Print Story some stuff XXXX
Diary
By cam (Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:11:40 AM EST) (all tags)
webservices, ebay architecture, phoenician y chromosomes, american constitutionalism, american republican brand broken, impeachment, books, political tv (sucks and why), monaro/gto, wheels, c'mon eileen.


1. Remain unfandomed by webservices. One of the problems with software development is that there is great variation in ability/capability and webservices puts you at the arbitrary mercy of local API designers. I think a REST interface forces more uniformity in API in this instance.

2. Rusty Elliote Harold has an interesting summation of a speech by an ebay architect. I will reproduce parts of it before it slides off his front page:

Now Randy starts talking about scaling the application tier (as opposed to the database tier).

* Segmentation by function.
* Application tier is stateless, which enables horizontal scaling.
* Minimize dependencies between search, selling, etc.
* Virtualize data access
* Throw out most of J2EE. Use servlets, not much else.
* Keep application server completely stateless. No session state. Transient state maintained in a cookie or another database.
* Cache where possible.

Interesting stuff from one of the real "big guys".

3. SSR Plug I: Phoenician Genetics, "Wells comments that they found less than twenty percent and possibly as few as ten percent of modern day Tunis carries Phoenician markers in the Y chromosome." Pretty interesting as Wells is trying to use genetics to fill in the archaeological gaps.

4. SSR Plug II: American Constitutionalism. Leonard Levy argues that American constitutionalism is a misinterpretation of English constitutionalism:

Consequently American constitutionalism embodied social compact theory, natural right theory and explicitly limited government. This went beyond the English enunciation of rights as the Acts above limited the crown, not parliament. American constitutionalism was less discriminative and limited both executive and legislative.

Levy also argues that American Constitutionalism incorporated social compact theory which inevitably made for increasingly restricted government.

5. Via Andrew Sullivan: Bush and Rove have broken the Republican brand entirely. In reality, as a recent immigrant who carries no US history of party affiliation, I should be in the natural constituency of the Republican Party. Except, I think they are the biggest bunch of despotic, authoritarian, bible-thumping, two-faced criminals who are incapable of good governance. They have not only broken the 'republican brand' with youth, but with me too. Wonder how many other immigrants think similarly.

6. Impeachment debate: One of the things I dislike about the constant call for impeachment is the same reason I dislike the recall election in California. Democracy has a morality, and that includes the elected bodies serve out their term unless they have done criminal actions. Recall and impeachment for non-criminal purposes, such as not being popular with a majority or minority (such as was the case in CA) go against democracy's morality. If the Bush Administration has performed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" then yes, but because they are unpopular or incompetent, no.

7. Also came home with: Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World . It is a speculator. The other book I came home with is the Levy book. I have got into the habit of dropping in at Borders after being at the driving range.

8. This is why I dont watch the Sunday talk shows or CNN/Fox/MSNBC/whatever. Stan Grant and Bruce Fein are smart people who know exactly what is going on. I *want* to listen to them. Chris Matthews talks all over the top of them both, Grant barely gets a word in. Matthews should just shut up and fuck off.

9. Chops of a possible Monaro/GTO

10. Beautiful. Love the black Z06 wheels. I suspect that is what I will end up putting on mine.

11. Save ferris - c'mon eileen. Their punk-ska(?) composition of it seems to have inspired all sorts of youtube covers.

< A diary | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
some stuff XXXX | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Impeachment by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #1 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:31:00 AM EST
Bush has, indeed, committed crimes, IMHO. It is, for instance, illegal to order the NSA to spy on American citizens. (To name just one thing.)
----
ウセーバラケダ


I think FISA is the area by cam (2.00 / 0) #2 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:37:54 AM EST
where they have exposed themselves legally. I would be comfortable if impeachment proceedings were started over that. The rest of the time they have been pretty careful not to expose themselves legally. They mainly fight over precedents and conventions while backing off of any judicial showdowns of any kind. I also expect that the constant digging by an energetic legislative (another reason why the morality of democracy works) will uncover other misdemeanours.

