Well, obviously Bush is learning. In his secret wiretapping program, he threw out the laws, procedures and guidelines in order to do whatever he wanted. And now he, along with his GOP cronies, are simply throwing out the procedures for MAKING laws that all of us learned back in eighth grade social studies. A budget cut of $2 billion that’s going to crucify the elderly and infirm simply bypassed the whole pesky House/Senate voting thing and was signed into law by Bush.
If Bush were truly upholding the constitution as he vowed to, he would have kicked it back and said, “The buck stops here. If you guys can’t do YOUR job properly, I should at least do mine. Vote on it and send it through the proper way, and then I will sign it or veto it, as the Constitution dictates I am empowered to do.”
He didn’t. He is demonstrably, indisputably in violation of his oath. What the hëll kind of country is this where a bløw jøb is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn’t?
Categories: 1144 Comments
144 comments on “Okay, can we impeach him NOW?”
• 
Well, of course this shouldn’t surprise anybody.
To Bush, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely ‘guidelines’ that don’t need to be followed if Bush gets a boner over something, like knocking down free speech.
Tony is trying to get similiar things through, a “right” for ministers to “adjust” legislation without going through all the Commons and Lords palaver…
…wonder who’s learning off whom?
If I were conspiracy minded, I’d say we’re seeing an overt attempt to hijack two of the world’s biggest governments by the Illuminati.
Wait, I AM conspiracy minded.
I’m amazed that I keep having to say this. It seems, just as this adminstration does something that makes me say “nothing they do from here on out will surprise me,” they do something that surprises me. This isn’t some legally vague, undefined powers of the president thing here. It doesn’t get any more black and white than this. The House and the Senate must both approve a bill, which the president signs into law. It’s not one house or the other…it’s both, and they must approve the same version of the bill. There’s a big difference in $2 billion, and between 13 and 36 months of (if I understand the provision) coverage for medically necessary equipment.
How long before the people take back their government?
The problem with impeachement here is that no crime has been committed, that I can see. Upsetting people isn’t a crime, any more than oral sex is. (Perjury is another matter, of course.)
Still, it seems like an open and shut case that the bill will be voided. Hardly the first time the courts will have voided a bill based on constitutional grounds though, so talk of impeachment seems a bit overwrought.
I expect that some will see this as me just being a Bush apologist so here’s what you need to do; find the crime, get a hold of a lawyer who is willing to take on Bush (look in the phonebook under the letter L), and bring it on.
If nobody does this–and even in the article nobody even mentioned the possibility–well, there’s your answer. No.
But all overreaching aside, the law should be sent back to the House for reconciliation. Even if the courts do declare it legal it sets a bad precedent.
The problem with impeachement here is that no crime has been committed, that I can see. Upsetting people isn’t a crime, any more than oral sex is.
In that there’s no criminal statute with established penalties that’s been violated, then that’s true. But I would say that “ignoring the plain language of the Constitution” is about as an egregious breach of the public trust as one can get.
The problem with impeachment over this issue is that Congress is equally guilty since they “certified” the bill and allowed it to go into effect without being passed by both houses. So, is Congress going to impeach itself?
Some quotes from the article are fairly telling about the attitudes of the Republican leadership:
“We believe that the law is constitutional and that this is yet another political attempt by the Democrats to stop us from cutting spending,” said Ronald D. Bonjean Jr., a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
Excuse me? Democrats haven’t controlled šhìŧ for the past five years and what’s the result? Deficits exploding beyond anything even St. Ron could’ve dream of. Does anyone here honestly believe that this was an honest attempt by the GOP to cut spending? These cuts were almost certainly offset by increases somewhere else or by another round of tax cuts for the Forbes 100 crowd.
And another:
“The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate. But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election.”
Jesus Christ on a pogostick, this is what the country has come to? It’s okay to just ignore the black and white language of the Constitution because the alternative to take another politically risky vote?
I guess no one should be surprised. After all, A.G. Gonzales’ primary defense for ignoring the FISA law amounted to it being too much paperwork.
“I expect that some will see this as me just being a Bush apologist so here’s what you need to do; find the crime, get a hold of a lawyer who is willing to take on Bush (look in the phonebook under the letter L), and bring it on.”
