(No, He's Not a Nut.) Feingold: President Could Order Assassination of Americans

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Full transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tomorrow in the Senate you’ll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, “Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.” That is a big step. Why are you taking it now?

FEINGOLD: It’s an unusual step. It’s a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, the President says he was acting on his inherent authority under the Constitution, and even your resolution acknowledges that no federal court has ruled that a president does not have that authority as Commander in Chief, so aren’t you jumping the gun?

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to consider, is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the President? We’re not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute, there has to be — at least as a first step — some accountability. Proper accountability is a censuring of the President, to say, “Mr. President, acknowledge you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government.” That’s what I think we should do.
Think Progress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/12/feingold-censure/)

Full Video ABC's "This Week" (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/feingold.320.240.mov)

Put this guy up front with a giant bullhorn.

Let him keep saying the President can assassinate American citizens.

The idiot that keeps on giving. I love the guy.

[mykevermin]

Meh, it seems like bmulligan's been coaching him in absurd slippery slopes.

Also, why don't you put the "if it's the law" part in red, too? Did you not intend for people to read that part of the statement? Why not just bold the whole sentence, rather than setting people up to react to *part* of a sentence rather than the whole damned thing?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Hey, if you don't think it's out of line, you don't think it's out of line.

The man is certifiable.

[mykevermin]

Likewise, if you want to use one sentence of an interview to discredit someone who you discredited the moment you knew of their party affiliation, then be my guest. Just don't expect me to fall victim to such simple-minded political tactics.

[Metal Boss]

Well said...

[bmulligan]

Just don't expect me to fall victim to such simple-minded political tactics.

" STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. "


Myke much prefers the political tactic of "pussyfooting"

[mykevermin]

While you have a very small point, whether censure or impeachment is used first, in this congress, it's not going to pass right now. Why waste impeachment on a senate that will clearly *not*, under any circumstances, do anything to harm the president?

Really, let me ask you if you can inform me where the "phase 2" of the Iraq War intelligence report is? Call up Pat Roberts office and ask him. Where is it?

I believe that having broken the law, a president should be impeached. There is ample evidence to argue that he has, and a shifting defense to argue that he has not. I also think, however, that impeachment shouldn't be wasted at the moment, since we have a congress that seeks to protect its own rather than the foundation of this nation.

If you want to call it "pussyfooting," then go right ahead; just keep in mind that you're intentionally blinding yourself to the very transparent reality of our current political climate and makeup, and that's not helping you make a very clear argument.

[elprincipe]

I believe that having broken the law, a president should be impeached.

So you supported Clinton's impeachment? After all, we have factual evidence that he committed perjury, and there are laws against perjury.

Not to minimize the Bush situation, although I feel there should be a full investigation and hearings before any censure or impeachment is even considered. All the facts and arguments should be brought out in the open and displayed to the public.

[bmulligan]

no El, you have to wait until the time is right. Truth only matters when your side stands to gain from it at the proper moment. It's the same rationale for not filabustering Alito. We can't win right now so why bother. We know we're right, but we're too cowardly to do anything about it until we get some backup. Let's start with an opinion poll...

It's the epitome of moral relativism in practice.

[Msut77]

How many more facts do you need to understand that W and his cronies are undeniably incompetent liars?

This transcends ideology.

BTW PAD, the point was that since W feels he can break any law he damn well feels what is to stop him from murder?

[Kayden]

Are you guys ever going to stop slaping your own cocks in self apreciation and just agree that you should all just shut the hell up?

[Metal Boss]

I agree about Clinton for the most part, he did lie but that lie was manipulated, torn apart and rabidly consumed by the media in a very sensationalist way. It was his personal life! It didn't involve the personal lives of thousands of soldiers being sent to war which the Bush agenda lies do!


Why does it have to be, Bush did this, BUT CLINTON DID THIS! It doesn't speak volumes, it speaks little put-puts of argument when you have to rely on that.

[Metal Boss]

Are you guys ever going to stop slaping your own cocks in self apreciation and just agree that you should all just shut the hell up?


There does seem to be a common theme, the same few posters and then a few cameos. Alot of people like to stir up trouble, it can be fun, but I agree the whole insult after overblown bloating argument thing is getting old...

[Drocket]

Well, it now appears that Bush thinks that he has the right to warrentless physical searchs (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_lawyers_argued_for_warrantless_0317.ht ml) of suspect's homes.