The internet bleachers tend to view each instance of Bush incompetence - and there are many - as a valid reason to impeach. I know I am ascribing monolithic behaviours there, but even so.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

happens all the time by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #3 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:26:51 PM EST
A good proportion of the American public doesn't understand what "Impeach" means. There were tons of "Impeach Reagan" bumper stickers in the 80s.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

also, arguably by R343L (4.00 / 1) #4 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:48:19 PM EST
Withholding information and deliberately mis-interpretting intelligence data to convince congress to pass a law that is essentially as close to war declarations as we get.

Then there is the fact that he (and Cheney, etc.) are instructing current and former employees of the executive branch to not comply with congressional subpoenas. That's seems like a "high crime or misdemeanor" to me since it's intention is clearly to cover up other things. And there's no basis in law that really allows them to refuse anyway (they have to appear minimally, not sure they have to answer questions).

Oh, and don't forget the whole Plame thing (although who knows if Bush himself was involved or was it just Rove and Cheney?)

Of course this all pointless because even with the fucking smoking gun, congress is full of wimps and partisans who can't see past their mascot. In other words, democrats are largely useless and most of the republicans seem to hold their party as more important than their branch of government and/or the country as a whole.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

I disagree with those by cam (2.00 / 0) #5 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:08:17 PM EST
Withholding information and deliberately mis-interpretting intelligence data to convince congress

There are Senate Intelligence Committees. IIRC two of the Senators on those committee voted directly against the war. Congress involves as much of the blame for Iraq as the executive does. That isn't impeachable IMO.

are instructing current and former employees of the executive branch to not comply with congressional subpoenas.

They are arguing around a convention (executive privilege) that has not been fully judicially tested. That will have to go to the Supreme Court first. It is bad, incompetent and arrogant; but judicial gets first dibs on it, not congress impeaching.

Oh, and don't forget the whole Plame thing

Libby took the brunt of that, and his obstruction covered up where that may lead. Again, bad, ugly, incompetent and arrogant; but not impeachable unless double jeopardy is changed.

In other words, democrats are largely useless and most of the republicans seem to hold their party as more important than their branch of government

I agree on the republicans being under party executive or caucus discipline - Australia is *always* like this, even if it is relatively new to the US. I disagree on the Democrats. We are seeing an increasingly energetic legislative branch. I actually think it is important for the legislative to re-assert itself over a weak and arrogant president to create precedents for future would be George's.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

welll by R343L (4.00 / 1) #8 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:55:46 PM EST
So what if some members of Congress were informed? The majority of them were lied to and had not idea that the President would push it so far in trying to get support for his debacle. And there are all these stupid rules about what Senate Intelligence people can "reveal" even to other members of congress legally, so I don't see how that matters to the decision-making process of all of Congress. And even if Congress falls down on the job, the President is still committing a crime if he lies in such a fashion.

I did say arguably about these though. The spying one to me is the easiest but seemingly the least likely to have anything done about it.

And the democrats are being somewhat week. Or at least what they are doing is getting spun pretty weak in the media, which is seemingly all that counts..

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

The only other nations by cam (2.00 / 0) #10 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:49:37 PM EST
that have similar intelligence assets to the US are France, Russia and Israel. France and Russia were against it. France was cast as being opposed for Gaullist reasons in the US, but it turns out their intelligence was as good as the US's. They knew it was a fabrication.

That the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't blow the whole thing wide open IMO has more to do with populism than anything else. They may not have been able to explain why, but they could have said "I have seen the evidence and it is bullshit. The administration is a bunch of useless liars."

They didn't. But what representative is going to grow a spine against a President with a 90% popularity rating? None. What representative is going to grow a spine against a President with a 25% rating? All of them.

