The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

It grieves me to say it, but Pelosi promising Bush not to impeach him when she knew he had ordered torture qualifies as a betrayal of her oversight duties and hence the nation and the rule of law.

Since she was sworn not to reveal what she was briefed on in relation to torture, her not disclosing it might be forgivable to apologists, but there is no rational way she can defend her promise not to subject Bush to impreachment when she knew he was guilty of war crimes.

She's guilty of making an unauthorized deal to protect a man she knew to be a war criminal in blatant violation of her duty as Speaker of the House.

It's hypocritical of the dems who condemn Bush for violating his oath of office to defend Pelosi. What's good for a Republican is also good for a Democrat.

Both Bush and Pelosi should resign from their positions. If they do not, they should both be removed from office.

Hence why I have given up on politics. You cannot trust any politician to do what they promised to do. They are supposed to be for the American people but the only "people" they are for is themselves.

This would be perfect. We impeach Bush, Chaney, Pelosi as well as the entire Senate Intelligence committee and the party leadership of both parties who were in that position in the spring of 2003 for being at best inept and at worst liars. That would send a REAL message to future politicians.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:This would be perfect. We impeach Bush, Chaney, Pelosi as well as the entire Senate Intelligence committee and the party leadership of both parties who were in that position in the spring of 2003 for being at best inept and at worst liars. That would send a REAL message to future politicians.

I have not heard that the whole Senate Intelligence committee was briefed on our waterboarding plans. When did you make that up?

Also, try your reading skills again on my post. See if I advocated impeaching congressional leaders for being briefed on waterboarding.

Hint: I suggested removing Pelosi from office or forcing her resignation because she took impeachment of the President off the table even though she knew he was a war criminal.

Pelosi sold out long before she became speaker. I'm not sure why you're surprised by her complicity, CH1. Politicians simply aren't allowed to rise to that level if they are honest servants of the people.

JSPB22 wrote:Pelosi sold out long before she became speaker. I'm not sure why you're surprised by her complicity, CH1. Politicians simply aren't allowed to rise to that level if they are honest servants of the people.

I've been duped. My blush is lighting the room in which I sit.

Now Harry Reid is also betraying the people who put him in power by an indefensible decision further empowering the Bush Administration by disregarding the rule of law in favor of Senatorial etiquette ( one of the phoniest excuses I've ever heard for anytihing.)

The new Attorney General is also refusing to do his job. Thanks Diane and Chuck.

Nancy, Harry, Diane, and Chuck-- all complicit in Bush's war crimes and crimes against the American people. And where are Democratic presidential candidates? Where is the leadership?

I don't understand the logic of the obvious enabling and cover up , unless Bush's near decade of unchecked corruption and power has so corrupted the dems that his fall will expose the corruption that will cause their fall as well.

As a dem, I've gone through some bad times before, but this is the first time since Nam I have been truly ashamed of and enraged by my party's leadership.

Now, I don't know what to do with my vote- yellow dog or a democrat? Do you have any ideas?

People making judgments on some of these issues should at least attempt to inform themselves about not only the domestic policy and law issues but also their international counterparts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... inal_Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... inal_Court

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Intern ... /EM708.cfm

http://www.usaforicc.org/

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

http://www.icc-cpi.int/

I do not participate in political threads in this website not only because their level is often too low and uninformed but because this is an escape from reality for me.

Enjoy.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:This would be perfect. We impeach Bush, Chaney, Pelosi as well as the entire Senate Intelligence committee and the party leadership of both parties who were in that position in the spring of 2003 for being at best inept and at worst liars. That would send a REAL message to future politicians.

I have not heard that the whole Senate Intelligence committee was briefed on our waterboarding plans. When did you make that up?

Also, try your reading skills again on my post. See if I advocated impeaching congressional leaders for being briefed on waterboarding.

Hint: I suggested removing Pelosi from office or forcing her resignation because she took impeachment of the President off the table even though she knew he was a war criminal.

Rather then trying to slice out specific issues I think it's more effective to hold all those accountable for the entire mess over there and I identified the most guilty in their dereliction of that duty to the people. I did not just say let's go after one party for one crime among many committed by both and the other only for not going after the first party for the same.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I do not participate in political threads in this website not only because their level is often too low and uninformed

Obviously our loss

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:I do not participate in political threads in this website not only because their level is often too low and uninformed

Obviously our loss

No, no loss, just trying to keep my mental health in relative good shape.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:I do not participate in political threads in this website not only because their level is often too low and uninformed

Obviously our loss

No, no loss, just trying to keep my mental health in relative good shape.

