LIBBY IS GUILTY ... wrote on Jul 2, 2007 10:41 PM:... Mr. Libby is guilty. Everyone knows it. He should be sent to prison just the same as you or I. Failure to do so would send the message that there are two systems of justice in America; one for the wealthy and the influential and the much harsher consequences that the rest of us may suffer. That is perfectly true, of course, but we don't need to be reminded of it so blatantly.

Judge FITZ said: wrote on Jul 2, 2007 10:45 PM:... This is what Judge FITZ said about Bush's behavior: "We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing. Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process." This means Scooter won't be able to vote in the next election.

Special justice for Libby .. wrote on Jul 2, 2007 10:47 PM:...Once again President Bush and the GOP have undermined a core American value: equal justice under the law for every American. By commuting this sentence, President Bush is sending a clear message that the rules don’t apply to the Bush White House or loyal Republican cronies. After promising that anyone who violated the law would be 'taken care of,' President Bush instead handed Scooter Libby a get out of jail free card. Though Libby was convicted by a jury of lying about a matter of national security, President Bush is sparing him the consequences ordinary Americans would face.

No justice for political criminals ... wrote on Jul 2, 2007 10:49 PM:.. Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.

DESPICABLE SCOUNDRELS .. wrote on Jul 2, 2007 10:53 PM:... It's a tragedy that as young Americans pay the ultimate price in Iraq for this administration's lies, this White House continues to avoid accountability and reward deceit for their friends and supporters. Bush lied and troops died. Libby lied and gets home free. What a despicable bunch of crooks in this White House.

GOP GLOWING . wrote on Jul 2, 2007 11:31 PM:... The GOP is glowing with glee as one of its top criminals gets off. Go ahead. GLOW and BLOW and show us what kind of justice you stand for! Show us you values. Show us what hypocrites you are

El Guero wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:35 AM:Joe Grant's on his high-horse again, denouncing American citizens who object to their country's invasion from the south as 'racists.' Earth to Joe: The reason Minutemen do not protest against Italians in Little Italy is because 1) we are not under invasion by millions of illegal Italians washing up on our beaches; and because 2) Italians and their offspring make good Americans. These two essential facts do not apply to the vast number of illegal Mexicans who, like the vastly corrupt corporate citizens who seek to hir and exploit them, have only one objective in the U.S.: make money.

Gimmeabreak wrote on Jul 3, 2007 5:02 AM:aww, come on people! Why so angry? Poor Scooter's been through so much . . . he was a great public servant . . . even helped a Liberal get his car out of the snow once . . . kind to puppies . . . it's hard work . . . freedom isn't free . . . fighting those who hate our freedoms. . . Clinton did it, too . . . he had so much on his mind . . . it was a political prosecution by a run amok prosecutor . . . Clinton did it, too . . . Scooter suffered enough . . . He still has to pay the fine . . . Clinton did it too . . . did I mention Clinton did it, too? (My impression of the talkradio apologia opus for the next few days) HEY! LOOK! a missing/bulimic/addicted blonde celebrity girl!! We're Saved! Something to blather about for the next month . . . .

The Bush White House wrote on Jul 3, 2007 5:02 AM:Above the law. Get used to it.

Up early wrote on Jul 3, 2007 5:46 AM:For those of you who are going to say that there was no underlying crime, please remember that at the time Libby gave his version of events to the FBI he didn't know that there was no crime. This was well Fitzgerald became involved in the process. When Fitzgerald took over the investagation he already knew that Libby had lied to the FBI. He gave him every opportunity to corrct his mistake (like Karl Rove did after four trips to the grand jury) but Libby chose to keep lying. That is why he was prosecuted and convicted.

He should be given amnesty wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:13 AM:Poor scooter. I think his only crime was the people he hangs out with. I liked watching Hillary bag on Bush for this, all I kept thinking was Marc Rich the whole time she was spewing propoganda. Scooter should be given amnesty and his name cleared totally, only after the real criminals behind this mess are imprisoned, Rove or Cheney come to mind. Not sure if it was one of the two or both of them behind this.

TO: still waiting; yesterday wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:36 AM:You addressed a challenge to "conservative bloggers"; where, on which site?? Can't you read; this site has become a sewer of liberal back-slappers; Alf, Focal Point, Jules, Vista Granny. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess there's Ron. You're preaching to the choir pal

Still waiting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:42 AM:I wonder what keeps the conservatives from posting, 8:36. You seem to be one, so what have you to add to the discussion other than foul imagery? Are you fine with Bush and Cheney's respect for all the laws of the land? Share!

Set it to rest wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:52 AM:Just for the record, and to put an end to the absurd posts about the past, let me say that as a liberal, I am most certainly NOT ok with any prior breakings of the law by any public servant, regardless of party affiliation. There. So, that done, how do the conservatives feel about Bush and Cheney's latest floutings of the law? You ok with it? You approve?

Short circuited Justice wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:02 AM:Another blow to the democratic idea that there IS equal justice under the law because obviously the Decider has decided that there isn't!

FOCAO POINT wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:05 AM:TO: still waiting; yesterday wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:36 AM: Your retort reveals that you might be one of those know it neocons. Please step up to the plate and answer Still Waiting. By the way, I am a centrist and an independent. I just can not tolerate what you, other necons and GWB have done to the USA.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:26 AM:I am not a "liberal" , "TO: still waiting; yesterday", unless you define all those who do not do a lock-step with you and GWB as a "liberal". I am a Libertarian, I want the least government necessary. My disgust is aimed at those who advocate enlarging the government and/or enlarging the power of government while diminishing the power of the people. Both Dems and Reps, liberals and conservatives, seem bent on doing both, the only difference is what they use FOR AN EXCUSE to engorge government, increase it's tentacles and reduce personal liberty. The first six letters of Liberty and Libertarian are the same for a reason, one which you do not seem to comprehend. Still a proud, unabashed, unashamed and unrelenting Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:29 AM:Carried over from yesterday - Well, "Reardon", I answer your question witha question, Does a person have to be charged and convicted of a crime in order for a crime to have been committed? NO. I make no "nameless and baseless public charges". GWB almost daily violates his oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". Is GWB preserving the Constitution by his "NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51", not on your life. He is setting himself up to be dictator with language so vague that he can use almost any excuse to seize control. Is he preserving the Constitution when he violates it with warrantless searches? NO. I would hardly call the above-mentioned statements of fact "nameless and baseless public charges", rather I would call them COLD, HARD FACTS. If you want, I can spell out further violations of the Constitution and his presidential oath, but the horse is quite dead by the above-mentioned FACTS. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

To try some compassion wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:41 AM:Developers are mandated to put in a certain percentage of inclusionary housing in every new development. It's already happening. I'm with you on getting rich companies to pay their fair share of taxes but can't agree on universal health care. It costs way too much money and look how Canadians come here to be treated. Besides, can you really trust the government to run a socialized medecine program with our money?

After 24 years wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:50 AM:I would guess your kids are grown. Consider the strike to be a great opportunity to go to school and get a job? How ever $25k a year part time can't be beat.

to still waiting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:53 AM:A great post from yesterday..." to blogger Still waiting...The only proper way to examine Bush and Cheney is to compare him / them to past presidents throughout history, especially recent administrations (Clinton, Bush I). Sadly, this is something that many Bush-haters simply refuse to do. To them, the world began in 2001 when the Bush administration took power. So, it's impossible to have a discussion of this sort when one side simply refuses to look at the egregious behavior and power grabs of past presidencies. I will say this however: Any 3rd grader should understand that the Executive and Legislative branches of government have a long, rich history of competing with one another and trying to outdo, embarrass, and frustrate the other. That's our government, and they've been at it for over 2 centuries. "

Boo Hoo wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:08 AM:I say good riddance. Prosecuting Libby was a total joke. I would have pardoned him completely. Latest floutings of the law? What law was broken? Bush acted entirely within his rights as President to commute Libby and he is within his rights as President to further pardon him (or anyone else) completely. Clinton knows this all too well. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean laws were broken. This is becoming increasingly common with the rabid left. Disagree with a policy. Cry to everyone who'll listen that laws are being broken. Then eventually realize that no laws were technically broken, because the policy has never been legally tested for Constitutionality, and ultimately wind up looking stupid. If you feel so strongly about this, go out and have a protest march.

Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:13 AM:Man, put down the kool-aid and step away from the car, please, Mr. Still Waiting! Let me repeat myself one more time: We elected Bush and Cheney to get the job done. Let me help you out. You say: "breaking the law", how so? You show me one court filing with evidence that the administration was conducting their business illegally? You can't. Do you know why? Because they aren’t. If this were so clearly against the law, as you state, then why hasn't Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi filed suit to stop them? You have every right to believe what ever you want to, like say, the flying saucers are landing soon, or little green men took me to a planet and did experiments on me. But, when you want to talk about facts, please have some. How you know when you’re out of the mainstream. (1) You believe George Bush is a greater threat to the world than Islamo terrorists. (2) You believe George Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals. (3) You believe terrorists are freedom fighters, like our founders were. (4) You believe Hugo Chavez is a better President than George Bush. (5) You believe that talking to, or trying to reason with someone who beheads another human being, is the right way to deal with them. (6) You believe illegal aliens coming to America is ok, because we invaded Mexico, and took their land. Again I say Bush and Cheney are RIGHT!

Libby..... wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:22 AM:....should be 100% pardoned. I see little difference between Fitzgerald and prosecutor Nifong in the Duke rape case. Libby is a fine public servant and I hope that Bush eventually grants him a full pardon.

Also Still Waiting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:25 AM:Why are those who are calling for Scooter's head giving Armitage a pass? He was, after all, the one and only person who gave up Plame. Yet, silence from the left. And please, don't give us that it was an accident. Many laws are broken by accident. Yet regardless, those who break them must still suffer the consequences. Where is the Armitage outrage? " Share!