That fabricated intelligence got to the public was as much Congress' fault as it was the Executive's. France, as it turns out, was trying to warn us and the rest of the world that the US was making a case based on rubbish. Parts of the media was too. The information was there.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

that doesn't mean the president didn't lie by R343L (4.00 / 1) #12 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:59:33 PM EST
I wholeheartedly agree that Congress fell down and some of those Senators should have said exactly what you say. But that doesn't change the fact that the President selling a war on completely false evidence should still be impeachable. Or maybe I'm just vindictive and want someone to pay for getting us in this clusterfuck. :)

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

The structure of government is supposed by cam (2.00 / 0) #13 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:45:04 PM EST
to stop that. The party machines failed there. Yes the lied and deliberately mislead, pretty obviously too now, but we have separate branches to stop that kind of behaviour from one branch. The morality of democracy demands that he gets voted out. Thankfully the US has a wonderfully prescient constitutional amendment which forces a President out after two terms no matter what.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

him being out after two terms by R343L (4.00 / 2) #14 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:48:27 PM EST
Just seems the lazy way to deal with the problem. Impeachment was in the constitution before term limits, so clearly that is the way we should be dealing with a president like this, rather than re-electing him then cowardly waiting till he is forced out by law.

Sorry, can you tell I just really want them to impeach the bastard?

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

The non-lazy way of dealing with Bush by cam (4.00 / 1) #23 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:54:47 AM EST
was to not-elect him in 2004.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I agree with cam -- by garlic (2.00 / 0) #49 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:04:18 PM EST
there has to be a crime to impeach him and while we have suspicions of crimes (mostly FISA stuff seems to be the stuff that holds water) there's no proof.

[ Parent ]

Plame by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #15 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:07:59 PM EST
Libby took the brunt of that, and his obstruction covered up where that may lead. Again, bad, ugly, incompetent and arrogant; but not impeachable unless double jeopardy is changed.
Yes. It's very likely that Cheney and perhaps Bush did something impeachable in this, but since here's no way to prove it, impeachment is pointless.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Forgetting by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #6 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:56:36 PM EST

constitutions, political structure, administrative crimes and internet architecture for a second; let's talk about something important ...

I had the good fortune to have a drive in a Holden Vauxhall (lollers ...) Monaro VXR recently (the older model; not the newer HSR Chubbsport one). That is a really, really, really enjoyable car to drive (especially round the moors of North Wales). Far too much power for its own good and slightly spongy steering, but that just adds to the sheer fun of driving it, and it has pretty effective brakes. It's nice and large inside, too -- with the capacity for nice leg stretching opportunities -- so those of us who have to duck through the average doorway don't feel too vacuum-packed sitting behind the wheel. I'd give it a good 8.8/10, except ...

... that it's completely impossible to justify a six litre engine in the current environmental, political and economic climate, especially given the UK's predilection for high petrol taxes. Even if the taxes were lower, given the sheer wastage and the fixed speed limits, it seems a bit of a curiosity piece rather than a viable automobile. Excellent fun, though.


----
15 days left ...


If I didnt have a desirable piece of by cam (4.00 / 1) #7 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:12:00 PM EST
american automotive manufacture I would be driving the USian equivalent of it.

it seems a bit of a curiosity piece rather than a viable automobile.

Yeh. It is a very honest expression of a muscle car. Stupidly big engine in a weird looking contortion of a family sedan. Not really practical because of those, but desirable because of them both.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Comments on a couple points by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #9 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:27:49 PM EST
  1. It's very hard to be good at governing when your major running point is that government is not good.  How can you run for and work effectively an institution that you do not believe in?  At the core it's a fundamental paradox of the Republican Party as it exists today. 
  2. I think that lying to contruct a case for a war of aggression falls into the level of impeachable offenses.  I believe that the executive lying to the American people and Congress falls into the realm of a misdemeanor.  The situation with datamining phone  records with out a warrant may fall under a violation of  the FISA Act and should  be  investigated by a Special Prosecutor.  I do believe that with in the realm of  FISA a high crime exists.  The incomptence and cronyism simply lead me to refuse to excuse the two cases above.  With that  said, I believe that  impeachment should not be pursued for the  simple reason that the support  does not exist in the Legislature.  Maybe when Bush and Cheney are out of office they can be prosecuted like orinary criminals.




I disagree with the 'hate government' thing by cam (4.00 / 1) #11 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:53:24 PM EST
It's very hard to be good at governing when your major running point is that government is not good.

They are enamoured with government. They have politicised it and expanded. It is a suitable vehicle for their interests. Which unfortunately are more related to partisan agenda than national interest. However, they love government and are hopeless statists.