The simple fact is that Bush HAS declared himself to be above all laws and the Constitution - he is, in essence, the king. WOULD Bush order a hit on a US citizen? Probably not. Does Bush think he has the legal right to do so? Yeah, he does. That's the problem. The United States is not a monarchy, and the president is not above the law.

Oh, and before PAD even bothers...
<whine>But the evil CLINTON did it!!!!11111</whine>

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Who needs to whine when you already know Clinton approved the same thing. You'll also be stunned to know that in the case of Aldrich Ames I belive Clinton did exactly the right thing. That's what you do when you're talking about the security of the Republic.

Of course you only think Clinton did the right thing but Bush is/was/will always be wrong. Even if the circumstances are identical.

Jeeze, you act like no President has ever done one questionable thing in the history of the Republic before January 20th 2001.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, of course when you're making a complete ass of yourself and removing your political party completely out of the mainstream for a generation you just don't realize that.

I thought Democrats, liberals, progressives, sociallists and the anti-American crowd could get no more pathetic than after dropping $2 billion trying to dump Bush. Hell, I was even wrong about that.

There's no depths of lunacy the anti-Bush crowd won't drop to. I keep thinking I've seen it all then Good Ole Russ shows up and the Looney Left still wants to go further and further off the deep end thinking he's only going part of the way and are ticked off the rest of the party won't follow Russ of the electorial cliff.

Whew, with political opposition like this we could dig up Nixon and run him in 2008. We still have 3 years to go until the next Presidential election and I'm impressed with the giant strides in radical idiocy displayed by the left. Time and time again they appear to be so close to gaining an upper hand yet their own fringe drives them in the ditch only to give a badly wounded political foe more and more chances at recovery.

http://tinypic.com/iykfoh.jpg

[mykevermin]

Who needs to whine when you already know Clinton approved the same thing. You'll also be stunned to know that in the case of Aldrich Ames I belive Clinton did exactly the right thing. That's what you do when you're talking about the security of the Republic.

Of course you only think Clinton did the right thing but Bush is/was/will always be wrong. Even if the circumstances are identical.

Jeeze, you act like no President has ever done one questionable thing in the history of the Republic before January 20th 2001.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, of course when you're making a complete ass of yourself and removing your political party completely out of the mainstream for a generation you just don't realize that.

I thought Democrats, liberals, progressives, sociallists and the anti-American crowd could get no more pathetic than after dropping $2 billion trying to dump Bush. Hell, I was even wrong about that.

There's no depths of lunacy the anti-Bush crowd won't drop to. I keep thinking I've seen it all then Good Ole Russ shows up and the Looney Left still wants to go further and further off the deep end thinking he's only going part of the way and are ticked off the rest of the party won't follow Russ of the electorial cliff.

Is this supposed to be an argument as to why we shouldn't impeach Bush? This is the best you can do?

[David85]

I know President Bush is a nut, but there is nothing we can really do.

[elprincipe]

I agree about Clinton for the most part, he did lie but that lie was manipulated, torn apart and rabidly consumed by the media in a very sensationalist way. It was his personal life! It didn't involve the personal lives of thousands of soldiers being sent to war which the Bush agenda lies do!

Clinton's crimes were certainly NOT just private life. He manipulated and took advantage of a young girl who he was in a working relationship with, then lied about it under oath. So he was in an unethical relationship with an intern he was in charge of and then committed perjury about it. You could argue it didn't merit impeachment or conviction on the impeachment charge, but most certainly it was public.

Why does it have to be, Bush did this, BUT CLINTON DID THIS! It doesn't speak volumes, it speaks little put-puts of argument when you have to rely on that.

I only brought it up to point out the hypocrisy from the Left on this issue. But as in my first post, I am certainly not ready to excuse any Bush violations of the law if that is shown to be the case. I wish they would hold hearings. I don't want to jump to conclusions, although my first instinct is that what was done was outside the law.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Is this supposed to be an argument as to why we shouldn't impeach Bush? This is the best you can do?

You misunderstand me.

Impeach him.

Tell the American people that tapping phone calls between Americans and Al Qaeda contacts overseas is a bad thing. Make it happen.

See what the results are.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm saying move it forward.

[Metal Boss]

Wait, you mean "suspected al quaeda"? Maybe thin that down a bit, "suspected terrorist", for the bush team all that needs to mean is that they have dissenting views on the government. I've read about peace activist groups being monitored by these programs.