The first reason for Impeachment listed in the Constitution is for Treason. Defined by Websters, Treason is
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
Seems to me, he’s certainly met the first. As an elected president, he’s been entrusted by the electorate to govern the country as Chief Executive. He’s failed, by some estimations, he’s failed miserably. He’s failed to uphold the trust of the people that put him in power.
With this latest act, in conjunction with the GOP leaders of the Congress, he’s met the second defintion, which more people would likely find to be an offense worthy of Impeachment. Together with the leaders of congress, they have taken an act that will illegally deprive the people of this country of $2 billion in aid and assistance. Bear this in mind: three men have now acted in concert, in front of the whole world, to usurp the consitutional powers of this country for their own agenda. If that’s not treason, than nothing is.
But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill,
Which is to say that they no longer care about the political process in favor of expediency that is NOT sanctioned by our Constitution.
In the end, it shows how little these áššhølëš actually care about this country and laws. Bush included.
Welcome to living in an Absolute Monarchy.
“The problem with impeachment over this issue is that Congress is equally guilty since they “certified” the bill and allowed it to go into effect without being passed by both houses. So, is Congress going to impeach itself?”
I don’t know that the bulk of the House or Senate is even aware that different bills were passed. The story just says that the leaders of Congress certified the bill. I take that to mean each respective house’s GOP leader certified it. I’m hoping that we hear, over the next few days, every Democrat, and more than a few Republicans, calling for the President to rescind his approval of this bill, acknolwedge the mistake, and send the Senate version back to the House for approval.
Um, Bill, doesn’t Dubya’s blatant failure to do his duty to “uphold and defend the Constitution” as he “solemnly” swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury? True, the man didn’t swear in a court of law, but he did take his oath in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Now, I’m no expert but it seems that taking an oath in front of ANY judge for ANY reason and failing to uphold that oath should be a criminal offense since that judge retains his legal authority until he no longer holds the office. (Hëll, lying on any of your tax returns is a criminal offense even though you merely sign a statement–not witnessed or affirmed by anyone–acknowledging that a lie on the tax return constitutes perjury. If THAT is enough for the Feds to lock you up and put you on trial, then certainly taking an oath in front of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court should be similarly culpable.)
Well, Josephw, you have to realize that perjury is only a crime when a Democrat does it to cover up a bløwjøb. Not when, say, a Republican does to cover up the leaking of classified information.
If it’s not a bill that should have legally been presented to the President (because it did not pass both houses), he cannot veto it same as he couldn’t sign it. So contrary to your criticism, Peter, Bush cannot be abrogating his constitutional duties by not vetoing the bill, because to veto it he’d have to be able to sign it, and if he can sign it then there is no reason for him to veto it.
Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it’s been legally passed. After that, it’s in the court’s ballcourt to decide how to procede.
Look, I’m just trying to keep it real here; if you are right that this is an impeachable offence, well, IMPEACH him!
I’m not seeing even the usual moonbat places taking any note of this, so I’m thinking that it’s just Not That Simple. But we’ll see…
From what I’ve seen the best you can hope for is that the courts will (if it gets that far) declare it invalid and send it back for a House vote, as should have been done.
You can argue that any time a president signs a law that is later declared unconstitutional he has “perjured” himself or committed “treason” but that’s not how it works.
I’m with you on the folly of the way the law was passed (for that matter, I’m sure many of you called for the impeachement of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc when they used Executive Orders in place of the time consuming process of getting actual laws passed. Right? As Paul Begala put it “Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.”)
here’s the thing. I’m convinced that there is one thing that will absolutely ensure that the Democrats go down in defeat come November. It isn’t the capture of Bin Laden. It’s if they get so nutty that they decide to make the election a referendum on impeaching Bush. The moderates and independents who (quite rightly) are unimpressed with how the Republicans have handled majority rule will flee from any such craziness and that will be that. And if the Democrats lose THIS one, with so much in their favor…I’m not sure the party can take it. It may descend into total self destruction.
I’m not a big fan of the Democratic party. I think they are their own worst enemies and deserved a few years in the widerness (though I was wrong that it would sober them up. Quite the opposite, it seems). But it will be a disaster if either party has full power. I know, I know, some of you think we are there already. You’re wrong. But it could happen.
“Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it’s been legally passed.”
Wanna buy a bridge?