Maybe you take politics too seriously. I don't mean in terms of being passionate about it, which clearly I am guilty of.

I mean too seriously in terms of letting it get to you, which I don't. We endlessly debate the Redskins, I hope no one takes that personally. To me politics is no different in that regard.

You know yourself and if you can't you're making the right choice. But I think that's part of the problem in this country (and others, Canada?). Too many people of ALL ideologies have made their own ideology their religion and are obsessed with advancing that cause over the debate. I think that's sad and dangerous. Sad because the debate is fun and dangerous because they've stopped thinking.

Redskin in Canada wrote:People making judgments on some of these issues should at least attempt to inform themselves about not only the domestic policy and law issues but also their international counterparts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... inal_Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... inal_Court

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Intern ... /EM708.cfm

http://www.usaforicc.org/

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

http://www.icc-cpi.int/

I do not participate in political threads in this website not only because their level is often too low and uninformed but because this is an escape from reality for me.

Enjoy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall any postings on this Forum about the World Court, for or against. Perhaps you're confusing it with international agreements the U.S has made in the past.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall any postings on this Forum about the World Court, for or against. Perhaps you're confusing it with international agreements the U.S has made in the past.

When the "rule of law" is is invoked, some of -YOU- have a bias to think about US laws. Nothing surprising in the US-centric view of the world.

When the "rule of law" is invoked, some of -US- have a bias to think about national laws and jurisdictions -AND- international laws and jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals.

Simple "terms" thrown around at will in these threads such as torture, genocide, crimes of war, etc, etc are not only the subject of national laws and domestic "political arrangements", they are, when treated seriously, crimes against humanity and capable to be tried in international courts and tribunals exempt from any "domestic political arrangements".

This would be the case here UNLESS one country argues that its citizens are above and beyond international institutions delivering justice in defense of universal rights and international laws ... (where is the whistle emoticon when we need it?)

Why blame a politician or two? It is the US as a COUNTRY that has exempted itself from the delivery of international justice. One would have to indict the WHOLE government, not only a politician or two.

But I digress ...

Go on.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Maybe you take politics too seriously.

In my other life, I have to.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall any postings on this Forum about the World Court, for or against. Perhaps you're confusing it with international agreements the U.S has made in the past.

When the "rule of law" is is invoked, some of -YOU- have a bias to think about US laws. Nothing surprising in the US-centric view of the world.

When the "rule of law" is invoked, some of -US- have a bias to think about national laws and jurisdictions -AND- international laws and jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals.

Simple "terms" thrown around at will in these threads such as torture, genocide, crimes of war, etc, etc are not only the subject of national laws and domestic "political arrangements", they are, when treated seriously, crimes against humanity and capable to be tried in international courts and tribunals exempt from any "domestic political arrangements".

This would be the case here UNLESS one country argues that its citizens are above and beyond international institutions delivering justice in defense of universal rights and international laws ... (where is the whistle emoticon when we need it?)

Why blame a politician or two? It is the US as a COUNTRY that has exempted itself from the delivery of international justice. One would have to indict the WHOLE government, not only a politician or two.

But I digress ...

Go on.

Your point is well taken in regard to our war criminals having de facto immunity from prosecution because of US power and arrogant non-compliance with and/or failure to enter into some international agreements, but that fact doesn't steal the reality or change the definions of such terms as 'war crimes' and 'torture, ' nor does our not joining the World Court set aside our obligations as agreed to when we signed the Geneva Conventions, which he swore to uphold when he took his oath of office.

He and Chaney are subject in the U.S. for to impeachment as a result of war crimes, torture, aggressive war, and numerous other offenses. It's not a matter of law that is holding up impeachment, but rather political will of Republican's in Congress and the decisions of Democratic leaders such as Nancy, Chuck, Harry, and Diane, who do not deserve to be referred to with respect..

Redskin in Canada wrote:international justice

Now THAT is an oxymoron! Next up, "military intelligence."