I agree PAD, we need to move forward, that was one of the most sane rational posts you've ever made ;)

[usickenme]

Clinton's crimes were certainly NOT just private life. He manipulated and took advantage of a young girl who he was in a working relationship with, then lied about it under oath. So he was in an unethical relationship with an intern he was in charge of and then committed perjury about it. You could argue it didn't merit impeachment or conviction on the impeachment charge, but most certainly it was public.



Excuse me but you completely failed to prove that it was "public". But let me help you, it was public the moment He went on TV and said he didn't have sexual relations with that women. The fact that he was were boss, that she was a young woman (c'mon el, don't make it seem like she was 12) doesn't make it public. The perjury was a crime but the other stuff you mentioned are no different than what dozens of other politicians have done including; Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry J. Hyde,

That said, Who the F cares- it was 8 years ago. He was dragged through the mud, fully investigated, "tried" by the House which certainly more than will happen to Bushy. Cling to you little hypocrisy rant all you want but remember hypocrisy cuts two ways.

[usickenme]

Let him keep saying the President can assassinate American citizens.
.

He is not the only one. The president, his advisors, and zombies like you are with the laughable 'in Teh War, the prez can do what he want!!"

[elprincipe]

Excuse me but you completely failed to prove that it was "public".

Oh really? The most public figure in America living in a taxpayer-funded mansion doing the public's business uses his influence over a public employee (okay, intern) for sexual advantage, but somehow despite all of that it's not public? I think you should just give up on a lot your criticisms of Bush then, since they must not be "public" in the same way.

But let me help you, it was public the moment He went on TV and said he didn't have sexual relations with that women. The fact that he was were boss, that she was a young woman (c'mon el, don't make it seem like she was 12) doesn't make it public. The perjury was a crime but the other stuff you mentioned are no different than what dozens of other politicians have done including; Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry J. Hyde,

Funny, you're doing the same thing that Metal Boss accused others of doing: excusing Bush's behavior because of Clinton's...only this time you're excusing Clinton's based on others' faults. You even admit the perjury was a crime, so I don't know what your problem is anyway.

That said, Who the F cares- it was 8 years ago. He was dragged through the mud, fully investigated, "tried" by the House which certainly more than will happen to Bushy. Cling to you little hypocrisy rant all you want but remember hypocrisy cuts two ways.

I, for one, fucking care when the president abuses power and commits crimes. I know some of you don't care unless it's a president from "the other party," but that's because you are hopeless partisans who someday I hope see the light.

[alonzomourning23]

I have seen nothing indicating monica was taken advantage of. She tried to get other to commit perjury, and by reports I've read was just as likely to initiate sexual contact as bill was. In my understanding of the situation, the relationship was essentially one of equals, as much as a relationship of that type can be anyway. She seemed fully aware of what she was doing, she just didn't think anyone would find out. But, then again, neither did Bill.

It was perjury in relation to a personal issue. The issue was not one the public should have been significantly concerned about, as it had nothing to do with his ability or qualifications to be president.

The impeachment proceedings were held because his opponents had the capability of impeaching him. It was politically motivated and a technicality more than anything else. Now if the perjury was in relation to an issue concering the government and/or the country then that is another issue entirely. I wouldn't support it, but a censure would be justifiable. Impeachment was not.

[Msut77]

Interesting take on he issue prince. I was not aware women had no free will and therefore even when they say the relationship was mutual it wasnt.

[bmulligan]

It was perjury in relation to a personal issue. The issue was not one the public should have been significantly concerned about, as it had nothing to do with his ability or qualifications to be president.

Why is perjury in a personal matter less significant than in a public matter ? Doesn't his willingness to commit perjury in such an insignificant matter make it more likely that he would lie in an important, globally significant one ?

I guess beating your wife is less significant than beating someone else's wife becuase, after all, it's a personal matter and no one else's business.

[elprincipe]

I have seen nothing indicating monica was taken advantage of. She tried to get other to commit perjury, and by reports I've read was just as likely to initiate sexual contact as bill was. In my understanding of the situation, the relationship was essentially one of equals, as much as a relationship of that type can be anyway. She seemed fully aware of what she was doing, she just didn't think anyone would find out. But, then again, neither did Bill.