Nate, I’m with you, but in fairness, it would appear that Bush was aware of the irregularities, so that would be a poor argument on his part.
>>Jerry C: “Wanna buy a bridge?”
Heh. Funniest comment yet.
For those interested the case referred to in the piece can be found here: http://www.justia.us/us/143/649/case.html
It’s called Field v. Clark for those Googleminded. Add the year 1892 and you should find it.
It’s pretty dense, so good luck getting through it. In looking it over, here’s the gist: The Supreme Court recognizes, as should/do other branches of government, a respect and assumption that the other branches are operating within their Constitutional authority. The 1892 assumption was that, given a bill that has been certified by both houses, signed by their respective presidents, and signed by The President, and given over to the public archives, it’s law, and not subject to review by the Supreme Court as to whether it was correctly passed or not. The assumption was that it was passed correctly, with the reasoning being that it would be less harmful to let the rare bill become statute through mistake than the harm caused by allowing judicial review of every bill signed by the president, to ensure that Congress properly passed it. The SCOTUS even cites some precedent that looked at similar issues, including some language the pretty much says that it’s better to move forward even in the face of such errors than to open up the entire process and send it back to square 1. So, from a historical perspective, the government’s playing the same tune today that was being played 106 years ago (the bill was passed in 1890, I think).
There are some major differences here. In 1892, the court was talking, in regards to the claims made by the petitioners, that in order to accept petitioners’ contention, it must accept that a conspiracy of the presidents of congress, and the Executive, their staff, and any respective committees, to violate the terms of the Constitution. It suggests that the error in Field was clerical or inadverdant, and was not discovered prior to presenting the bill to the president.
Which seems to be very different from today. If the story is accurate, the error was discovered BEFORE the bill was certified by the Congressional president, and that Executive was aware of the error prior to signing the bill. The presidential assumption of Constitutional authority was no present…he knew that the bill being presented to him was not in fact the bill passed by the House. Moreover, the President of the House knew that it was not the bill passed by his peers.
Additionally, I don’t know how much time had passed between the time the Field bill was ennacted, and the challenge raised. The language used by the court suggests that the law had been in effect for some time, creating a situation where any overturning of the law might have a significant impact. Presently, we’ve got a budget act that won’t take effect until some time months from now. There’s more than enough time to take action to correct the mistake now.
This is a fairly serious matter. I don’t know if it calls for Impeaching Bush. It certainly calls into question whether or not the GOP’s president of the House should retain his chair…or even his job.
Once it has been certified and brought to him, I think the President has no choice but to presume it’s been legally passed.
From what I’ve read, bush was told the bill didn’t pass properly, but he signed it anyway. This is just another case of bush saying ‘I’m gonna do what I dámņ well please, wether it’s legal or not’
Um, Bill, doesn’t Dubya’s blatant failure to do his duty to “uphold and defend the Constitution” as he “solemnly” swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury?
I’ve been saying this for some time. But some bush apologist always comes up with some half assed reason why it’s not the same thing.
I do believe the original intent of the Constitution writers was that a law be passed by both House and Senate. It’ll be amusing watching some of the usual “original intent” suspects try to spin this.
Let’s see…the government has attacked a country on false premises…left an American city to rot after a natural disaster…banned abortion in several states…paved the way to throw even LEGAL immigrants out of the country…and now is basically committing treason against itself.
**** this, I’m moving to Iceland. No one hates Iceland, do they?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 02:59 PM
Nate, I’m with you, but in fairness, it would appear that Bush was aware of the irregularities, so that would be a poor argument on his part.
And that would be an almost Clintonian argument.
Heh. I’m just trying to picture W. trying to make a Clintonian argument.
“See, ‘is’ just isn’t what it was. You have to know if it ‘is’ or if it ain’t. Look, don’t question my integrity! I put food on your family! What do you think this is, a federal program????”
I’m with you on the folly of the way the law was passed (for that matter, I’m sure many of you called for the impeachement of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc when they used Executive Orders in place of the time consuming process of getting actual laws passed. Right? As Paul Begala put it “Stoke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.”)