I dont think impeachment for lying about the reasons for war sits as Congress went along with it. That was a failure of the branches of government, not the executive alone. Congress is not without error, shame and culpability there. Congress has been turfed over to an extent democratically at the ballot box for it.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Exactly by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #16 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:10:28 PM EST
In the rush to war, it was Congress that failed, not the president. It was Congress whose job was to determine the truth...they didn't have to accept the White House's words at face value. People were saying it was a crock of shit then.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Good points by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #17 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:18:13 PM EST
But I still insist that if  you run on the  premise that government  is bad that it sets a tone that you can't do good  government even if you want to.  If  you  make it work, then you  prove that there's nothing wrong with it.   So it has to fail.  You have  no  choice.  What the Republicans seem to be  good at is  the transfer of the public treasury to the  private sector.  That's their true goal, and quite  frankly it goes to people who  are connected.  For the Republican Party cronyism is the  end goal, and sacrificing the promise of government is the avenue.

I agree that the Senate and House are as culpable as the Executive in the run up to the war.  I see  your point about politics  being  the answer.  And I do see that the Republican Legislative majority has already had lost it's case in that court.  As I said earlier,  I don't think  impeachment would pass.  I'm accepting of having the actions of the  Bush Administration reviewed  by Federal Prosecutors after  he leaves office, and any legal actions  needed  carried forth.  The problem with that is  that no sitting presidnet  would  allow a previous President to  be tried, it sets a bad  precedent and no  President is going to accept that.  At the end of the day it's  going to  come  down to history, but history doesn't settle  the emotions  of today.

[ Parent ]

I still dont think it works by cam (4.00 / 1) #22 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:53:23 AM EST
like I said they love government; so much so they see the executive as the complete embodiment of political power. The Bush Administration has been very Schmittian in how they have done it too.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I see a difference by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #46 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:08:36 AM EST
I think they love government, but I also think that by running on a platform that  government  is bad that they can't execute it properly even if they want to.  If  they honestly believe their rhetoric then they have to dismantle it because they don't believe in it.   If they have ulterior motives then they would intentionally make it  work poorly in order to chunk it  out to vendors.  I think  the second is the case.  I don't think they're incompetent, but I think they are distracted by their  true  motivation (robbing the treasury) and that impacts everything  else.

[ Parent ]

American Constitutionalism by Arbeit Macht Pie (2.00 / 0) #18 Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:34:20 PM EST
Haha, thanks. I needed a bit of levity this evening.



Phoenicians by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #19 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 05:00:46 AM EST
I'm surprised its that high; the Romans were supposed to have converted Carthage into a parking lot in one of the eaarlier versions of Ethnic cleansing.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL


Apparently 50,000 Carthaginians by cam (2.00 / 0) #20 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:51:01 AM EST
basically all of Carthage when the city fell. The Romans also burnt any Carthaginian city which remained loyal to Carthage. I think Wells' point is that if the Phoenicians colonised Tunis then they would be 80% remnant rather than the berbers/Numidians being the dominant people there. While the city of Carthage was plundered for slaves, the countryside was not.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

to complete the first sentence by cam (2.00 / 0) #21 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:51:39 AM EST
Apparently 50,000 Carthaginians were made slaves when the city fell.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Why that high by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #24 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:14:00 AM EST
Carthage/ Tunis has been run over by (to name a few) Rome, Numidia, Vandals, Byzantium, Ottomans. Again, I would be extremely surprised if an 80% figure would be supported.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]

Did you watch the youtube videos? by cam (2.00 / 0) #25 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:17:41 AM EST
Apparently Malta had 50% of those tested with Phoenician markers.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Which makes sense by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:42:07 AM EST
Since islands get overrun a lot less than non-islands.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I think it is more because islands by cam (2.00 / 0) #43 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:48:38 AM EST
have a smaller population so easier to establish and inter-mingle to a larger percent. Seafaring and colonisation was a low probably enterprise back then. So moving large numbers that could genetically overcome 400,000 Berbers is pretty hard. Moving enough people to genetically swamp 5,000 Caanites or Cretians is easier.