We have not nor should we recognize the Court of International Socialism and Dictatorships. So to argue that somehow we're not recognizing a "higher" authority is flawed. They have no legal jurisdiction over the US. And unfortunately the World Court has failed to conduct itself in any way to deserve any respect at all. They are amoral, anti-freedom and in no way an instrument of "justice." Though I do concede they are "international."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:international justice

Now THAT is an oxymoron! Next up, "military intelligence."

We have not nor should we recognize the Court of International Socialism and Dictatorships. So to argue that somehow we're not recognizing a "higher" authority is flawed. They have no legal jurisdiction over the US. And unfortunately the World Court has failed to conduct itself in any way to deserve any respect at all. They are amoral, anti-freedom and in no way an instrument of "justice." Though I do concede they are "international."

The United States can not be forced to do anything by the Geneva Conventions or the World Court. That is not the point. The point is that Bush can be impeached for war crimes, torture, etc. and for violating his oath of office in not upholding international agreements that we have agreed to, one being the Geneva Conventions. Once the U.S. signs an international agreement, the provisions of the agreement have the force of U.S. law that the President is obligated to, not just abide by, but also enforce.

A President is not able to unilaterally dissolve an international agreement, nor has he tried to. He has tried to get congress to back up his ludicrous misinterpretations of certain provisions of inernational agreements and U.S. law so than his worthless butt can be saved, but no go.

The man is slam-dunk guilty of a record number of High Crimes and Misdeamors and we are the mocked world-wide for letting a total moron hijack our country and tear down its most basic values.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The man is slam-dunk guilty of a record number of High Crimes and Misdeamors and we are the mocked world-wide for letting a total moron hijack our country and tear down its most basic values.

We are mocked by the International Left. Who cares? We are mocked by our enemies for being stooges of the International Left and our friends are not impressed by our weakness succumbing to the international left. And the international left in fact has no respect for us when we bow to them either. We gain NOTHING by succumbing to the International Left with anyone.

But if it's a "slam dunk" Bush is guilty s guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions, why has it been so elusive to clearly demonstrate that to a critical mind? Why is guilty by assumption, opinion and cut out quotes all that is offered? Especially to someone like me who in fact hates Bush and has no interest in protecting him and only want a persuasive argument that is an actual demonstration of his guilt and not just the best argument conceived starting with the assumption of his guilt.

Or is that what you mean by "slam dunk," assumption is sufficient? I mean to someone for whom accusations by the Left are in fact not sufficient "proof."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:The man is slam-dunk guilty of a record number of High Crimes and Misdeamors and we are the mocked world-wide for letting a total moron hijack our country and tear down its most basic values.

We are mocked by the International Left. Who cares? We are mocked by our enemies for being stooges of the International Left and our friends are not impressed by our weakness succumbing to the international left. And the international left in fact has no respect for us when we bow to them either. We gain NOTHING by succumbing to the International Left with anyone.

But if it's a "slam dunk" Bush is guilty s guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions, why has it been so elusive to clearly demonstrate that to a critical mind? Why is guilty by assumption, opinion and cut out quotes all that is offered? Especially to someone like me who in fact hates Bush and has no interest in protecting him and only want a persuasive argument that is an actual demonstration of his guilt and not just the best argument conceived starting with the assumption of his guilt.

Or is that what you mean by "slam dunk," assumption is sufficient? I mean to someone for whom accusations by the Left are in fact not sufficient "proof."

Bush has admitted he has violated the laws of the land in regard to FiSA and the use of torture. He does not deny he has used cluster bombs in Iraq. The number of violations of the Bill of Rights are obvious. There are many slam dunks.

Characteristically, Bush has tacitly of otherwise admitted the behaviors in question and tried to sell irrelevancies (such as the utility of domestic spying or torture) or attempted to have congess legalize his abuses retro-actively.

He has also attempted to rewrite the dictionary to save his weasel heart.
Your notion that numerous batches of evidence that are mature enough to warrant impeachment do not exist is tantamount to believing that O.J. shouldn't have been charged with the murder of his wife.

Impeachment papers would already be in the works were it not for the schemes of Pelosi and Reid. They're both corrupt, of course. Pelosi has probably been protecting Bush because she's gone along with Bush's torture policy, which has been revealed. Who knows how dirty Reid is.

Bush's corrupting influence is absolutely astounding. In regard to the major medea and enabling members of the supposedly opposing party, his tax-break payoffs to corporate American have just done wonders.

That is, by the way, a footprint of fascism.