Paul Begala’s moronic comment aside, executive orders aren’t statutory laws, they’re internal regulations that apply only to the respective agencies under the executive branch, not people outside the government. For example, Clinton’s famous changing the Pentagon’s previous “no gays allowed” policy to “don’t ask, don’t tell” was by executive order. That meant the Pentagon had to follow it, but it had no legal force outside of the Pentagon. For example, the Boy Scouts weren’t required to adopt “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
As defined here, an executive order is:
“Executive Order: A declaration issued by the president or by a governor that has the force of law. Executive Orders are usually based on existing statutory authority and require no action by Congress or the state legislature to become effective. At the federal level, Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register as they are issued, and then in Statutes at Large and title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations each year.”
And from Wikipedia:
“Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.”
So, while executive orders have the force of law, they are generally internal orders to executive branch agencies are issued under the authority of the president as chief executive. There are limits to what a president can with an executive order. He can use to clarify how the executive branch is going to carry out a statute passed by Congress, but he can’t use it to amend or repeal a statutory law. He can use it to change personnel policies, but not to appropriate money to spend on a project. The Constitution requires that all money appropriations need to be passed by Congress.
Since this is an appropriations bill, this is a clear case where a bill was not passed according to the requirements of the US Constitution, and yet was certified by Congress and signed the president. Maybe it isn’t an impeachable offense, but the law is clearly invalid.
Posted by: Queen Anthai at March 27, 2006 03:51 PM
No one hates Iceland, do they?
I am a member of the Let’s Annihilate Iceland For No Particular Reason Club. So yeah, they have their enemies.
There was a cartoon in the Milwaukee paper recently with the heading “Reason NOT To Impeach”. Below the heading-a picture of President Chaney.
Look, I’m just trying to keep it real here; if you are right that this is an impeachable offence, well, IMPEACH him!
Bill, you enjoy oversimplifying the situation to a “I double dare you!” type situation which, not surprisingly, is best left to kids on the playground.
Obviously, nothing can be done with morons… I mean, Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.
Nothing will happen unless the dûmbáššëš… er, Democrats, manage to regain both houses. Which we can only hope, because Bush more than deserves to be thrown out of the White House on his puppet ášš.
Yet, Bush keeps finding more ways of making himself look like a complete idiot in the process. His incompetence is matched only by his arrogance and disregard for the laws of this country.
There was a cartoon in the Milwaukee paper recently with the heading “Reason NOT To Impeach”. Below the heading-a picture of President Cheney.
Which is why impeaching Bush really just amounts to switching from Ðìçk running the government from his “undisclosed location” to running it from the basement of the White House.
Is there any way we can impeach Cheney first?
Heh heh heh – good point, dave w.
In other news, Scalia once again demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “impartial judiciary” by mouthing about a case before SCOTUS has heard the arguments.
Question: If the detainees in GITMO aren’t entitled to a jury trial because they’re prisoners of war, as Scalia contends, then doesn’t that turn Bush’s argument that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply because they’re not real prisoners of war on its head?
From what I’ve read, bush was told the bill didn’t pass properly, but he signed it anyway. This is just another case of bush saying ‘I’m gonna do what I dámņ well please, wether it’s legal or not’
Perhaps you miseed what I was saying. If the bill is presented to him, legally, he has to act on the presumption it was passed legally, even IF he was aware of the disputes over its passage (I’m not so sure he was, but that’d besides the point). From a Constitutional point of view, once it is on his desk it has to be considered passed by both houses by the President.
Um, Bill, doesn’t Dubya’s blatant failure to do his duty to “uphold and defend the Constitution” as he “solemnly” swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury?
Perhaps this point is a bit subtle and you’re missing it, BUT — Bush can only veto a bill that has been legally presented to him after passage by both houses. For him to veto the bill because it wasn’t actually passed by both houses would be a paradox — if he hasn’t the power to sign the bill into law, he hasn’t the power to veto it. Once it’s given to him, he has no choice but to presume it has been given to him legally. He can do nothing else with it.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 27, 2006 04:08 PM
Bill, you enjoy oversimplifying the situation to a “I double dare you!” type situation which, not surprisingly, is best left to kids on the playground.
Craig, I disagree with Bill’s politics more often than not. But you are entirely incorrect about his comportment in this forum.
You’ve taken his “impeach him” statement entirely out of context. If you look at Bill’s posts, read them and take that statement in context, you can see that he is making an intelligent argument. He is asserting that while what Bush did may have been improper, it is not an impeachable offense. I’m not saying it’s an argument that you cannot disagree with, I’m simply stating that it’s a well-reasoned argument. There’s a difference.