The Journey of Man is pretty interesting. All the episodes are on Youtube. Apparently Wells did a show called something like in Search of the Phoenicians, which those excerpts may be from. Couldnt find the entire doco on google video or youtube.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I know you have . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #26 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:28:28 AM EST
. . . many arguments against it, but I still fail to see why impeachment proceedings shouldn't have been started a long time ago. All the checks and balances are there, so that if one of them fails (congress letting him go on the Iraq war, for example) there is another one ready to correct the error (Pelousy beginning at the very least an investigation into impeachment). Instead, she has repeatedly stated that it is off the table . . . when it is her job to ALWAYS have it on the table (or at least, I thought).
  1. Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq had WMD. Congress voted to go to war because of it. There were no WMD, and no uranium from Africa - and there is credible proof the boys had foreknowledge of that . This makes the war illegal, and the congress dupes. Impeachement!
  2. Illegal wiretapping (what others here have pointed out).
  3. Torture. Bush and Cheney are guilty of violating the Federal Torture Act (from googling).
  4. Violation of International Law. Bush (and CHeney) has violated the UN Charter and Nuremburg Charter in his (their) war of aggression.
  5. Bush and Cheney's behaviour on 9/11 - serious dereliction of duties. See Norm Mineta's testimony (not included in 9/11 Commission report, btw) on "stand-down" order from Cheney, no fighter jet response for an hour and a half (!?!), directly attributable to Cheney. Bush does photo op for 20 minutes with school kids while US under serious and known terrorist attack at the time. Either gross incompetence, or . . .




disagreements by cam (2.00 / 0) #27 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:19:46 AM EST
Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq had WMD. Congress voted to go to war because of it. There were no WMD, and no uranium from Africa - and there is credible proof the boys had foreknowledge of that .

Congress voted to go to war despite knowing it was bullshit. People knew at the time and were trying to influence opinion. Congress is as much to blame here as the Bush Administration.

Torture. Bush and Cheney are guilty of violating the Federal Torture Act

Again they have limited their legal exposure by putting these things offshore (Guantanamo or Cuba) and muddying the judicial waters. I would be comfortable if this was looked at in detail, and if torture occurred and was proven; then impeachment.

Violation of International Law. Bush (and CHeney) has violated the UN Charter and Nuremburg Charter

While nation-states continue to rule the roost sovereignty is at the level and not the UN. I dont think it is relevant.

Bush and Cheney's behaviour on 9/11 - serious dereliction of duties.

You cant impeach for incompetence; and to make it worse that incompetence was adjudged under the morality of democracy and Bush was returned in 2004.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

For guantanamo and cuba by cam (2.00 / 0) #28 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:20:16 AM EST
read guantanamo and the renditions.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

See my answer below (nt) by slozo (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:36:59 AM EST


[ Parent ]

Also Congress passed a law by cam (2.00 / 0) #29 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:21:04 AM EST
making it ok for the Executive to torture. So Congress again comes under scrutiny as an immoral body.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Congress may have passed . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:35:06 AM EST
. . . a law, but it doesn't supercede the international agreements - the UN and Nuremburg Charters are the "supreme law of the land"

Article VI  of the US Constitution states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Checks, and balances.

[ Parent ]

Again they have limited their legal exposure by cam (4.00 / 1) #32 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:45:29 AM EST
it is Syria et al that is doing the torturing in rendition. Guantanamo is also a never-never land of judicial oversight. It is absolutely repugnant, but any chance of impeachment is going to have to establish investigative or judicial precedents. I would be comfortable with those going ahead, and an energetic legislative should provide that, but it isnt a clear case of impeachment.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Also, apparently in US law by cam (2.00 / 0) #33 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:48:10 AM EST
legislation and treaties are equal in legal authority. So the McCain bill can override a prior treaty.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

From what I just showed you . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:54:03 AM EST
. . . that is not the case. Show me this "apparently" - my legalese is sorely lacking, so maybe there is some sort of weasel clause.