Email Your Representatives Today wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:32 AM:I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons: 1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths. 2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. 3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel. 4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm. 5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. 6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress. 7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. 8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution. 9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Interesting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:43 AM:Armitage is who leaked Plame's name to Novak -the reason the investigation was called in the first place - has yet to be indicted or investigated. Where's the outrage? I thought this was all about national security, and keeping the agent's identities secret. The fact that so many libs are silent indicates that they agree this case was totally political from the get go.

Dang wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:46 AM:The liberals will never like GW Bush now. He totally just angered all those liberals who love him. What a tragedy.

To: Still Waiting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:57 AM:I'm an American conservative, former Republican. I don't really uderstand why you'd be asking conservatives if they approve of GWB; he's not a conservative. As a matter of fact, I can think of only a hand full of politicians currently in office that qualify as true conservatives, and I don't trust them either. Since the attempted "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" SCAM, engineered by members of both parties, I will NEVER trust any politician; they're all thieves and liars.

For grocery writer wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:00 AM:We don't hate grocery workers but you must realize that you are not in a skilled labor profession. However I do agree that every single human being in American should have health insurance. Therein lies the rub. Until our government finally has had enough with drug companies and insurance companies and demands insurance for all I'm afraid strikes in the grocery field will continue on and on and on. And you know, the reason we don't like the strikers is because many of them are rude. Some of us have to shop close to home and have no choice about crossing your lines. Sorry.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:01 AM:Sorry, Alf, but if the charges you make had one iota of substance, the Democrats would go for impeachment in a New York second. Right now, absent one nut (Dennis Kucinich in the House, which doesn't have a vote on impeachment), you have zero political support and less than zero legal support. Charges are not proof -- witness Rosie's charges that the 911 attack was an inside job. Your claims are equally absurd, but understandable since tin hats tend to get overly hot in this heat wave. Good theatre, however.

to Ron @ 10:13 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:25 AM:So far there have been at least two court rulings against the Bush/Cheney policies, one regarding the Geneva Conventions (which are part of US law), one regarding the warrantless wiretap program. Impeachment is more a political than a legal decision, so the reticence of the Dems to impeach is not proof of guilt or innocence. I would bet that if Bush/Cheney were forthcoming with records of their activities, there'd be many more serious infractions. It doesn't help them build trust when they so consistently stonewall, destroy records, threaten the reasonably curious, etc. Oh, and the kicker on top of it all is: they also have not gotten the job done. But that is truly another topic. As a PS, I don't hold the beliefs you enumerated, and as a PPS, you might realize that when 70% of the American people disapprove of Bush (as well as Congress), it's the Bush supporters that are "out of the mainstream", if conformity matters to anyone.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:26 AM:Thank you, "Email Your Representatives Today" at 10:32AM. A big problem is that some people refuse to understand that when a liberty, a right guaranteed by the Constitution and it's Amendments is surrendered, it does not come back without a battle (maybe to the death). Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:32 AM:"Reardon", please tell me how inaccurate the post by "Email Your Representatives Today" at 10:32 AM is and why the facts, illegal un-Constitutional searches and violating his oath to uphold the Constitution are not crimes unless the GWB is above the Constitution. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:32 AM:Ron keeps mentioning the flying saucers and little green men. I think that he must have already made their acquaintance on more than one occasion.

infestation wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:36 AM:Phil Epstein's letter doesn't make sense if he is talking about Japanese beetles. I am really disgusted with the "infesting the schools with their offspring" line. These are human children and the ones who attend our schools are mostly U.S. citizens. This hate is not about citizenship - it is about race and it should end now.

ACE wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:41 AM:I just did a cut and paste of blogger "Email Your Representatives Today" 10:32am post and forward it to our Washington Reps and Senators. Their reply was as follows: "Thank you for your input. Now please read blogger "Reardon" 11:01am post. Have a nice day."

to Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:45 AM:If you look at those examples cited as actual facts, then you have just thrown away whatever objective credibility that you claimed to have.

gimmeabreak wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:45 AM:Gina Callen ROCKS!!!!

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:48 AM:The ultimate question, "Reardon", is - Did GWB authorize warrantless searches? Yes, he did. In doing so he violated the United States Constitution and the Oath of Office. He has neither preserved nor protected nor defended the Constitution of the United States BY HIS ACTIONS. Deny that GWB authorized warrantless searches or admit that he violated the thing he swore to uphold, the Constitution, one way you deny reality the other you deny your own previously faulty logic. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 11:55 AM:Well, "Ron", over 75 percent of the population is "out of the mainstream", ACCORDING TO YOU. If you truly believe that authorizing warrantless searches, among many other things, is not a criminal act, you have not read the Constitution and you may need to be 5150'd. Still an angry, unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

He also lied about it, Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:01 PM:Even as the warrantless searches were going on as they had for many months, Bush told us directly that you need a court order. Proven liar. And not about dallying. About violating the core constitutional rights of American citizens. If Clinton deserved Kenneth Starr and impeachment, what do Bush and Cheney deserve?

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:02 PM:"to Alf", did GWB authorize warrantless searches or not? You can not deny that he did. I am picking one point (for now) and saying that this FACT, this one FACT is an indisputable ACT and it is a criminal act. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

To Infestation wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:04 PM:Define mostly. You say that the children that attend our schools are mostly US Citizens. How do you know? Are your kids still in school? I can tell you that there are an awful lot of kids impacting our schools that don't know English or are just learning. They are not citizens and not here legally. I'm not going to start the whole illegal immigration debate but to say that these kids are mostly citizens is just not accurate.

How you know wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:15 PM:you are out of the mainstream: 1. your name is Ron. 2. you continue to be an apologist for this administration. 3. You answer every direct question with another question and remind us of others who broke laws. 4. you spin the facts to support your own dogmatic worldview. 5. you use strawman arguments to support insecure belief structures. 6. you are part of the 27%, and by definition are out of the mainstream. 7. you believe that by disagreeing with this administration and asking them to be held accountable that you are saying that Islamo fascists are less of a threat. 8. you do not believe that this administration has not circumvented any laws. 9. you use catch phrases like "elected them to get the job done." 10. you do not realize that they have failed to "get the job done." 11. you shift blame and are completely without hope or originality. 12. you are a conservative who longs for the "good ole days." 13. you regurgitate what you are told to think from talk radio.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:26 PM:Once again the defrense of these "posters" for GWB is Clinton did it too, just like little children. Well guess what throughout Clintons entire presidency Kenneth Starr using our tax dollars went after the Clinton like white on rice, the republicans, conservatives never stopped trying to hang him. (Yeah You). O.K. you got him he had sex. Flash forward noew folks Clinton is not the current president George is and we have every right to place blame squarly where it belongs with the commander in Chief, where does your buck stop Ron Conservative 1? With Clinton? You really need to wake up the year is 2007 and GWB is the buck. I have to agree and have said this time and again I do not want ANY of my representatives to lie, cheat or steal I dont care what thier Party affiliation is, I do not blindly, stupidly follow like a sheep. Seems these "so called educatied" posters are just that silly sheep.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:31 PM:Libby..... wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:22 AM: You will get your wish. I have no doubt that President Bush will give him a full pardon as he leaves office. Yep! Libby is a fine public servant. LIES UNDER OATH! CONVICTED FELON!

Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:32 PM:Impeachment is off-the-table. For many, the actions Bush/Cheney seem to confuse people. It's not confusing, if you know a little history. Bush's actions are not unlike any other American President at war. Lincoln routinly hired, then fired his generals because they would not fight. He suspended Habeas Corpus, and had "agitators" jailed for rioting against the Civil War, and who knows how many secret documents were destroyed. FDR inprisoned Japanese-Americans, opened mail, wire-tapped, hanged Nazi spys, and he also had his share of vocal protests against his actions and destroyed documents. I seem to get from your question, that you think the President needs consensus to do what presidents do to get the job done. He does not. We do have processes in place to check his power, or remove him, but sending an Army into battle is his call alone. You seem to be amazed that he is "bucking" Joe 6-pack. Maybe, he just flat out disagrees with their advice, after all, it is just advice, he is, as he says: the Decider. Our founders put in place a single commander for the very reason that 535 members would have vastly ranging ideas about how, why, and when. They gave this responsibility to one man, and that man is solely responsible making "the" decision. Gitmo is not confusing, it is rather simple, actually. And as for Iraq, you stay until the job is done, or you cut and run. Back when Lincoln was sending the Union Army into Saratoga, he could have listened to his advisors that were telling him they couldn't beat Lee, and they should just divide the country. Or, FDR could have listened to his advisors and only attacked the Japanese, as they attacked us, and not the Nazi's. Ultimately, am I positive the President's plan and actions will work. But it clearly won't work, if you impeach. Many say the war has been lost already, and the same people last year were telling us we needed a "surge" to bolster our security in Iraq. Many of those folks, now think the "surge" is not going to work, and it's a loser. This is why the decision is left to one man. The Congress does have the power to de-fund the war, forcing the troops home against the president's wishes. If they feel very strongly about this, since they have a majority of votes, they could de-fund. I guess my question is: where are they getting their advise? As to a majority of Americans against the Bush/Cheney…baloney.

Convictions? wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:33 PM:Was Bill Clinton actually convicted in a court of law for perjury? For anything else? I honestly don't recall...it's lost in my mind among all the noise about impeachment, Monica, and the rest. Scooter was actually convicted for, among other things, obstruction of justice, interfering deliberately with an investigation. Is that more serious than perjury about an affair?

Paul wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:41 PM:A heated discussion this is.. I am a conservative. It doesn't matter if your are liberal, independent, or conservative. Bending the laws (or ignoring them) is an irrational decision leading to a road frought with potholes, our elected officials (of any party) should not traverse this course. The degradation and loss of liberties is the destination at the end of this road.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 12:53 PM:Please excuse the typos I was writing angrily.

LaLa wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:09 PM:Re: Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I don't know if their impeachments are off the table, but they should be, simply for practical considerations. The time required for impeachment would probably extend beyond their terms. Meanwhile, Congress has much to do: impeachment would be a needless distraction. Although Bush is "the Decider," he should be pressed to pay greater heed to his advisers and to use all his resources (including political, diplomatic, and economic)in pressing the war in Iraq.

Laughing at the Cons wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:31 PM:He was convicted by a jury of his peers. PERIOD. He was given a sentence that met federal guidelines for his crime. PERIOD. Bush just committed another act that shows what he thinks of the justice system, which is no big surprise to anyone.

Pinky wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:34 PM:While it's true that Nancy Pelosi is not in favor of impeachment, it is my opinion that if the American people were able to get their representatives to listen regarding the poorly-written immigration bill with enough emails and phone calls to get it killed, there is no reason we cannot do the same thing to get Cheney/Bush impeached. Contact your representatives today and let them know how you feel.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:43 PM:To Try some compassion, and friends. Giving away something of value to someone who does nothing for it, is folly. San Diego's experiment with inclusionary housing has totally failed. The people move in, run down the house and property, and ultimately undermine home values. Inclusionary housing simply does not work.

to Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:48 PM:You're missing the whole point. The question is whether or not he needed warrants to have the NSA listen in on overseas phone calls. Constitutional experts debate this point to this day. So, the act is not criminal Alf. Perhaps potentially criminal, if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that way. But if they rule in his favor, you will eat crow my friend. For then, an act that you despise will have passed Constitutional muster and will become the law of the land. Since you are so passionate about the rule of law, could we expect you to then support the NSA program?

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:52 PM:Impeachment is sitting right square in the middle of the table. What does not sink in, "Ron", what you will not allow yourself to admit is that we are not talking about Lincoln, FDR or Clinton or anyone other than GWB. We are in the here and now, the subject is GWB (and The Cheney Branch) and we are talking about violations of the United States Constitution by GWB. What some other President did or did not do, what some leader or dictator of some other country did or did not do is not germain to this, at all. You and others keep deflecting, keep attempting to side-track and I will not have any part of that. If violating his oath of office by not defending the Constitution and violating the Constitution in it's protection against unlawful (warrantless) searches do not fall under the catagory of "High crimes and misdemeanors", then nothing does. If nothing does then we do not have a Constitution. Still an unapologetic Libertarian, Alf.

to Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:56 PM:Good post at 12:32pm. But whoa cowboy!!! Don't you understand? It is completely and utterly off limits for anyone here on this site to bring up any actions or decisions of any past presidents. It is simply unacceptable. It's 2007...don't you know? The focus needs to stay on Bush, and other examples and precedents simply will not be tolerated, and are to be instantly discarded as neocon delusions.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:56 PM:"Giving false witness" is the same crime if done for one reason or another -- and yes, President Clinton was duly convicted, given a $10,000 fine and loss of law license. Both the Libby and Clinton convictions are not in question, only the difference in sentencing.

Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:58 PM:Jules: Those of us who support the action Bush/Cheney have had to endure a mountain of criticism. I don't have a problem with people who put forth a genuine and serious argument about why they disagree. Just as I believe those who are against them, should respect our right to say we believe in the administration. But, I do have a problem with stupidity. In my opinion, "...the worst letters are those prompted by partisanship, ignorance and blatant stupidity. We've all read them: "Bush lied" and “Cheney lied” that kind of stuff. And so the diatribe follows: illegal war… rigged election… cover-ups… Gitmo… Like I said: stupidity. I respect the hope that all people can get along, but I believe they fundamentally misunderstand mankind. As much as we would hope that other people in the world have the same wants and desires, it misrepresents the true evil that does exist in many. Taking the Rodney King approach: "Can't we all just get along", sounds good, but totally misses that some just do not want to "get along." No. They start demanding impeachment, if it helps them. Sometimes the only reason you and I do the right thing is because of the consequences if we do the wrong thing, that is what keeps Bush and Cheney in check.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:03 PM:Well the weather must surely be affecting some on the blog today. Email Your Representatives is the poster child for Bush haters gone Batty. And anyway, Bush didn't create global warming....that was Al Gore.

Mary wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:13 PM:I'm afraid, very afraid, of this president and those who surround him!

Yawn rhymes with Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:27 PM:FDR...zzzzz...Lincoln...zzzz...habeas corpus...zzzzzz...we know, we know. And as many of us have said, we don't approve of those actions either, and they don't justify Bush and Cheney. For one thing, Bush/Cheney aren't at war in the same way, a declared war with sides. Who is the enemy in Iraq? No one knows. What's the definition of a terrorist? No one will give an answer to this. No, this is nothing but an announcement that we will be as-if at war more or less forever. So even if Bush's actions are comparable to Lincoln and FDR, they intended a very temporary suspension, Bush wants it much much longer. For another thing, Bush and Cheney were doing the secrecy and above-the-law thing before 911. Cheney has said he wanted to restore the old, pre-Watergate version of the Presidency from day one. On about day two Bush made all Presidential papers since Reagan secret. No, the comparisons don't hold up. And also they are irrelevant. And yes, three fourths of Americans think Bush is doing an unsatisfactory job...which I believe is a little like saying he isn't getting the job done. Sorry, Ron, you're just putting us all to sleep with your retreads...these tires are done, and painting them black won't make them roadworthy.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:29 PM:Ok then you all just keep bringing up the Clinton and Carter smoke and mirrors so that we dont pay any attention to what is happening today. Again I said I do not agree with any past present or future president selling me down the river, if you do fine but I am still entitled to my opinion (for the time being) I am sure you Republicans would love nothing more than to take away all liberal speech. You feel free to keep bringing up past presidents and thier decisions as if we did not already know or if they are somehow revelent to today. I am utterly amazed by the conservative posters that do not get that we are not concerned TODAY about what happened 30, 20 or 10 years ago the focus is what is going on TODAY. What is so frigging difficult in this that you do not understand.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:44 PM:Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2007 1:56 PM:Please cite your sources? Can not find the outcome that you state. I found that President Clinton was fined $90,000 for contempt in a civil case. His law license was suspended for five years and he was prohibited from ever presenting a case before the federal Supreme Court. President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives and found not guilty by the Senate. (WIKAPEDIA).

IMPEACH IMPEACH wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:48 PM:The ink was barely dry on the order DENYING bail on appeal to convicted White House felon Scooter Libby, before president Bush intervened "commute" his sentence. To the best of my knowledge, NEVER before in the history of American jurisprudence had anyone sentenced to prison received such a commutation BEFORE serving a single day of that sentence. TELL CONGRESS TO ACT ON IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHENEY WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. The Department of Justice's own guidelines specify that to apply for a communtation a convict MUST first have started to serve their sentence AND have abandonned all appeals. Scooter Libby has done neither. Instead, Bush has again abused his office to shield Cheney and himself from further exposure of their own impeachable offenses, as would happen were Libby finally compelled to testify truthfully, as was Judith Miller by her own incarceration. This is nothing but a weasel pardon, a premeditated obstruction of justice. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent Bush from further granting Libby a full pardon in January of 2009, as he no doubt PLANS on doing, UNLESS both he and Cheney are impeached first. More than sufficient evidence of their constitutional crimes is already a matter of public record. There is no oversight they have not unilaterally defied. And now this. What more do we need to hear?

NSA wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:48 PM:One court has found the warrantless program illegal. You can say that it's not over until the appeals, if any, are settled, and I will go along with you if the ruling is overturned. But at the moment, that program has been ruled illegal. And please, it seems rather obvious that this is so. And it also seems obvious that Bush knew this all along, because when he talked to the American people about it, he said a court order was necessary even though he had ok'd snooping without one. Why didn't he say: the law is wrong, and we don't use court orders? Because he knew that would be seen as transparently illegal. Why did he send Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital bed? To find SOMEONE in the Justice Department who would say it was legal. Why, when his own selected Justice Dept crew said they thought it was not legal, did he just go ahead and do it without Justice Dept approval? No, Bush had his ideas about what he wanted, but it was not concern over whether it was legal...he knew it wasn't and knew he wanted it to be, and did all he could to twist arms and hide facts along the way.

to 1:56 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:54 PM:Wow, the Bushies are truly responding in desperation today. If you read the posts about the past, you will see (1) that most of us say, don't bother bringing it up because we've heard that all from you already; (2) that most of us say that we do in fact condemn the illegal actions of past leaders regardless of party; and (3) that we want to hear how you guys feel specifically about Bush and Cheney. But, true Ronian that you are, none of this matters. You have your script and if anyone expresses skepticism about it, you get angry...and then post the script anyhow. The point of saying Clinton did this or that, anyway, must be "were you liberals ok with THAT?" What else could the point be, or are you guys really saying that two wrongs make a right? But as we keep saying, we were NOT ok with what Clinton did, so there is no reason to bring it up, it's settled. Now tell us more about why Bush & Cheney are just ducky with you.

Past Presidents wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:54 PM:If we had been as concerned THEN as we are NOW, perhaps it would never have gone this far. What is done is done; what is important that we don't CONTINUE to turn a blind eye to what our leaders are up to. And Ron, all you are saying is it doesn't matter to you what any president does, since you didn't object before and you don't object now. That is your perogative, but the rest of us DO still believe in what the Founders of our Country wanted for us and are willing to speak up for Ethics and Integrity in our Leaders. That is what we expect and that is what we demand. When our leaders fail us, we have the right to take them out. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY NOW!

To to Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:56 PM:You are wrong. The question is not whether or not Bush had the right to wiretap overseas calls, the question was did Bush lie, and the answer is an unqualified YES, over and over again.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 2:57 PM:Well, "to Alf", the answer is NO, I will not support a program that violates the Constitution, no matter who says that program does not violate the Constitution. I will not violate the law until the law violates me and the rights as spelled out by the unGWB revised Constitution. There is something called common sense that is missing here. The common sense that says "Whoa. This is fishy, 'Just let us steal a little of this one of your Constitutional rights here and some of that one over there and we won't bother you any more'. Sounds much like what Germany said to France before World War 2." There is no way that the NSA ONLY monitored overseas phone calls and knew which emails were destined for overseas, "to Alf". When my wife goes outside the country, I call her cell phone, a local call to me because it's in the 760 area code, but she gets the call whether in Madrid, Australia, Austria or London. How does the NSA know or not know that a 760 to 760 call is international? I do not buy Florida "Everglaciers" either, no matter how slick the slime-ball is who tries to sell them. Impeach GWB and The Cheney Branch, NOW! Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

IMPEACH NOW wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:16 PM:It seems that 3 to 10 American soldiers and marines are dying every day in Iraq. That means that anywhere from 1,095 to 3,650 more men will be killed. Thousands more will be wounded and maimed. That is reason enough for me to advocate that the President Bush and Vice President Cheny by impeached and removed from office. We need to save our men and rescue the Constitution.

Still Waiting 2 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:20 PM:Where's the outrage? I thought this was all about national security, and keeping the agent's identities secret. The fact that so many libs are silent indicates that they agree this case was totally political from the get go." Alf? Pinky? Focal Point? Where is your outrage at Armitage for outing Plame?

Pinky wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:26 PM:I am outraged, ok? IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY NOW!

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:28 PM:To "Impeach Impeach": Research the name "Marc Rich" if you think no one in the history of American Jurisprudence has ever been pardoned before actually spending time in jail. Marc was pardoned before spending a day in jail, but not before his ex-wife had donated $1 million to the Clinton library.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:29 PM:The 800 pound gorilla in the room is what this means is that now we will never know what happened because they just effectivly shut Libby up. Well maybe not forever he may decide to write a book in a year and a half and squeal like the rest of them are doing to make a buck off of his experience, that should about cover that nasty 250.000 fine. Oh wait no he will be pardoned so he can never talk.

to Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:31 PM:But Alf, when a program is ruled Constitutional by the US Supreme Court, there is no violation of the Constitution. So what's your point? That even if the High Court rules it Constitutional, that in Alf-land it is still illegal? Okay.

To Still Waiting 2 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:35 PM:This is not about National Security and keeping agent's identity secret. This is about a president and vice president who think they are above the laws of the United States Constitution. Everything else is just veering away from the main point. Got it now?

What Will He Do Next? wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:39 PM:If Libby's Get Out of Jail Card wasn't enough, just stay tuned. Bush and/or Cheney will do something equally outrageous tomorrow. The hits just keep on coming.

Still waiting wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:41 PM:Well, I will give partial credit to one person for taking up my challenge a tiny bit, and that is Ron. Despite all his usual sidetracking, obfuscation, and irrelevant stories, Ron at least said, straight out, that he is ducky with W and Cheney's behavior. He liked the law breaking when Lincoln and FDR did it, and he likes it now, because like those two greats, Bush/Cheney are getting the job done. But also a few other bloggers who self-identify as conservatives have condemned Bush and Cheney. All the rest refuse to answer the question but insist on changing the subject to Clinton or Armitage. The liberals have responded to these shenanigans with integrity and consistency: if laws were broken and if lies were told, we are appalled by this regardless of the party of the offender. Simple. It seems that the liberals are the ones who are on the side of the Constitution here, and are therefore, in this domain at least, literally the truer Americans. Ron is more of a war powers guy, who likes the idea that when we are at war (or something his President tells us is a war) the President should (unless Congress rises up to unplug the whole thing) be free to do whatever he wishes, being a strong leader and all. And the rest, the topic-changers, seem to take the more juvenile position that is, as far as I can tell, something akin to "oh, yeah, well so's your old man!".

Pinky wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:43 PM:We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law. The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment. The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways: 1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq. 2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law. 3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention. 4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights. When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law. George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:46 PM:It is a matter of the abuse of authority by GWB, the pattern of callous disregard for truth, the ever increasing arrogance of GWB essentially declaring himself and The Cheney Branch declaring itself above the Constitution, "Still Waiting 2". If the same acts, lies, arrogance, actions and attack on the United States Constitution were done by "Clinton and The Gore Branch", I would be calling for his (their) impeachment instead. Clinton is not at issue, the party affiliation of the president is not at issue to me, GWB and his actions ARE at issue AND TE+HE ISSUE HERE. Get that through your head. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Observation wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:46 PM:Anyone who had doubts that the American Government was hijacked by Cheney and Bush in 2000, now should have no doubts. The revelations of the past few months have conclusively revealed that we are dealing with a rogue, runaway government. They feel that they own the United States governmental apparatus, that the rule of law does not apply to them, and that the Constitution is irrelevant. If Congress continues to play it cautious with the White House, they will, in essence, be giving every American carte blanche permission to break the law, because the President and Vice President of the United States are role models for criminal behavior.

Why Impeach W and Dead Eye Dick? wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:49 PM:They have consistently out-and-out LIED to the People of America since they stole the Presidental Election of 2000, utilizing gross exaggerations so far from the truth that it reads like a cheap pulp novel, acting in a sociopathic and warped psychopathic manner, completely devoid of any compassion or empathy for the American Soldiers who have been sent to Iraq on a Pack of Lies, Lies, Lies and More DAMNED Lies, to Give Their Precious Lives as cannon-fodder, exposed to DEPLETED URANIUM, forced to go into battle improperly armored, and after sustaining maiming injuries, not properly cared for by miserable, wretched hospitals like at Walter Reed center, to perpetuate the lying perfidy of Bush and Cheney and to keep them from losing face with the American People, which they have both done ages ago as the tangled skein of their countless lies unravels and the Naked Truth that the Criminal Emperors "have no clothes on" and are exposed in all their LYING NAKEDNESS.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:50 PM:My last sentence of my post at 3:46 which may or may not be shown is - Clinton is not at issue, the party affiliation of the president is not at issue to me, GWB and his actions ARE at issue AND ARE THE ISSUE HERE. Get that through your head. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

to Ron wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:50 PM:One big difference. All those presidents you named were attacked. Iraq never attacked us. Never threatened to attack us. Never had the weapons to attack us. Bush lied to get us into a war the neo-cons thought would be a cake walk. It is the lying, the secrecy, the obfuscation and all the other spurious activities this administration has dealt in that causes people to talk about impeachment. I really don't know why you take comfort in bringing up old, generally unrelated actions of other presidents to try to convince us that somehow what Bush has done to this country is OK. Clearly the country wants to move in a direction away from the neo-cons and Bush/Cheney, and from my point of view that is Bushes greatest legacy.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:54 PM:to still waiting 2. Yes , yes we are all outraged as many of us have repetedly said today on this board, of ANY of our representatives being dirty and lying, are you reading what is being written? That is what we have been trying to get through some pretty thick skulls, we are sick and tired of the lies, I nor has anyone sat here in defense of Armatige. But you all keep defending George, Cheney, Karl and Libby. I feel as if I am writing to 5 year olds.

Jeopardy wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:57 PM:From scrimping on body armor and allowing someone to pocket the difference, after taking your cut, to siphoning off ninety cents from every dollar directed to New Orleans flood relief, the obscene subsidies they have paid themselves and tax breaks they have awarded themselves, almost daily there is another example of pure criminal wrongdoing by the Cheney / Bush administration, any one of which under any other circumstances would qualify for legal action. Based on how they have meticulously replaced prosecutors and judges, they must sense the impending legal jeopardy.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 3:57 PM:Happy 4th of July everyone, and be glad we live in a country where we can have open discussions (I use the term loosley there). Be safe and be happy, we still live in America!

Up early wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:00 PM:On the bright side, in 18 months our long national nightmare will be over. And then we can start arguing amongst ourselves about the next President.

to 2:56pm wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:05 PM:The question was whether Bush lied? Well, perhaps if it was to the Grand Jury, which would be perjery. But that's not the case. A politician telling a lie is not a realistic basis for impeachment. Well, at least not to normal people anyway.

Too Dangerous wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:08 PM:After the absurd fiasco the republicans performed by impeaching Bill Clinton they have so cheapened this sacred Constitutional article of impeachment the nation remains reluctant to issue again what would now seem flagrant overuse. Thus they have somehow inoculated Bush from what would otherwise seem a most obvious and necessary case for impeachment. But there remains one vitally important reason why we may not be able to afford simply waiting out the pitiful spectacle of Bush. That Bush is a national shame, an embarrassment, that he has cheapened and soiled the good name of our once proud nation there can be no doubt, but the dire threat that he might yet act again main reason something must be done immediately. As the days tick down on Cheney's power the more likely it grows that he will push the button. Many doubt there is anything that can stop him no matter what. He may let the... forlorn Navy and Air Force have their fun in Iran since they feel so left out of spending frenzy known as Iraq, or he may just fire missiles at no one in particular just for the sake of destroying the planet. Even worse than total annialiation by nuclear weapons, Bush may get to appoint another Supreme Court justice. Either way, the damage Bush still represents is just too much.

No, Waiter wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:12 PM:It was about lying under oath. Catch a clue.

Realist wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:13 PM:Some Cold Hard Facts: 1. Libby still gets a quarter million dollar fine and probation. 2. The NSA spy program would only go over about 1% of all phone calls. 3. The U.S. went to war on bad intelligence WHICH IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT THE SAME AS LYING! 4. Plame was a desk agent working in the CIA, and didn't work undercover. 5. If Bush-haters would study history, they would discover that Presidents of the past have done similar decisions and no outcry was made.

Is It Facism? wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:14 PM:# Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. # Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. # Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. # Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. # Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. # Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. # Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. # Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. # Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. # Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . # Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. # Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. # Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. # Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. THERE IS NOT ONE OF THESE THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.....IMPEACH OR CONTINUE TO WATCH "FASCIST CREEP" TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:19 PM:The sentence for Scooter had to be commuted by GWB, BUT he will not stop the RANDOM DEATH SENTENCES he has given to American soldiers, over 3,582 so far, by placing them in harms way based on outright lies. Very interesting, but stupid, cruel and inhuman. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2007 4:23 PM:to Alf: NSA intercepts calls to and from known and suspected foreign agents in certain nations whose interests are not in our best interest of our nation. NSA has complete physical capability to "sweep" every phone call in the world that somewhere in the call passes through any UHF, satellite, or other "over the air" signal. (That is almost every phone call.) It does not do so for all of them for the same reason that Moscow didn't follow EVERY Moscow tourist during the Cold War...too much manpower required. NSA must perforce, limit the interception of billions of phone calls to known and suspected agents of potential enemies. IF your wife has personal contact with known or suspected foreign agents I can assure you from personal knowledge that NSA is all over those phone calls -- but they are intercepting the foreign agents conversations, not your wife.(NSA even intercepted Russian landlines between military bases in Russian ports, using American submarines…something the Russians believed impossible. Read, Blind Man’s Bluff) To intercept your wife, NSA (or more likely the FBI) will get a Court order. Is it possible for your wife to meet and innocently talk with a foreign agent -- say one who is also a clerk in a hotel in which your wife stays -- and the clerk calls your wife to confirm a reservation -- yes, NSA has a copy of that call. That call will be run through a computer program to see if the program can find words or phrases that indicate a possible terrorist link, and if there is a question then a member of NSA MAY hear that conversation. Is there a potential for abuse .Yes. Do I know or suspect any such abuse. No. Personally, as a registered Libertarian, I am satisfied with the checks and balances. We all draw a line in different places...but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Constitution does not protect foreign agents conversations. You may subscribe to the 1929 Henry Stimson philosophy that “Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen’s mail.” I do not.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 5:31 PM:"to Alf", the U.S. Supreme Court can not, if they follow their mandate as described in the Constitution, rule that the 4th and 14th Amendment are subject to the whim of the executive branch, aka president. ANY phone tap of ANY citizen by ANY U.S. AGENGY REQUIRES a warrant by those Amendments. The requirement for a warrant for the U.S. to "tap" (search) my phone is the same whether I call my wife when she is in London or I call her when she is in Temecula. Why? Because I am a citizen and MY government listening to MY phone calls is the issue, not where they go, not to whom I speak. If the country that my wife is in allows warrantless bugging, then we must acknowledge that, BUT this country does not allow such things by at least the 4th Amendment, at least for now. If the Supreme Court declares that warrantless searches in ANY form are legal, then, my worthy opponent, there is no more Constitution, at least nothing worth respecting. You see, I think we are already past the first or second line of "First they came for..." (the real one follows the chronology of the people whose rights were declared null and void in Germany. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 5:46 PM:Perjury is lying under oath. Once GWB and Cheney were sworn into office, legally and Constitutionally ANY LIE TOLD BY EITHER OF THEM, WHILE IN OFFICE, IS PERJURY. Look it up. Read it. Understand it. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Congress wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:05 PM:will not impeach Bush and Cheney because they are up to their necks in it.

Pinky wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:33 PM:Happy Independence Day, Concerned-1. Your words are true, at least for now, and I wish you and yours well. Happy Independance Day, fellow bloggers!

Pinky wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:38 PM:I know I will get a barrage of flack here, but in '08 I would be interested in seeing a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. I don't agree with every last thing they represent, but what I have read about them is close to what I am looking for. Just my opinion. I might change it later.

Still waiting 2 wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:42 PM:to 3:35pm blogger...you say "This is not about National Security and keeping agent's identity secret."...You can't be serious! That is EXACTLY what your DemocRATS were saying throughout this whole entire episode. I think it is you who does not get it.

to Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 6:58 PM:Alf says: "It is a matter of the abuse of authority by GWB", as his crutch. Yet never answers the real question as to whether or not he, or others, would or should, accept a High Court ruling in favor of the terrorist wiretaps. Nice job, Alf. Avoid the question and remain strangely focused on the Executive branch. Simple American history and government classes would show your opinion to be, shall we say, radical.

TheWolf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 7:09 PM:Libby did not lie under oath. He was convicted of giving false statements to an FBI agent. Most folks would get a slap on the wrist as there was no underlying crime. We have become Rome.

To Mr. Grant wrote on Jul 3, 2007 7:23 PM:Thank you so much. I did not see the minutemen protesting at the St. Patrick's Day parade either. I appreciate your letter. It makes me feel better that we some rational people left in So. Cal. The minutemen and their agenda of lies and exageration are causing even good people to do bad things. I hope the minutemen will be held responsible for the violence against Mexicans they are promoting. Thank you again for your letter my hope in mankind has been restored.

Fran wrote on Jul 3, 2007 7:24 PM:I also wish everyone a happy 4TH of July. We will get past this Bush mess. We must not ever elect an ignorant ideologue, or one who disregards the law and practices secrecy and deception in the White House.

Setting the record straight. wrote on Jul 3, 2007 7:28 PM:To Jean Alm not happening honey! The 14th Amendment will never be repealed. I like it just the way it is and so do our legislators. The 14th Amendment was put there by our Founding Fathers and somehow we have lost our way. The Constitution is fine the way it is. Oh yes and to Oliver Kerr I am a Mexican America it is nice to meet you. I am not Hispanic, Latino I am a Mexican American. Nice to meet you too thank you.

Jules wrote on Jul 3, 2007 7:47 PM:To 2.56 P.M oh but what you are not saying in your post is that GWB, Cheney, Rove, Rice & etc will not, have not, and refuse to go in front of the grand jury, of all things siting executive privilege. LOL LOL. As we all now know they are an entity apart from our governmental and judicial system. It is pretty hard to lie under oath without transcripts or transparency to the grand jury and have any prosecutor charge them. I am no attorney but if I were the average tax paying American and I am under investigation and refuse to testify I am going to jail for a much longer duration than Libby. Think what the fourth of July means and it is not about BBQ, beach and blindness. It has more meaning, lets think about or troops and their families who would most likely be more than grateful that their soldiers were only sentenced to 30 months, with the assurance they would come home alive in one piece. Thank you to our troops for doing your job to keep us all safe and free, even to speak things that are difficult. Have a happy and safe 4th to all.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:02 PM:I guess that my post did not make it, "to Alf", The answer is that I refuse to abide by a decision that would be in DIRECT contradiction with the exact words written in the Constitution, Supreme Court or not. Black is not white and blue is not orange, not now or over 200 years ago and no one will get me to agree with that. The words of the Fourth Amendment are quite clear in any century "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The mere thought that unwarranted searches could be somehow be declared to be reasonable boggles all but the irrational mind. Happy 4th of July a bit early!! Enjoy your Independence and Freedom and Your Constitutional Rights while you still have some left! Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:14 PM:One more thing, "to Alf", I like your ploy, using the phrase "a High Court ruling in favor of the terrorist wiretaps", instead of "a High Court ruling in favor of warrantless searches". Nice trick. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but the thinking American people, the ones who are capable of thinking critically, are no longer willing to fork over anything and everything when that "terrorist" word is used. We have been burned to the tune of 3,582 dead soldiers and counting. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 3, 2007 9:37 PM:"Realist", I do not care if "The NSA spy program would only go over about 1% of all phone calls." or 3 percent or 10 or 50 percent of calls. Understand this - The word "only" is a "weasel word" used when people are trying to justify doing something that they know is wrong or illegal. It is still warrant-less searching and it still violates the exact words of the Fourth Amendment, which has not yet been repealed. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Realist wrote on Jul 3, 2007 10:45 PM:Bush is leaving office in 15 months, and do you think for one second that he wants to remain in office longer than that? I think not. The 2008 elections will probably be Democratic-led (my prediction) since no clear leader has emerged. I also believe that if the American people VOTE in the next election, they can give the next president what they want accomplish.

Alf wrote on Jul 4, 2007 8:56 AM:"Realist", GWB set up his possible King GWB-dom with "NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51" so that he can seize power for as long as he desires. GWB has proven himself to be someone not to be trusted, ever, under any circumstances. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Realist wrote on Jul 4, 2007 3:49 PM:Alf, why do you care about the rights of terrorists? People whose sole desire is the destruction of our country? I care about perserving our liberties just as much as you do, yet I find it difficult to do so when proven tools such as the wiretaps cannot be used. You say there is no way to fight terrorism. I disagree - do you forget the plots to blow up JFK and the Sears Tower? Those people were arrested and prosecuted by the law. THAT is fighting terrorism. I agree we took the wrong approach in Iraq, but if we don't take a stand, the future generations of Americans will look at us and think "How could they have been so stupid?"

You're Just Jealous wrote on Jul 4, 2007 3:54 PM:Anyone who wants to yell the battle cry of, "Impeach Bush! Impeach Cheney!" is just jealous because Bush has been chatting on line all day with babes, and Cheney is training to be a cage fighter.

It wrote on Jul 4, 2007 6:23 PM:didn't take to long for the Bush BBs to blame it all on Clinton. When there is no more excuses for all Bush's misdeeds, lies and crimes then turn the spotlight off Bush and onto someone else. Bush's crimes are his own.

Rose D wrote on Jul 4, 2007 6:25 PM:Realist, you might want to read what John Adams said when he defended one of the redcoats for killing a patriot.

From a Liberal wrote on Jul 5, 2007 8:50 AM:I am American! I am not Irish-American, although I am of Irish descent. If I wanted to be Irish I would move to Ireland. If you Mexican-Americans want to be Mexican You might want to live in Mexico. I love being an American and would fly no other flag. And no more illegal alien lawbreakers. Close the borders and send illegals back to THEIR home.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2007 10:16 AM:Well, "Realist", I do care that the incremental diminution of our rights under the Constitution is happening in a geometric progression under GWB. I will try to stop that abridgement of our rights whether it is GWB or someone else. Violating the Constitutional rights of many to find one is not worth it and it's bad enough that the rights of the one are violated as much as they are. Will will you call out "ENOUGH" as your rights are being violated, but by then it will be too late. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 6, 2007 7:39 PM:To...Alf..., the most perfect mind and man on the Planet. Ok, I conceed, there might be some rights infringed in an effort to protect us from another 911. So what? You have something to fear? Your rights are more important than lives? Personally, I believe there are more Americans that would prefer flexibility in rights than would prefer knowing that big brother wasn't watching. As you reduce government and its authority, how do you protect the nations population, infrastructure, and economic integrity? Your Libertarian, anti-Republican/Bush attitude is in the way of common sense and decision making process. You are just like many Democrats, not happy with anything that is being done but have no viable plan of your own. You need to settle for being one of the smart ones, not the only one. Have a good day.

Alf wrote on Jul 7, 2007 7:08 AM:Not so, "Alan", my plan is quite simple - Impeach GWB and Cheney, rescind those "signings" and "directives" that are in direct opposition of the Constitution and GET OUR SOLDIERS OUT OF IRAQ, simultaneously. When one stoops to the level of the enemy, as GWB did by invading Iraq and using "shock and awe" TERRORIST TACTICS, one has BECOME THE ENEMY. You may not like it, you may not approve of it, BUT the proof is here RIGHT NOW, with warrant-less searches, torture, THE CHENEY BRANCH, and the arrogance, lies, threat of invading Iran and the usurping of Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS that GWB and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE. NOW. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:33 AM:To Alf...Maybe pictures will help, you seem to have trouble understanding English sentences. NOT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH YOU OR ME. You are wrong about Bush/Cheney, you're wrong about getting out of Iraq (my son is there fighting for Iraqi freedoms now, is yours? What qualifies you to make your statements; opposing party politics?). See how this works? You need to learn to disagree without trying to make the world think you are smarter than they are! IMHO. Or is that how "unabashed Libertarian, Alf" imposes his will on others? You have no plan for anything except to withdraw and hide your head in the sand. Which part of your plan stops terrorism against us "infidels"?

Miguel wrote on Jul 7, 2007 11:07 AM:To...Alf the magnificent......You are probably an example of why Libertarians don't succeed in Politics. 1)There are no "signings" and "directives" that are in direct opposition of the Constitution, this is NOT TRUE; 2)NOBODY used Terrorist tactics and became the enemy; again, FALSE CLAIMS from opposing political opinion but not true; 3)The searches have been found legal, again you are wrong; 4)Torture by us? Whatever we have done is nothing compared to beheadings of innocent victims. Let's see, who did that, oh yeah, OUR ENEMIES; 5)NO guaranteed Constitutional rights, according to our laws, have been usurped. None that have been proven or validated in a court of law. Your claims again are political in nature and hold no credence, it is the Mantra of those who want what others have. Arrogance is not a crime (otherwise you would be in jail), lies have not been proven and we should be prepared to invade Iran if our lives depend on it. You really need a taste of reality because your puritanical opinions and philosophy seem like they are right out of a college classroom. IMHO. Good luck with your crusade for doing nothing while others die. Get a clue.

Alf wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:39 PM:My son had the sense to be born about 2 years too early to be shipped to me in a box courtesy of GWB, "Alan" and "Miguel". WHAT THE HECK ARE YOUR UNQUALIFICATIONS. My qualifications are common sense, something severely lacking in both of your thinkings, AND I OPPOSE STUPID AGGRESSION AND INVASION BASED ON LIES. Have you ever heard of the idea that doing nothing (saving AMERICAN LIVES) can be better than action (USING THE GWB METHOD TO ENSURE THAT OVER 3590 AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE). Of course not! You are too caught up being both hero and martyr. ... EVEN if you hate my ideas and ideals, I hope your son remains alive and comes home alive, intact and not in a box. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:42 PM:When you sink to the inhuman, insane, terrorist level of your enemy, sir, YOU BECOME THE ENEMY OF ALL MANKIND, OF ALL CIVILIZATION AND TO YOURSELF. If you believe otherwise, you already are the enemy to humanity. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Miguel wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:13 PM:Alf, Alf, Alf....calm down. You still haven't answered one question tendered in good faith from anybody nor have you solved any problems. You only have Mantras, diatribe and actions with open ends. As I remember, doing nothing, we lost over 250 US soldiers in an unprovoked Embassy bombing, about 3000 in the twin towers unprovoked bombing and numerous others in about 18 other attacks on Americans or US property by unprovoked actions over the last 20 years. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between lies and mistakes should make your parenthood interesting. How convenient to contribute nothing and lambaste others for their attempts to solve the problems or prevent other attacks. Our military is ALL volunteer, no draft needed. 90% of these young men and women have joined to protect their country by enjoining the battle off of US soil, in the face of the enemy that wants to destroy us. The biggest enemy our country faces, other than the terrorists, are those among us without the wisdom to know when to fight and when to do nothing. No insult intended but I doubt your son had any sense at all about when he was to be born. This is exactly what you try to do with all information. Color it the way you want, truth or not. I don't HATE your ideas or ideals, I think they are wrong when ALL the facts are considered and common goals are agreed upon. I mean come on, some of your one-liners are really from left field, maybe even another planet (this is what I call diatribe). Thanks for the kind wishes for my son.

Reardon wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:35 PM:Sorry, Alf: I believe you are mistaken. When one party follows the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, and the other follows the Marquis of Sades Rules, Sade wins every time. I can see that you are a "Philosopher King" who has never faced a kill or be killed situation. That is a problem only in that it does not recognize on-the-ground reality. My libertarian mentor, Bob LeFevre of Rampart College and I had those same discussion often, and he accused me of having a "Man the Pass Syndrome." That is true, but I have faced that situation, and he had not. Let me assure you, you will do what you must or you will not be around to debate further. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither is any philosophy. You must survive to debate. Your philosophy on intelligence approximates Henry Stimson’s 1929 saying, “Gentlemen do not read other Gentlemen’s mail.” Your philosophy on fighting approximates the rigid British Rules of Combat in 1773, “March in straight lines, wear Red Coats, and have your officers at the Front.” The combination of those two concepts is a formula for losing. There are many branches of Libertarianism, and my branch (Ayn Rand) is not into losing. Personally I favor coating all bullets with pig’s fat…my family and my country count on my winning, not being moral. I will be moral where I can, and when I can, but I will win. That is why I can debate you on this issue.

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 6:48 AM:While I agree that the "cheater" usually wins, "Miguel" and "Reardon", the question is how far do you sink into the muck before you can't get out? The "kill or be killed" situation was foisted off on the soldiers by their Commander-in-chief. That is a fact. The lies used to send them to Iraq are also proven to be lies, to believe that GWB "simply made an error" initially is remotely possible, to believe that he is correct to keep putting our soldiers in a meat grinder based on his initial "error" is stupid and deadly. We can not "stabilize" that region. Believing that we can do so defies over 3000 years of history. Strange, we've lost almost 4000 American soldiers and what good do we have to show for their ultimate sacrifice? A torn up country there and here. Ain't GWB grand? In a pig's eye. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

"My Country Right or Wrong" wrote on Jul 8, 2007 8:56 AM:This is “one of Schurz’s most frequently quoted replies.”—Hans L. Trefousse, Carl Schurz: A Biography, chapter 11, p. 180 (1982). Schurz expanded on this theme in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899: “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”—Schurz, “The Policy of Imperialism,” Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, pp. 119–20 (1913).

Alan wrote on Jul 8, 2007 10:08 AM:Dear Alf....To stop the sinking requires a calculated change to meet a specific result. You should read about "the killing fields" to realize why it is not as simple as "quit and run". Given the chance, you would probably blame the current administration (not one man)for all terrorists acts for the last 25 years. This war started on our soil and has been successfully held outside our borders since 9/11. If you are looking for agreement as to where we are, I am not comfortable either. I am glad Saddam and his murderous hoard is out of power to kill hundreds of thousands more. Is there a better solution? I TRUST that ALL our leadership is searching for one. There are two actions we cannot take, 1)blindly throw bodies at the problem, 2)not do anything/withdrawal and see what happens. The difference between us is that I believe that there can be a measured, calculated change in direction based on minimizing losses of our countrymen and those of who we are trying to defend. Those lives deserve our consideration also. I agree that stabilizing the region is very improbable but it is not our military's goal. Our goal is to stabilize Iraq hoping for a beginning to stabilazation of the region. Your accusations and venemous attack of a president (yes, he has made mistakes) that is trying to save our way of life is overboard, off-track and seemingly just a way for you to vent anger at where we are. Your analysis lacks thought and truth and continues to cry the Mantra of "lies". You seem capable of thinking, I hope you get past the headlines, jargon and one-liners and focus on solutions, not complaints. Impeachment and Withdrawal will not solve our problems, it will just make them more difficult and prolonged. Can we move on to productive dialog now or are we going to be stuck on "hate our own leaders" forever?

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 10:57 AM:"Alan", I was being overly generous when I used the word "mistakes". Let me correct that here and now - GWB is a proven liar many times over. He has sent almost 4,000 American soldiers to their death on his Quixotic, assinine, arrogant, stupid quest for the impossible. By now over 70 percent of the American public is aware and another 20 percent grudgingly admit that 1) that Iraq had NO WMDs and 2) that Iraq harbored NONE of the terrorists he sought. The war in Iraq DID NOT START WITH 9/11. It started with GWB sending American soldiers to a place that did NOT have WMDs and WAS NOT home to the terrorists that he sought AND HE KNEW IT. When you defend GWB after this many dead American Soldiers, you do no one any good. We need to leave NOW, let the fighting in Iraq be what it has been for thousands of years BUT WE WANT "OUR" OIL. OOPS, DID I LET IT SPILL? Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jul 8, 2007 11:03 AM:No, Alf: I was not talking about macro foreign policy -- I was expressing my own personal, very micro experience. Been there, done that. Philosophy takes a distant, second place to real world ecperience. When you are face to face with it, you will not call upon you philosophy. It's pure gut-check time. Please remember that this is, and has been in recent memory, a volunteer military. It is the very best kind.

Reardon wrote on Jul 8, 2007 11:13 AM:I wonder if everyone would consider taking the absolute Constitutional right of aa President to pardon anyone at any time, away from all Presidents. Libby was bad, but the 46 FALN terrorists were worse and the Marc Rich pardon was truly awful. There is no right to even question the pardons; no appeal process. What say we do away with it?

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 11:40 AM:I agree that "this is, and has been in recent memory, a volunteer military. It is the very best kind.". I also believe that using these dedicated young soldiers who willingly offer up their lives for their country on this no-win situation, this foolish war is the ultimate irony. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 8, 2007 1:05 PM:Alf...buddy...fellow American, I don't intend on defending Bush, I am defending truth, analysis and honesty. He has not been indicted or prosecuted for any of your claims, which makes you irresponsible for making statements that are not proven and claiming them as fact. Conjecture is an ugly weapon. If we leave now, who will have the oil? If you don't care, you shouldn't be allowed the freedom to express your opinion at all. Again you are wrong about the war. The terrorists who are killing Iraqi's and our troops are the same as those who attacked us on 911. How can you deny this? Your denial and twisting of facts and rehearsed rhetoric is disgusting to anyone seeking truth and solutions. Blogging with you is like pulling the string on a Michael Moore doll, it always plays the same recording.

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 2:44 PM:I knew that "Alan" would show his true colors with his "you shouldn't be allowed the freedom to express your opinion at all". It is not simply my right to express opinions that are true, it is my duty as a citizen to protest the slaughter of American soldiers by their commander-in-chief. By the presence of U.S. troops, we drew some of those terrorists into Iraq that are killing U.S. soldiers and Iraqi women and children. Aren't you proud? Don't you understand? Of course not, you are too busy trying to defend the indefensible, the invasion of a foriegn country under false pretenses and the continued stupidity of a rogue president who defies the Constitution that he swore to uphold and defend when he took office. Whether I think that you are as insane as GWB or not, at least I defend your RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. You shrink into the cowardice of a dictatorial stance when confronted with facts that you can not and will not believe, just as GWB hides behind signings and defiance of Legislative inquiry. Still a real Citizen Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 2:51 PM:As I said before, "Alan", Simply because someone who murders has not yet been charged or convicted of murder does not mean a murder has not been is committed. Saying that someone who has murdered is a murderer when they have murdered but not yet been charged or tried or convicted, is still a fact, whether you like it or not. Still a truthful Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 3:57 PM:Please see the story of 7-8-07 entitled "General says early drawdown would leave Iraq 'a mess'; GOP senator latest to defect on war" and read the comments. I am a long way from being alone in my beliefs, the first 9 comments bear that out. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 8, 2007 4:02 PM:See there.....I got two recordings with one pull of the string.

Alan wrote on Jul 8, 2007 5:38 PM:ok, 3 recordings, one slipped in between blogs..Alf....I didn't say you didn't have a right to free speech, again you twist the truth..I said you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion..for the same reasons I wouldn't let a 3 year old give sermons in church...not mature enough to assimilate information and repeat it in context, completely, without biased distortion. Why, because you don't care what happens to the oil! So, if you did care what happened to the oil, you were ok. Again, you didn't respond. You are as fanatic as the Terrorists in your opinions yet you have no support beyond conjecture. Your entire line of speeches is comprised of others actions and results that do not please you. You are not truthful as you claim, you make convenient, unsupported claims and profess them as truth. Now, you reference an article that is EXACTLY what I told you earlier, drop and run is not the plan. There are others that are as angry as you about the results we have seen, I agree. I also read today that because of escalated violence that the Iraqi people are beginning to pick up arms and defend themselves. It's about damn time. I call for a strategic departure, you want immediate withdrawal. Stop changing your position, Hillary, and stick to the truth. I'm enjoying this.

to alf wrote on Jul 8, 2007 6:41 PM:Well, the news is in folks, Alf and Cindy Sheehan are in sync about Bush and impeachment. Nice company you keep there Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 6:29 AM:I care less about the company that you say I "keep" than I care about 3 things in order of importance 1) Stopping the sacrifice of American soldiers in a place that they should not be, ordered there by a proven liar. 2) Removing GWB and The Cheney Branch via impeachment. AND 3) Ensuring that the degradation of Constitutional rights that GWB has perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States is reversed and ALL RIGHTS that he trampled are restored. In other words, first, stop the GWB-led slaughter of our troops, second, remove the person(s) responsible for sending them to Iraq and third, clean up the mess that GWB has made HERE BEFORE "cleaning up" any of his other messes. A 3 year old who sees the truth and speaks the truth is infinately more wise than an adult who refuses to see it. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 9, 2007 8:08 AM:Alf...ok, fine, you have not changed position. Let's test your direction. If we 1)pull our troops from harms way, 2) Impeach the Executive Branch, 3) Constrain our abilities to monitor our safety but have our rights restored (for the sake of discussion). Now, Iraq reverts to Iranian rule, oil reserves now in the hands of a PEOPLE that want America and all Western Christians DEAD or converted to Islam. Terrorism will have a million square miles to train in and plot our demise. Millions of Iraqi citizens will be slaughtered by opposing religious groups because they are different or supported the Democratic attempt at governance. America will begin to lose its primary oil suppliers because we abandoned Iraq and Saudi and other friendly providers will turn away from us. Now America has no effective way to monitor the terrorists and no gas to drive to work but by God we will have our Constitutional Rights. Reardon mentioned earlier that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, this is why. Also, the war will come to our soil; American civilians dying by the hundreds of thousands because terrorism will attack us in waves. And we accomplished what? You got your rights secured, the troops came home to fight on American soil instead of somewhere else and 10 times the Americans will die because of fighting on our own soil. Alf, your intent to guard the Constitution is honorable, your accusations that our President is slaughtering our soldiers is treasonous, and you short sightedness about priorities is why the 3 year old doesn't do sermons. It is why you must be 16 to drive and 18/21 to drink. Society has determined that one must reach an age of sound judgement and information management before they can have dangerous tools in their hands. It is not rights, it is common sense; something you again claim to have but fail to demonstrate. Good luck to you....

to alf....... wrote on Jul 9, 2007 8:17 AM:I understand you are unhappy with Bush about rights and the war but what mess "here"? We have the lowest unemployment in years, inflation has settled, economy is best in generations. I did disagree with his Immigration plan but do you have facts or just inuendos, accusations and twisted truths? Can you finish your line of logic with what happens if you get your 3 wishes? Then what? I don't want to fight with you, I just want to understand your plan beyond Alans described "recorded messages".

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 11:03 AM:Well, "Alan", millions of people will be slaughtered, I agree. Should we, must we, the U.S., have to contribute BOTH OUR SOLDIERS AND the additional Iraqi lives lost DUE TO OUR PRESENCE to the tally? Are we not morally and ethically obligated, by YOUR own thinking, required to minimize the slaughter which WILL OCCUR NO MATTER WHAT? Yes! Do you agree with the basic premise that our presence exacerbates the tensions in the area, will make the retribution even more, the longer that "the infidels" stay? If you do not, then I suggest you study the history of the region and their religions.

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 11:13 AM:Well, "to alf.......", have you figured out, yet, WHY our economy is picking up? Could it be that the "war machine" is employing many people who would otherwise not be employed? Could there is some sort of perverse ratio between the number of AMERICAN SOLDIERS THAT DIE AND HOW MANY NEW JOBS ARE CREATED? Could it be that manufacturing jobs are created in order to fill the orders for more bombs, faulty body armor AND BODY BAGS? Gee, I dunno, DUH!!!! Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 11:33 AM:"Alan", my sense and common sense has kept me alive through many things, be it engaging "the enemy" abroad or closer to home. The one thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that I can, do and will always recognize someone who is not looking out for the best interest of the U.S. When my life was expendable, I knew that a greater good was being served. GWB does not show that he has even the most remote idea of what he is doing to our soldiers, he knows sound-bytes and how to pitch lies, but to claim that he gives a rat's behind about the U.S., the American soldiers that he sends to their death, the Constitution or anything other than his acquisition of personal power and/or the control over the assets of a foreign country is not being in touch with reality, at least the reality that over 70 percent of the American population live in. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jul 9, 2007 1:10 PM:I would support the immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from the Middle East, under the following circumstance: Everyone who currently demands that action sign a document accepting personal moral responsibility for the results of that withdrawal. Can you imagine the shame that would cause to them? It would have been if they had their names on such a document as Pol Pot brutally murdered millions after our withdrawal from Vietnam. I have a friend who was anti-war during the 60s -- but the sight of mountains of skulls in Cambodia is seared in her mind and she holds herself responsible. I do not know that our presence can stop the coming bloodbath, only that our absence will exacerbate that bloodbath.

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 3:21 PM:I'll raise you one, "Reardon". I did not put us in Iraq, I did not approve of the invasion and I have not approved of the actions of GWB at any time before or since. I am not morally or ethically responsible for what a madman did and continues to do. As I have said, no matter when we leave Iraq, many of the Iraqi people will die. EVERY DAY WE CONTINUE TO STAY INCREASES THE NUMBER WHO WILL DIE WHEN WE LEAVE. See #1) in my 6:29AM post today. If you want to feel shame, read on. It would be a humbling experience if ALL those people who advocate staying in Iraq would go to deliver the news of the death of someone's loved one personally, EACH AND EVERY TIME THAT ANOTHER SOLDIER IS KILLED IN IRAQ. If you are at all human, after the first dozen you will question GWB's motives. After the second dozen times you try to explain why someone's husband or son or daughter or wife HAD TO DIE, you might ask yourself if it really is worth killing another soldier and another and another and a few Iraqi civilians as well. DO THIS EVERY DAY AND EVERY TIME ANOTHER AMERICAN SOLDIER DIES AND KEEP REMINDING YOURSELF HOW WE NEED TO BE THERE UNTIL YOU ARE CURED. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO LOOK DIRECTLY INTO A DIFFERENT GRIEVING PERSON'S EYES EACH AND EVERY DAY - then stop your support of insanity. Typing support and mouthing support are quite different than facing the loved one of a dead soldier. You see, it is people like you that are morally and ethically responsible and should be made to feel the pain that you so cavalierly endorse. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 9, 2007 5:12 PM:Alf....Why won't you answer the 8:08am post...I gave you your 3 wishes, you agreed millions of Iraqi's would die, but you didn't comment on the loss of oil, gas, American lives and fighting on home soil, etcetera. It will be easy, just respond to each sentence, one at a time. Give it a try.

Alf wrote on Jul 9, 2007 5:48 PM:"Alan", one at a time. Oil - the oil under Iraqi soil belongs to them. We have had over 4 years to admit that, to prepare for the eventuality that we might lose "our" oil, which is not, has not been and will not be ours for the taking or "exclusive rights". One of these days it will dawn on some people that our military is not "the muscle" that guarantees compliance of another country. More later, but now it's time for dinner. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 9, 2007 6:13 PM:Alf...ok, you are willing to let the oil go, into the hands of those who wish us dead. It's a start, what's for dinner?

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:19 AM:"Alan", it sounds rather odd and arrogant to say that an American is "willing" to "let" the Iraqi people do what they want with THEIR resource, doesn't it? That's the perspective of a homeowner, a property owner, an American who wonders how we would feel if the situation was reversed, if it was our oil and Iraq had invaded us to control what we did with our oil resources. Puts a little bit of perspective on it, doesn't it? Dinner was salad and a rib-eye steak. A sin in terms of cholesterol, but perfectly grilled, tender and tasty without my usual marinade with it's "mystery ingredient". I'll discuss another point later. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 7:51 AM:Fighting on home soil, "Alan"? When we were attacked on "home soil" by "the enemy without" in 1941 by Japan, we declared war on a country, a nation, Japan. We did not declare war on a philosophy or religion or an idea. We have been attacked several other times since, but not by a specific country, per se. Do you remember GWB declaring that our "War on terror" would hunt terrorists down wherever they are? He essentially declared that he, by way of U.S. military, would invade anyplace that he SUSPECTED terrorists to be. Talk about storm-trooper attitude, he didn't and does not care who he tramples, which country he mangles, whose rights are tossed out the door on his whim. What say you? Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 10, 2007 9:08 AM:Alf... I don't consider it "MY or OUR" oil, I consider it Iraqi oil. I don't think of it as "arrogant or odd", it is common sense. When we leave before security can protect the people and Iraq's assets, it will fall under the new occupying forces control. If Iran or another radical, West-hating power controls this resource, it will be used for blackmail to its enemies around the world, not just us. I don't care what an owner does with his property as long as it is not to bully or abuse others. I think this perspective is quite clear. Rib-eye is one of my favorites too.

Alan wrote on Jul 10, 2007 9:19 AM:Alf...fighting on home soil will come when the terrorists reinitiate active bombing and killings here on our soil, just like 9/11. We should never stop seeking out those who actively pursue injury to our country and its citizens whether they are within our borders or not. If there are countries or governing bodies that protect, safe-haven or enjoin with those enemies, they become a danger to everyone else in the free world. I do not see the agressive acts of our government as "land/resource grabbing" for power and wealth. I trust our government to take action to protect its citizens and the citizens of other countries by neutralizing those who live to harm others for unjustified reasons. Differences in religion don't seem to be a good reason to kill us. Have we made mistakes, yes, are we evil, NO. God Bless those who protect us and those not capable of protecting themselves. We are doing fine here.

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 12:27 PM:"Alan", you admit "I trust our government", I do not. I do not trust liars that consider themselves above the law. The current administration (GWB and The Cheney Branch) have proven to me, by their repeated arrogant actions that the only thing about them that I trust is that they will screw the Constitution, the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and anything they please, any time they please. The likelihood of terrorist attacks on our soil increases every day that we are in Iraq and will increase to a certainty should we do to Iran what we did and are doing to Iraq. How many terrorist acts does GWB have to authorize and order before you understand that invading a country that has not ACTUALLY harmed us IS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. Will you sanctify any aggression based solely on the word of GWB and his "intel"? OR is there some point at which you would consider that GWB has exceeded his authority?If so, what point is that? (Maybe when we have inspired every country in the region to hate us enough to commit acts of terrorism in retaliation for our invasions). I'm the U.S. - Many people do not like me, some even hate me, some of those would do me harm, but if I am the one who strikes first then I'm in the wrong. Still an unabashed Libertarian.

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 4:16 PM:I don't mind discussions like ours as long as we follow Exactly what is said. I didn't say whether I trust Bush/Cheney, I said I trust our government, which is the best governing structure in the world as we speak. We already know that we disagree on vital points, I'm just trying to see if you can think past your rants and anger. We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq when we were attacked by Bin Laden and his followers which to me, disassociates relevance to whether we are in either of those countries now. You are obsessed with proclaiming Bush/Cheney guilty of something but I can't figure out what that will solve. This is where our current dialog started, remember, I gave you your 3 wishes. And now I am discussing your hate, discontent, and anger at someone who is not in the picture of the discussion. The countries in the region that hate us now, hated us to begin with. Outside the region, several nations disagree with what we have done but none of them accuse us of pirating oil and assets. Ok, now, 1) Bush/Cheney are gone, 2) We have withdrawn troops from Iraq, 3) and const. rights thing is done. The oil is up for grabs between Iraqi's and terrorists. The battle comes to our soil. No mid-east country will give us oil because we abandoned Iraq. We have no gas, no Bush/Cheney. All new battles will happen on our soil because we have left the mid-east to fend for itself. Now what? Alf, I'm just asking you to stay on point, I have read your opinions of our leadership several times. I get it. It has nothing to do with following the results and outcome of your wishes.

Alan wrote on Jul 10, 2007 5:47 PM:Hey...Alf didn't write that at 4:16pm, Alan did......What's going on?

Alan wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:06 PM:Alf...I don't mind discussions like ours as long as we follow Exactly what is said. I didn't say whether I trust Bush/Cheney, I said I trust our government, which is the best governing structure in the world as we speak. We already know that we disagree on vital points, I'm just trying to see if you can think past your rants and anger. We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq when we were attacked by Bin Laden and his followers which to me, disassociates relevance to whether we are in either of those countries now. You are obsessed with proclaiming Bush/Cheney guilty of something but I can't figure out what that will solve. This is where our current dialog started, remember, I gave you your 3 wishes. And now I am discussing your hate, discontent, and anger at someone who is not in the picture of the discussion. The countries in the region that hate us now, hated us to begin with. Outside the region, several nations disagree with what we have done but none of them accuse us of pirating oil and assets. Ok, now, 1) Bush/Cheney are gone, 2) We have withdrawn troops from Iraq, 3) and const. rights thing is done. The oil is up for grabs between Iraqi's and terrorists. The battle comes to our soil. No mid-east country will give us oil because we abandoned Iraq. We have no gas, no Bush/Cheney. All new battles will happen on our soil because we have left the mid-east to fend for itself. Now what? Alf, I'm just asking you to stay on point, I have read your opinions of our leadership several times. I get it. It has nothing to do with following the results and outcome of your wishes.

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:51 PM:"Alan", you used my handle at 4:16PM, but I won't argue that one. Square one is this - We must accept the consequences of our actions. We must secure our borders using our military, not the current incarnation of sdmm, that have been left wide open. We must stop, at ANY cost, this "North American Union" because that perforates even more miles of borders than are already all but wide open. We must accept that retaliation for "our" invasion will occur. We must behave like adults. We must defend ourselves while acknowledging that the actions of GWB have long and far reaching consequences and take the lumps that we can't stop/block. That is the mark of a responsible people, accepting the consequences of their actions. That does not mean "lead with our chin", it means that we live in the now - the now that means that porous borders can not remain so. It means that we adopt actual borders with actual border guards, that will use deadly force to protect our borders and no more of this putting border patrol agents in prison for doing their jobs. We can newver stop terrorism from without if we don't stop it from within. Have I made my point clear? If not, please specify what needs to be clarified. Still an unashaned Libertarian, Alf.

Alan wrote on Jul 10, 2007 7:14 PM:Yo Alf..Would love to blame the NCT for it, can't prove it. I agree about NAU, don't like, don't want it. I agree about borders, don't necessarily agree about the agents who tried to cover up an illegal shooting. Guilty they were; who the hell decided the punishment? That is where WE failed them. It's been fun but I think you have some real focus problems. Instead of dialog, we have monolog. See ya on the other side. I'm done with you.

Alf wrote on Jul 10, 2007 10:02 PM:Thank you, "Alan", for challenging my mind, we are at impasse but it was fun while it lasted. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.