How about concentrating on the clear and present danger instead of spending most of your time going after liberals. The liberals aren't in office and won't be running for the Presidency after the primaries anyway. Both Clinton and Obama are moderates. Neither will end the war anytime soon nor put a health program on the boards or try very hard to narrow the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Clinton sounds like a typical conservative sounded before the Goldwater joke which has gotten us in the current mess, and Obama is basically running on the idea that he can solve our problems by promoting fellowing and sitting everyone down around the table.

Your liberalphobia seems a bit mad, to tell you the truth-- sort of like the madness of the religious right that finds a secular humanist manifesto in every crackerjack box.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Bush has admitted he has violated the laws of the land in regard to FiSA and the use of torture. He does not deny he has used cluster bombs in Iraq. The number of violations of the Bill of Rights are obvious. There are many slam dunks.

Characteristically, Bush has tacitly of otherwise admitted the behaviors in question and tried to sell irrelevancies (such as the utility of domestic spying or torture) or attempted to have congess legalize his abuses retro-actively.

He has also attempted to rewrite the dictionary to save his weasel heart.
Your notion that numerous batches of evidence that are mature enough to warrant impeachment do not exist is tantamount to believing that O.J. shouldn't have been charged with the murder of his wife.

Impeachment papers would already be in the works were it not for the schemes of Pelosi and Reid. They're both corrupt, of course. Pelosi has probably been protecting Bush because she's gone along with Bush's torture policy, which has been revealed. Who knows how dirty Reid is.

Bush's corrupting influence is absolutely astounding. In regard to the major medea and enabling members of the supposedly opposing party, his tax-break payoffs to corporate American have just done wonders.

That is, by the way, a footprint of fascism.

How about concentrating on the clear and present danger instead of spending most of your time going after liberals. The liberals aren't in office and won't be running for the Presidency after the primaries anyway. Both Clinton and Obama are moderates. Neither will end the war anytime soon nor put a health program on the boards or try very hard to narrow the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Clinton sounds like a typical conservative sounded before the Goldwater joke which has gotten us in the current mess, and Obama is basically running on the idea that he can solve our problems by promoting fellowing and sitting everyone down around the table.

Your liberalphobia seems a bit mad, to tell you the truth-- sort of like the madness of the religious right that finds a secular humanist manifesto in every crackerjack box.

This is again the Left game plan.

- Assume guilt
- Make a bunch of statements that convince themselves
- Make either statements or allude to the stupidity of anyone who doesn't concede the "obviousness" of his guilt.
- At all time ignore that the Democrats are as guilty in this as the Republicans
- Leave the option of dealing with Bush to be replacing him and his party with the equally guilty Democrats

Say you're a researcher, you go to a tribe and notice they all look alike except exactly half wear red shirts and half wear blue shirts. Over time as you get to know them they are all rude, particularly to each other. The red shirts like to trip the blue shirts, who are always spilling stuff on the red shirts. They are both childish, petty, unproductive. And what amuses you is they both talk about what good people their color shirts are are and how they try to get along with the other color shirts, but then they greatly exaggerate the things the other color shirts do to them and how unjust it is.

The blue shirts do provide you with some amusement though. It seems they get particularly hysterical that they are in fact BETTER then the red shirts and the battles between them are the red shirt's fault. They repeat it, they chant it. They believe their deep emotional belief on that is a compelling argument to an outsider. It's not, because their behavior doesn't change. Pointing fingers and doing the same thing as the red shirts and as they have always done is not compelling. But it is funny.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Clinton sounds like a typical conservative sounded before the Goldwater joke which has gotten us in the current mess

Can you explain your "Goldwater joke" comment, please? He was a true conservative, and, at least fiscally, I agree with many of his stances. I'm sure he is spinning in his grave over what is going on in the so-called conservative movement today.

JSPB22 wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Clinton sounds like a typical conservative sounded before the Goldwater joke which has gotten us in the current mess

Can you explain your "Goldwater joke" comment, please? He was a true conservative, and, at least fiscally, I agree with many of his stances. I'm sure he is spinning in his grave over what is going on in the so-called conservative movement today.

The Goldwater "joke" is that his philosophy has led to the opposite and he is probably turning over in the grave. I should have been clearer. I voted for Goldwater and have lived with irony of what happened to his convictions for some time now.

As a supporter of the teachings of Christ, I feel much of the same irony when I go into a church.