[ Parent ]

wiki by cam (2.00 / 0) #36 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:03:02 AM EST
from here:

However, in the United States, treaties are equal in stature to legislation. Because of this rule, treaties and statutes can override each other—whichever is latest in time is controlling.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I think the words of the constitution . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #38 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:10:20 AM EST
. . . override wikipedia.

[ Parent ]

except the legislative also makes the by cam (2.00 / 0) #39 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:21:02 AM EST
supreme law of the land too. The legislative is the body for making bills/statutes. The Senate also has to ratify any treaties.

I see making treaties have equal legal authority to statute law as wise.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Mmm . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #40 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:24:41 AM EST
. . . fair enough then.

So - as I recently saw in a hilarious photo of a church sign (can't find it right now) - why can't some intern give Bush a blowjob?

[ Parent ]

because the republicans by cam (2.00 / 0) #41 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:41:52 AM EST
no longer have control of Congress. It would probably get high-fives from a Democratic majority though possibly with one dissenter in the Senate ...

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I still need more explanation . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:51:58 AM EST
. . . to whit:

1. Your point of congress knowing the premise for war was bullshit is quite unclear - hence the call for (at the very least!) the beginning of an impeachment investigation. And why does congress goofing/being complicit preclude an impeachment investigation after the fact?

2./3. See my other answer

4. It's more than incompetence, it just hasn't been looked into at all. There have been direct lies made by Bush and Cheney on where they were, what they were doing, and when they knew about the attacks. These lies are on record, and can be easily disproven by many eyewitness accounts. Google up the timelines, and what they did, and when (there are a lot of references), then compare it to the "official" account. In Con Gruent.

If we can begin impeachment proceedings against a president who lied about a blowjob, you would think we could impeach a president who lied about many things that have cost thousands of people their lives . . .

[ Parent ]

Two of the senate intelligence committee by cam (4.00 / 2) #37 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:06:45 AM EST
members did not vote for war powers legislation. The Knight-Ridder organisation was poking holes in the Administration's case. The information was there. Congress was not duped, it voted on populist lines and was not prepared to have the courage to call bullshit on the Administration. There was enough information out there to cast doubt on the Administration's case. It was a failure of Congress as much as the Administrations. Congress payed for it electorally - the Administration did not though.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Exactly by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #45 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:52:57 AM EST
Congress (including the Democrats) voted for the war because they were a bunch of fucking cowards who were afraid of looking "weak on defense". They didn't just believe the lie, they did their best to choke it down with smiles on their faces.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

well by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #44 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:50:29 AM EST
1. Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq had WMD. Congress voted to go to war because of it. There were no WMD, and no uranium from Africa - and there is credible proof the boys had foreknowledge of that . This makes the war illegal, and the congress dupes. Impeachement!

Lying is not an impeachable offense. If it was, we'd never have a four year president. The war is not "illegal" because the fucking idiots in Congress voted to authorize it.

2. Illegal wiretapping (what others here have pointed out).

And as yet, no one's been able to prove this. It should be investigated, obviously, but the proof isn't there yet to covict.

3. Torture. Bush and Cheney are guilty of violating the Federal Torture Act (from googling).

And as yet, no one's been able to prove Bush and Cheney were connected to this. It should be investigated, obviously, but the proof isn't there yet to covict.

4. Violation of International Law. Bush (and CHeney) has violated the UN Charter and Nuremburg Charter in his (their) war of aggression.

International law is not American law.

5. Bush and Cheney's behaviour on 9/11 - serious dereliction of duties. See Norm Mineta's testimony (not included in 9/11 Commission report, btw) on "stand-down" order from Cheney, no fighter jet response for an hour and a half (!?!), directly attributable to Cheney. Bush does photo op for 20 minutes with school kids while US under serious and known terrorist attack at the time. Either gross incompetence, or . . .

Incompetence is not impeachable.

Make no mistake...I firmly believe the fucker is guilty of a number of things that he could be impeached for. But you can't impeach until you have actual, ironclad proof, *especially* in situations where the other party can and will certainly block conviction.