By the way, after wrongly accusing Bill of a schoolyard mentality, you do nothing but proceed to call people names. You are frankly engaging in the very behavior you have wrongly accused Bill of exhibiting.
If you think you have a superior argument, prove it by stating that argument in a logical fashion.
I’m curious. Is this the first time in our nation’s history a typo has been made so that the bill voted on by the house is different from the one by the senate? if so, that is utterly amazing. if not, what have we done in the past?
I hear he eats babies, too.
Once it’s given to him, he has no choice but to presume it has been given to him legally. He can do nothing else with it.
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. If he knew it wasn’t legally passed, then I believe he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons, much in the same way that the SCOTUS can decline to hear a case that was improperly filed.
>If he knew it wasn’t legally passed, then I believe he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons,
There is no “refuse to act” on it, the Constitution only gives him a handful of choices. He could refuse to sign it, in which case it would become law in 10 days anyway. Eitherway, the President’s can only act in a manner presumptuous that the bill has been properly passed.
…he can simply refuse to act on it for procedural reasons…
Sometimes referred to as the “pocket veto”. If the President does not sign a bill into law within a certain period (I’m thinking it’s ten days, but I don’t have my copy of the Constitution handy at the moment), it dies on his desk.
Bush couldn’t even manage a pocket veto of a bill he knew to be on his desk illegally. What exactly does he think the Executive does again?
Oh, give me a break. PAD, you have got to be kidding. You sound worse than the Jerry Falwell attack video against Clinton.
As a conservative, I do have a huge problem with the out of control spending by both parties. There is no question the Republicans have done nothing to stop it, and with control of both houses and the White House, they don’t have an excuse.
But to say Bush is trying to do an impeachable offense is just laughable. The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility. That is not just passing the buck, that is recognizing that there is separation in the three branches. Perhaps there were other options. But Bush did not personally take charge, overturn the constitution and try to push through his own legislation. So to call for impeachment for his signing a bill that was put on his desk is a complete joke.
You don’t agree with his politics. I get it. I didn’t agree with Clinton. In both cases, there is a thing called a term limit, so as your clock graphically illustrates, there is an end in sight.
Iowa Jim
>Sometimes referred to as the “pocket veto”. If the President does not sign a bill into law within a certain period (I’m thinking it’s ten days, but I don’t have my copy of the Constitution handy at the moment), it dies on his desk.
You have it backwards, my friend. If he does not return it, it becomes law.
Posted by our good friend Iowa Jim:
In both cases, there is a thing called a term limit, so as your clock graphically illustrates, there is an end in sight.
Yeah, unless he gets the U.S. nuked first. I mean, who WOULDN’T want to nuke us at this point?
Curious thing. I just checked 4 major news sources on the web (places like CNN, not Fox News), and none of them have any headlines clearly dealking with this issue. With the feeding frenzy that followed the Cheney hunting accidental shooting, I would not even suggest it won’t come, but it is seems premature to talk about impeachment when the issue doesn’t even seem to be on the radar.
I mean, who WOULDN’T want to nuke us at this point?
The Israeli’s. 🙂
Iowa Jim
Sorry, I forgot to turn off the bold.
Original: I mean, who WOULDN’T want to nuke us at this point?
My answer: The Israeli’s. 🙂
Iowa Jim
“Curious thing. I just checked 4 major news sources on the web (places like CNN, not Fox News), and none of them have any headlines clearly dealking with this issue. “
That’s because this issue is over a month old. It was all over the place in February. I’m suprised people are just now jumping on it.
The big question will be on where the typo was made. I imagine the shorthand version of the bill (which is pretty much the only thing congressmen read, for the most part) had the correct number, and the long version had the wrong one. It would be interesting to find out what reps thought they were voting on.
“But to say Bush is trying to do an impeachable offense is just laughable. The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility.”
Of course not. Because he’s not a real President, a real leader, or a real chief executive. He is an empty suit who does precisely what he is told. We saw that in agonizing detail when he sat on his ášš for seven minutes on 9/11.
Now a REAl president, a REAL leader, a REAL chief executive says, “I’m sorry, no, this bill was not passed properly. It shouldn’t be on my desk. I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution, this violates the constitution, therefore I cannot be a party to it. I’m vetoing it; either overturn the veto if you can, or else bring it back to me done right this time.”
But Bush cannot do that, because he’s ineffective, clueless and useless. This should ideally be the last straw. He should be impeached for it.
But he won’t be, as long as he’s got apologists and suck-ups and blind followers to cover his back and claim that the simple act of upholding the constitution is “not his responsbility.”
PAD
Peter, ever consider putting your name on the Democratic ballot for 2008? 🙂
You’re both half right on the Pocket Veto.
C-SPAN Congressional Glossary
A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.
Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.
If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.
***************************************************************************************************
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pocket_veto.htm
Pocket Veto – The Constitution grants the President 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the President has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law.
You’ve taken his “impeach him” statement entirely out of context. If you look at Bill’s posts, read them and take that statement in context, you can see that he is making an intelligent argument.
I don’t disagree with that, but I certainly get the impression from his “Impeach him” comment that, if we’re to be considered seriously, we better follow through on it.
Which is why I came up with the “dare” mentality. But then, this is only my opinion.
By the way, after wrongly accusing Bill of a schoolyard mentality, you do nothing but proceed to call people names.
Listen, if you don’t like the fact that I fairly and equally called Democrats and Republicans morons and dûmbáššëš… well, you’re either going to live with it or not.
I’m sick and tired of our entire lot of politicians sitting on their áššëš in DC. They’re worthless and certainly undeserving of leading us. And they prove it day after day.
Bush just manages to find ways to prove it than the rest of them.
If you don’t think I should call them what they are at face value, then it’s time they prove they’re not dûmbáššëš and morons.
The fact that Congress did not give him a valid version of the bill is not his responsibility.
No, but his signing it even after being told it didn’t pass IS his fault.
But Bush did not personally take charge, overturn the constitution and try to push through his own legislation.
While this case may be questionable, bush did just that with the eavesdropping.
Oh, I forgot to mention: Bush is an idiot.
I’m supposed to say that every post, right? 🙂
Listen, if you don’t like the fact that I fairly and equally called Democrats and Republicans morons and dûmbáššëš… well, you’re either going to live with it or not.
Craig, I find it very easy to live with your penchant for name-calling. No need to worry about me.
That wasn’t my point, anyway. I was simply noting that you accused Bill Mulligan of acting like someone on a “playground,” when in fact it was you who were acting in such a fashion, not Bill.
Craig, if you want to criticize other people for behavior that you, and not they, are engaging in, go right ahead. But like it or not, you’re going to get called out for it when you do.
(Mulligan — this should more than make up for my harrassing you in the “E for ENOUGH ALREADY” thread. So I start with a clean slate — ready to dirty it up again as I always do!)
No one hates Iceland, do they?
Well, I don’t see too many people streaming across the border into it, so nobody seems too FOND of the place. Then again. it may just be that the water is too cold.
Yeah, unless he gets the U.S. nuked first. I mean, who WOULDN’T want to nuke us at this point?
The people who buy our food and sell us crap. Nuke us and they will be hungry and surrounded by unsold crap.
Nate, if I’m understanding what you’re saying, if a bad bill (“Kill the Irish”) were to be improperly passed by congress, the president would have no options; he can’t lagally veto it, he can’t legally sign it, and if he does nothing it becomes law. Not agreat set of options and potentially a disasterous loophole, don’t you think?
I’m pretty sure he could have vetoed it with no problem.
Bill Myers, thanks again. Did I give the Heimlich maneuver to you in a previous life? Anyway, I got your back too, mi amigo.
Craig, I didn’t want to make it schoolyard taunt (Was it TIME or NEWSWEEK that put Kenneth Starr on the cover with the words PUT UP OR SHUT UP?). If Democrats in Congress really really believe that Bush has committed treason they have the obligation to begin impeachment efforts, regardless of the liklihood of success. The fact that they aren’t makes me think that I might be correct that this isn’t an impeachable offense.
If it happens, of course, I will be proven wrong.
Oh, I forgot to mention: Bush is an idiot.
I’m supposed to say that every post, right? 🙂
No reason to mention clear, self-evident truths (“The Earth revolved around the Sun”), so no.
😀