President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Sen. Russ Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."
Bush's unchecked Executive power v. the Founding principles of the U.S.: "Underlying all of the excesses and abuses of executive power claimed by the Bush Administration is a theory of absolute, unchecked power vested in the Presidency which literally could not be any more at odds with the central, founding principles of this country."
Washington Monthly: "For a President to order violations of the law meets my criteria for impeachment. This is exactly what got Nixon in trouble: he ordered his subordinates to obstruct justice. To the extent that the two cases differ, the differences make what Bush did worse: after all, it's not as though warrants are hard to get, or the law makes no provision for emergencies. Bush could have followed the law had he wanted to. He chose to set it aside. And this is something that no American should tolerate."
This is surely the most impeachable thing he's done yet. But let me remind you why that is maybe not such a good strategy:
- Vice President - Dick Cheney
- Speaker of the House of Representatives - Dennis Hastert
- President Pro Tempore of the Senate - Ted Stevens
(See also "Who The Fuck Is Ted Stevens?") - Secretary of State - Condoleeza Rice
- Secretary of the Treasury - John W. Snow
- Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfeld
- Attorney General - Alberto "Torture Lawyer" Gonzalez
- Secretary of the Interior
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of Commerce
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
- Secretary of Transportation
- Secretary of Energy
- Secretary of Education
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs
And then maybe, just MAYBE, Hastert will be a little more cautious... and a little less bleedingly stupid.
Adding some irony to the situation, he's criticised the New York Times for revealing the surveillance to "enemies": BBC new link
But... but....
He says it's for our own good!
Are you with the terrorist!
YOU'RE A TERRORIST!
"Back in the closet, Libby! Y'all cain't come out until another three scandals have been publicized!"
The Washington Monthly link appears broken.
fixed
I say impeach away.
It's not like policies will be any different with Cheney in the number one slot, and the public will get to see the face of the administration that looks almost as evil as it actually is.
Listen to Giblets!
> BTW, if anyone has a link to video of the Daily Show's "Who The Fuck Is Ted Stevens" bit
It's at the end of the Indecent Proposal segment. I haven't bothered to check if its extractable as a stand-alone video.
So Cheney is made Prez and picks a VP. No way he's going to get re-elected president and he'll probably spend most of his term putting out fires instead of pushing Bush's Christian/moral agenda.
The problem with this is that Cheney might not get re-elected, but it puts the new VP in a great position to run for President in 2008. The Republicans would actually be very clever to yank Cheney ("health reasons") and put someone electable in his spot right now, or right after the 2006 elections, to warm up a candidate.
For comparison, imagine if Clinton had stepped down during his impeachment and let Gore assume the presidency. IMO, Gore would've had a much better chance in the 2000 elections as sitting president.
the Daily Show's "Who The Fuck Is Ted Stevens" bit
--funniest thing I've seen in a long time
I say impeach him. It will be fun to laugh and point at Cheney.
It would keep him busy. It would keep the Republican-run congress busy. If it paralyzed those fuckers for a year or so, that would be well-worth it. Don't care if that leaves us with Cheney, or, courtesy of a heart attack, Hastert. Those fuckers are doing enough harm where they are. Jerking them around couldn't be worse than letting them spend all that time doing evil.
I wouldn't outrightly be anti-congress, since they did just vote against the PATRIOT Act, which is a very good thing.
-bZj
My understanding is that they failed to stop Feingold's filibuster. But a majority certainly tried. Those assholes get nothing from me.
What? Rule of law? Who's gonna impeach him? They'll suddenly become labeled as some kind of terrorist prosecution conspiracy and be shipped off to some former soviet state for torture and interrogation.
Nonsense. The United States does NOT torture people.
...
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Of course, what you meant to say is that the United States does not CONDONE torture. Gosh, how much more clear can it be?
I am against impeechment on grounds that "I was jsut following orders" shouldn't be a defense. If Bush has no grounds to sign anything of this sort, then the ppl who knowingly execute the illegal action should be held to task.
I mean, I can sign an order to have M.Moore banished to Austria, but it doesn't mean anything. If someone chose ot follow it, I would expect the courts to go after them, not me and my silly order.
If you know something is wrong, you shouldn't do it jsut because you've been ordered to - your actions are your own.
-bZj
In theory I would agree with you.
But when the President of the United States tells you to do something, no matter how big an asshat he might be, I think most people would snap to attention.
And really, this happens all the time. Saddam Hussein didn't personally kill thousands of people. Hitler didn't personally kill Jews. Those were simply orders given to others to carry out. And not meaning to be harsh or rude here, but when you look down deep into your heart of hearts, do you really think you would say "no" if ordered to do something by any of the aforementioned? Considering the consequences, I'm fairly certain most of us would be spineless jellyfish.
rob.
wow, we got to Godwin's Law pretty quick here.
Hitler!
Wrong icon.
It's hard not to when the subject itself is totalitarianism and its implementation.
"Just giving orders" is no more of a defense than "just following orders." Both parties bear full responsibility for the wrongs committed in carrying them out.