Because of the political balance in Congress, any impeachment will not lead to conviction. Bush will be in power until January 2009. What's important now is to investigate the asshole and expose the truth, not to have a show trial on C-Span that will result in no political changes.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Your points are well taken, however . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #47 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:20:29 AM EST
. . . 1. Lying IS an impeachable offense, when you lie to the supreme court or congress - or at least that's what I understand.
  1. Correct, but it should be under investigation - loads of circumstantial evidence.
  2. Correct, but it should be under incestigation, as above.
  3. Cam says int'l treaties are equal to constitutional law, so unless I have the whole afternoon off from work, I'll have to accept that answer for now.
  4. I didn't say incompetence - I said DIRECT LIES. Lies to an investigative committee looking into the largest terrorist attack the US had ever seen, and the impetus for all of Bush and Cheney's further warmongering.
You can't impeach until you have ironclad proof? Well, you can start up the engine! When presented with enough circumstantial evidence, YOU BEGIN THE INVESTIGATION, regardless of anything else. Did we have ironclad proof of Billy's infidelities to prove his lie to the supreme court? No, they didn't . . . so later we learned all about cigar use and dress stains.

We'd find a good deal more than that looking into the machinations of these evil pricks . . .

[ Parent ]

Perjury by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #48 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:43:34 AM EST
Lying under oath is a crime. Lying while not under oath is not. Nothing the White House said in the run up to the war was under oath.

Notice how Bush never wants his people testifying under oath?

I agree that investigations should begin forthwith. But keep in mind that impeachment will almost certainly fail. The goal is investigation not impeachment.

(We did actually have proof of Clinton's perjury...the trouble with impeachments is that it's a vote that convicts, not a real trial, and if you don't have a 2/3rds majority, you can't convict.)
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

So, you're saying . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #51 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:17:20 PM EST
. . . that a president that is commonly referred to as an idiot, buffoon and fool has gotten away with murder (quite literally, in my mind) by simply avoiding testifying under oath? That the president can do pretty much what he wants to, just so long as he avoids putting his hand on a bible, the very book he claims to stand for?

This whole US constitution thing seems very weak, then - I wonder how the dictatorship hadn't been established a long time ago in light of these revelations . . .

[ Parent ]

I'm saying by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #53 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:37:45 PM EST
That Congress has failed by not issuing subpoenas and contempt citations.

The constitution is not at all weak. What is weak is today's Congress. You can't have a balance of powers of one of the powers refuses to take stands.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

So, all that is needed . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #54 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:32:11 PM EST
. . . in order to topple (an exagerration, but a warranted one) the greatest democracy on earth is a weak congress?

That to me sounds pretty weak, actually.

[ Parent ]

A weak congress by cam (2.00 / 0) #55 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:44:20 PM EST
is exactly what parliamentary systems have. The US system is messier and more deliberative because this stuff is out in the open through separation of powers. When it had the same party machine in the Executive and Legislative - it acted like a parliament not a congress.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Maybe by weak congress . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #56 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:04:22 PM EST
. . . you mean compromised.
http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/

Blackmailed? Shady back room deals? Complicit in any number of conspiracies? Who knows . . . but either way, almost all should be fired.

The greatest democracy and ruling empire has been shown up for what it is . . . weak.

[ Parent ]

Um by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #57 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:45:37 PM EST
There is no form of government that is safe from weak guardians. The system can only go so far. It has to be run by people. If the people aren't up to snuff, there's nothing the system can do.

In terms of the balance of powers, the US system is one of the best at keeping the power hungry in check...but it is by no means perfect, and I'm not sure how it could be made better.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

very much correct by garlic (2.00 / 0) #50 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:10:29 PM EST
I don't like bush either -- but I also don't want to do impeachments for partisan reasons, I want there to be a real crime under investigation. A lot of people on the left seem to not recognize that there is no complete evidence of any crime -- they don't like the war, so it must be illegal. They don't like Cheney so releasing plame's name must have been illegal (shady certainly, but if he has the power to declassify as he says, then not illegal).

[ Parent ]

Plame by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #52 Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:34:51 PM EST
Releasing Plame's name WAS illegal.

The only thing not proven was Cheney's involvement.

Outing a working, undercover CIA agent is treasonous, and it did happen.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

some stuff XXXX | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback