immigration. The only reason why I am writing this is to show that by doing a little research, almost anyone can change.

The opposite is true from what they say.
"Ignorance is actually not very blissful"

That wasn't any test.. I appreciate your answers because I when I am shown things like those quotes, sometimes I don't know how to immediately respond.