Also, does nobody remember the damn corollary to Godwin's Law?
No we didn't.
Except that Godwin's Law refers to people randomly comparing people to Nazis without cause as such statements fundamentally dilute the nature of what they did. In this case the concept of "just following orders" is firmly attached to the Nazis as a result they are the logical and most reasonable choice to refer to.
So is Godwin's Law legally binding? Are there any consequences to "breaking" it, besides snide comments from internet weenies? 'cause if that's all I have to worry about, well, I've already been ignoring nerds my whole life and a few "GODWIN!!!!11's" won't change the character of discussion for me.
How do you regulate that when the illegal act that is being ordered is "classified"?
Mindfuck!
I may not be excited by the prospect of President Cheney, but it's only mildly less appealing than Vice President Cheney and not nearly as bad as allowing rampant abuse of power go unchecked.
And for the record, I think that starting a war on false pretenses hits higher on the impeachment scale. Funny how both of these fall lower on the list than getting head from the intern staff and then making lame-butt excuses about it.
It may hit higher on the "more evil" scale, but I think this hits a lot higher on the "easier to prove in a court of law" scale.
Blowjobs for everyone!
Blowjobs for everyone!
Blowjobs for some, miniature American flags for others!
Speaking as someone who doesn't actually have to live in the USA, Cheney would be worth it just to get Bush impeached, but it's a close call...
Constitution, schmonstitution. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!
Strictly speaking, it's not really paper. It's vellum. Of course, I wouldn't expect our President to know that. It's not like it's his job to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I mean, if he were his solemn duty to protect it, it might be useful to know the material from which it is made, both physical and philosophical.
Of course, "It's just a goddamned piece of parchment" doesn't have quite the same dismissive ring, does it?
Impeach Bush? Why, did he finally get sodomized?
Up here in Canada, we had a "Conservative (Party) Revolution" where the Conservatives took most of the seats in the election, one of largest majority a party had ever won, lead by now Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He spent his "political capital" of that mandate to totally piss off the country, and when the next election rolled around, the Conservatives were almost totally whiped out, electing only 10 candidates in the whole country!
Maybe the same will happen to Bush & Co...
ttyl
It kinda did, but down here, when the elections came around, we voted for the Christian extremists even more than before. Or, you know, voting fraud blah blah.
> if anyone has a link to video of the Daily Show's "Who The Fuck Is Ted Stevens" bit, please send.
It's at the end of this clip, but I'm not sure if some of it got cut off. Having never seen the episode.
For my money, the guy with the eyebrows steals the show. He's fantastic.
Take back the House in 2006.
Force Cheney to resign over outing Valerie Plame.
THEN impeach Bush.
Can you say President Nancy Pelosi?
That wouldn't work. Whoever Bush would appoint as new VP would become President. See also Gerald Ford.
No, because Bush's appointment wouldn't become VP until confirmed by congress. See step 1: take back the House in 2006. It's a matter of timing.
I am so very much in agreement.
P.S. Hi! signed, lioness
What we really need is a revolution. I hope Bush isn't spying on me now.
>2. Vice President - Dick Cheney
>[...]
See, I think it's not so much a problem as an opportunity.
You ain't kiddin'.
Iraq had some kick ass elections. Ya'll see that? Friggin' sweet.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, this is the "Hating Bush Comes First" crowd. *slaps head* Mah bad. Don't mind me.
You're right, elections in Iraq completely justify breaking the law. It's just like how if someone's a thief, it's not a problem as long as they've done a lot of charity work.
Here, lying to your country and manufacturing evidence to support the invasion of a foreign country is the "charity work".
Asshat.
Oh, right, so you were hatin' on Clinton to then, I take it?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
And you, naturally, opposed the military actions he initiated.
For the record, yes, I was hating on Clinton too. But I'd have him back in a second compared to Chimpy McTraitor.
Heh. Any cute disparaging monikers for Clinton? Or does he somehow evade traitor status? I think the idiocy thing is decided. Although I suppose that depends on how you define the word "is."
Har har. You can go away now.
Hey man, I just think right wingers oughta have an equal opportunity to angsty-chic, is all. I gotsa represent.
If you have something actually relevant to say about the topic at hand, then you're welcome to. If you want to play the "oh yeah? Well some guy who has been out of office for five years was bad too" game, then you can just fuck right off.
You've got all the opportunity you want to express your vaccuous opinions -- it's called "get your own fucking blog." If you come into mine just to stir up shit, then I'll ban you. How hard is that to understand? Since your LJ has no friends, interests, or posts, I assumed you created it solely for the purpose of wasting my time (and chances are you're someone I've already banned.) So, buh bye. *plonk*
Ah, so you don't want to follow a thread, you just want to jump around grinding your own particular axes.
So in real life if you're caught stealing you say "Jimmy was stealin too, so why are you bothering me?!"
Congratulations, you're an Internet cliche.
Oh, right, so you were hatin' on Clinton to then, I take it?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html
No, not at all. What's in the link?