Obviously you are quite ignorant when it comes to a workplace environment, not to mention a workplace environment where the one you work for is the most powerful man in the world. The very act of doing these things with someone you are in charge of is unethical.

It was perjury in relation to a personal issue. The issue was not one the public should have been significantly concerned about, as it had nothing to do with his ability or qualifications to be president.

The president perjured himself. I don't care if it was about if he liked Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker better, but he lied under oath and thus committed a crime. People who commit crimes in our country under our system should be held to account no matter who they are or what office they hold. In fact, I would argue it's even more important that those in power be held to account due to the horrible precedent something like Clinton getting away with his crime set.

The impeachment proceedings were held because his opponents had the capability of impeaching him. It was politically motivated and a technicality more than anything else. Now if the perjury was in relation to an issue concering the government and/or the country then that is another issue entirely. I wouldn't support it, but a censure would be justifiable. Impeachment was not.

I think just about any crime (maybe not something like jaywalking or speeding) is pretty much grounds for impeachment. But I can understand not considering it enough. After all, that is why the Framers left the decision to the Congress.

Interesting take on he issue prince. I was not aware women had no free will and therefore even when they say the relationship was mutual it wasnt.

How quaint, you too are ignorant of a working relationship and the ethics involved. Not to mention even if we discount that he still committed perjury, as you already accept, and that is the criminal issue here.

[bmulligan]

You miss the thrust of the argument, El. Clinton's intentions were honorable in his actions to improve america and the common good. His misdeeds in his own personal life were only a reflection of the inherent fallibility of man as an imperfect being. Bush, however, is the anti-christ who's true intentions are the destruction of america and global thermonuclear war. He is a perfect being of evil and has no excuse of original sin to absolve him of his misspeakings and actions.

[Drocket]

I'm glad you finally get it.

Clinton - a fairly good president who had normal human failings

Bush - an incompetent screwup who thinks he's above the law, thinks torture is fun, thinks it s good idea to lie to the country to drag us into an unwinnable war, thinks the 4th amendment (and the entire Constitution) is obsolete, has piled on trillions of dollars in debt and supports policies that will pile on trillions more before he leaves office, has caused massive outrage in the Muslim world against us and is sure to cause terrorism for decades to come, and has alienated most of the rest of the world with pure arrogance

Really, which one do you prefer leading the country?

[Msut77]

How quaint, you too are ignorant of a working relationship and the ethics involved.

I am not so ignorant as to pretend they arent common.

[Metal Boss]

I'm glad you finally get it.

Clinton - a fairly good president who had normal human failings

Bush - an incompetent screwup who thinks he's above the law, thinks torture is fun, thinks it s good idea to lie to the country to drag us into an unwinnable war, thinks the 4th amendment (and the entire Constitution) is obsolete, has piled on trillions of dollars in debt and supports policies that will pile on trillions more before he leaves office, has caused massive outrage in the Muslim world against us and is sure to cause terrorism for decades to come, and has alienated most of the rest of the world with pure arrogance

Really, which one do you prefer leading the country?


Total flamebait, Clinton had his flaws too, I would agree that he was a better president but summing it up that ways is just simplistic.

[alonzomourning23]

Obviously you are quite ignorant when it comes to a workplace environment, not to mention a workplace environment where the one you work for is the most powerful man in the world. The very act of doing these things with someone you are in charge of is unethical.

Ya sure, if monica made the first move (I don't know, but just for the sake of argument) and then it continued as a relatively equal relationship, with both equally initiating sexual contact, then how is that as bad as you make it out to be? Undesirable yes, but not clearly unethical in the sense you describe it (not taking into consideration his marriage).


The president perjured himself. I don't care if it was about if he liked Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker better, but he lied under oath and thus committed a crime. People who commit crimes in our country under our system should be held to account no matter who they are or what office they hold. In fact, I would argue it's even more important that those in power be held to account due to the horrible precedent something like Clinton getting away with his crime set.

And impeaching him was a good choice? I said they could censure him.

I think just about any crime (maybe not something like jaywalking or speeding) is pretty much grounds for impeachment. But I can understand not considering it enough. After all, that is why the Framers left the decision to the Congress.

You'd have a point if someone got harmed by his perjury, or if the perjury involved a government issue. But it didn't. I'm sure every president, or almost every president, did something illegal.

[alonzomourning23]

You miss the thrust of the argument, El. Clinton's intentions were honorable in his actions to improve america and the common good. His misdeeds in his own personal life were only a reflection of the inherent fallibility of man as an imperfect being. Bush, however, is the anti-christ who's true intentions are the destruction of america and global thermonuclear war. He is a perfect being of evil and has no excuse of original sin to absolve him of his misspeakings and actions.

Or maybe it has to do with bush's issues involving national issues, while clintons involved his pants.

[usickenme]

Oh really? The most public figure in America living in a taxpayer-funded mansion doing the public's business uses his influence over a public employee (okay, intern) for sexual advantage, but somehow despite all of that it's not public? I think you should just give up on a lot your criticisms of Bush then, since they must not be "public" in the same way. Not everything the president is public. When he takes a dump is it public? When Bush does Laura is it public? [/qoute]


Funny, you're doing the same thing that Metal Boss accused others of doing: excusing Bush's behavior because of Clinton's...only this time you're excusing Clinton's based on others' faults. You even admit the perjury was a crime, so I don't know what your problem is anyway.

Nope only pointing our hypocrisy on the issue. I am not excusing Clinton but you're rant about Clinton unethical behavior rings hollows.


I, for one, fucking care when the president abuses power and commits crimes. I know some of you don't care unless it's a president from "the other party," but that's because you are hopeless partisans who someday I hope see the light.


Please. Get off your high horse. Be honest, you "care" more when it is a Dem. After all, you've been strangely silent on the ethics of this president and his adminstration. I think as long as Bushy is protecting fetuses, you and your ilk will cut him a lot of slack. Sad.


Look, I am saying the crime of Clinton was perjury. But the "affair" is much more questionable. You make it seem like Moncia was some innocent little girl. Sure Clinton was an imposing boss but you can't excuse away everything Moncia did. At some point you have to admit she played a role.

p.s. As I said. Clinton was "punished" by the system. Bush hasn't been and likely won't. Someone as righteous as you should find that troubling.

[bmulligan]

As I said. Clinton was "punished" by the system. Bush hasn't been and likely won't. Someone as righteous as you should find that troubling.

So every democrat and liberal in the country doesn't count as punishment, I can understand that. However, being bad mouthed by every democratic senator and congressperson IS considered the system, and they ARE punishing him every time they get TV time.

The Russ Feingold incident/spectacle proves that they are out to punish Bush at any opportunity with whatever evidence they can produce or invent. The democratic senators shying away from Feingold until they've had time to run an opinion poll up the flagpole shoud prove to you that they are more concerned about their political opportunities than principles, or choosing the right thing to do based on a semblance of morality instead of majority opinion.

[Msut77]

BMullet are you willing to say that Bush didnt break the law and was completely honest about the reasons for Invading Iraq?

If not...

[elprincipe]

I am not so ignorant as to pretend they arent common.

So if something's common, then it is okay. Burglary is fairly common. Hell, I would argue that murder and rape are fairly common (depends on your definition of common). I'm sure you don't consider those okay.

[elprincipe]

Ya sure, if monica made the first move (I don't know, but just for the sake of argument) and then it continued as a relatively equal relationship, with both equally initiating sexual contact, then how is that as bad as you make it out to be? Undesirable yes, but not clearly unethical in the sense you describe it (not taking into consideration his marriage).

Are you Dick Morris, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton or something? How the hell do you know what went on between them? Again, even if what you say is the truth (and who really knows that, except Monica and Bill?), it still is unethical.

And impeaching him was a good choice? I said they could censure him.

I thought and still think it was the right choice, but as I said I can understand why people would think differently. The Framers made the process the way it is for a reason, so the people (through Congress) have a voice in it. Obviously the people agreed more with you than with me on this one.

You'd have a point if someone got harmed by his perjury, or if the perjury involved a government issue. But it didn't. I'm sure every president, or almost every president, did something illegal.

I don't know if every or almost every president did something illegal. But if they did, they should have been held to account as well, no matter who they were or when they did it. We as a country talk often about rule of law, and one of the most important things is that the law apply to everyone, powerful or not powerful, including the most powerful man in the country. That is why this wiretapping and "I can ignore the law" rhetoric coming from the Bush administration is so disturbing, don't you think?

[elprincipe]

Please. Get off your high horse. Be honest, you "care" more when it is a Dem. After all, you've been strangely silent on the ethics of this president and his adminstration. I think as long as Bushy is protecting fetuses, you and your ilk will cut him a lot of slack. Sad.


Look, I am saying the crime of Clinton was perjury. But the "affair" is much more questionable. You make it seem like Moncia was some innocent little girl. Sure Clinton was an imposing boss but you can't excuse away everything Moncia did. At some point you have to admit she played a role.

p.s. As I said. Clinton was "punished" by the system. Bush hasn't been and likely won't. Someone as righteous as you should find that troubling.

You're full of shit. I've taken plenty of shots at Bush over the wiretapping issue and other things. Maybe you should search my posts and read my discussion with Ace-of-War in that thread (the wiretapping one) and change your uninformed and quickly-formed opinion of me. You shouldn't judge unless you have the information to judge, although I've seen you do it time and again on this forum so I guess that's not surprising.

[Msut77]

So if something's common, then it is okay.

Adultery isnt against the law, not even in the workplace if it is mutual.

Assinine asshatery the likes of which I have never seen.

[elprincipe]

Adultery isnt against the law, not even in the workplace if it is mutual.

Assinine asshatery the likes of which I have never seen.

Get a clue. What he did was unethical, and then he lied about it under oath which was illegal. Both are wrong, although I do give you the unethical part was not illegal.

[Msut77]

Are you Dick Morris, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton or something? How the hell do you know what went on between them? Again, even if what you say is the truth (and who really knows that, except Monica and Bill?), it still is unethical.

Dumbfuck, they (being monica bill and hillary) talk and write about what happened.

There is perhaps more information on this subject than almost anything in history.

[Msut77]

although I do give you the unethical part was not illegal.

So did you have any point whatsoever?

[elprincipe]

So did you have any point whatsoever?

You were upset that I said unethical = wrong. I did wonder where you got such an idea, so the point was to explore that further until you either agreed with me on that basic fact or showed that somehow you don't think unethical = wrong.

[elprincipe]

Dumbfuck, they (being monica bill and hillary) talk and write about what happened.

There is perhaps more information on this subject than almost anything in history.

Well, case closed. I for one don't doubt any word an admitted liar says. :roll:

And thanks for the personal attack. Your cursing at me really makes your arguments look much more intelligent.

[Msut77]

You were upset that I said unethical = wrong. I did wonder where you got such an idea, so the point was to explore that further until you either agreed with me on that basic fact or showed that somehow you don't think unethical = wrong.

All I said wasnt that it wasnt illegal and extremely commonplace.

But hey its not like I expect the truth from your kind anyway.

[Msut77]

Well, case closed. I for one don't doubt any word an admitted liar says. :roll:

So as long as someone doesnt ADMIT they lie (ie George W Bush and basically anyone who supports him) you dont care?

As for the cursing, scorn should be heaped upon idiots.

[elprincipe]

So as long as someone doesnt ADMIT they lie (ie George W Bush and basically anyone who supports him) you dont care?

As for the cursing, scorn should be heaped upon idiots.

Oh I forgot, unless I mention George W. Bush in every sentence I type on here I don't care. Get a grip, not everyone is obsessed with him and his supposed lies as you and your ultra-liberal pals are.

Idiot? That's a good one coming from you.

[bmulligan]

BMullet are you willing to say that Bush didnt break the law and was completely honest about the reasons for Invading Iraq?

If not...

I'm saying it has never been determined that Bush is breaking the law with the wiretapping program except by ignorant underecducated, self-proclaimed law experts like yourself and all the other commoners the damocrats like to pander to in order to get re-elected. But don't fool yourself. These same democrats have no intentions of stopping this wiretapping practice. They need to appeal to your pre-programmed hatred of Bush to get elected this november, that's all. They fully intend to use this power when they can finally take back the white house and spy on their enemies without repercussion. They are using you. Doesn't that sound exactly like what you think about Bush?

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, you have alreaqdy been programmed to believe Bush is a liar no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. You claim as fact that he lied about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and Al Queda meetings, yet most of it was based on the same intelligence to everyone in the Clinton administration and every other world leader who thought and corroborated the exact same thing. Accounts of thousands of pounds of nerve and other agents were never accounted for as being destroyed, so locically we SHOULD have assumed them to still be in existence.

Much other evidence has been found to counter your claims of fabrication like mobile laboratories deemed to be "pesticide" labs, illegal silkworm and other french and chineese made missiles illegal under the UN sanctions and terms of surrender. Bunkers stocked with chemical suits undoubtedly to protect Iraqi soldiers if chemical weapons were to have been used. Many "pesticide" bunkers hidden with camouflage, and documents recently and formerly released stating known travellings of Al Queida members through Iraq.

Why do "pesticides" need to be kept in camouflaged bunkers? Why to fertilizer factories need to be housed in mobile trailers? I'm sure that's common place in every other country in the world. The fact is that you would not believe ANY evidence even if it were staring you directly in the face as you have been brainwashed into believing the party line that Bush is a liar, we're spiling blood for oil, Bush is really the new hitler, and the terrorists would just go away if we left Iraq.

[Msut77]

not everyone is obsessed with him and his supposed lies as you and your ultra-liberal pals are.


Supposed?

P.s. Bmullet before I even bother to respond to you, Commoners?

[alonzomourning23]

[quote=elprincipe]Are you Dick Morris, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton or something? How the hell do you know what went on between them? Again, even if what you say is the truth (and who really knows that, except Monica and Bill?), it still is unethical.[quote]

I've never heard anything from a reputable source (remember, with clinton someone at one point has accused him of everything ranging from murder to raping hillary), let alone lewinsky herself, suggesting that lewinsky was taken advantage of. By her own account of the events they both initiated sexual contact at different times. Clinton argued that he was passive, everything was essentially done to him and went along for the ride. Monica argued it was mutual. Clinton had reason to argue he didn't do anything. Monica had the most to gain by either siding with him, or arguing that he took advantage of her. She did neither.

Remember, monica has an entire book out and gave extensive testimony once given immunity.

I believe I read one time that monica inititated the relationship by coming on to him, but I have no idea where I got that from, and whether it is accurate or not. But in my previous argument I stated I did not know, and was simply arguing that to make a point.

[usickenme]

So did you have any point whatsoever?




Like Iraq, the fact that you can't find something (ethics in the case of Bush et al. ) doesn't mean it's not there!!!!

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not sure where el is saying only democrats are unethical. He's simply holding everyone to an unreasonably high standard. It may be admirable in a sense, but I think few, if any, president would survive their term if his standards were in place. He wants to throw the book at every politician for almost any offense.

[elprincipe]

I'm not sure where el is saying only democrats are unethical. He's simply holding everyone to an unreasonably high standard. It may be admirable in a sense, but I think few, if any, president would survive their term if his standards were in place. He wants to throw the book at every politician for almost any offense.

I don't think it's unreasonable. Whether they're Bill Clinton or Tom DeLay let them pay for their crimes (although I guess DeLay is not proven in a court of law yet...maybe say Duke Cunningham instead).

What it really boils down to is our current two-party political system encourages corruption, career politicians and pandering to extremists in both parties. Sure there are good people who don't fit this mold, but the system is weighted against them. That is why we need to fight the two-party system.

[evanft]

I think I'm gonna support Feingold for president. He's the only dem that seems to have balls.

[PKRipp3r]

You misunderstand me.

Impeach him.

Tell the American people that tapping phone calls between Americans and Al Qaeda contacts overseas is a bad thing. Make it happen.

See what the results are.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm saying move it forward.

as soon as you show me proof that it was just calls between Americans and Al Qaeda, I won't consider what you said complete bulls**t

and Feingold is 100% right

you're trying to make it sound like some outlandish, wild-eyed and uninformed claim when that's really the exact point that he is making

based on the defense of the Illegal Wiretapping that the admin has put forward - 'post 9/11 we can ignore any law we see fit for whatever reason we see fit' - it wouldn't be too far of a stretch for the admin. to say - 'hey... this person is a threat. we needed to take them out, don't ask why. we promise he was a bad guy'

the fact that you are trying to paint Feingold as 'certifiable' just highlights how 'certifiable' the Bush Administrations defense of illegal wiretapping is

thanks for supporting Feingold's point
;)

i'm sure he appreciates it

lol

[PKRipp3r]

bringing up Clinton = you have no argument and must shift the topic to avoid people realizing the fact that you are out of sauce

"Clinton did it!!!"

lmfao

how utterly pathetic

you need to let that one go... I know he's the ***** you love to hate, but he's been out of office for a long, LONG time...

Bush is President now

[PKRipp3r]

Oh I forgot, unless I mention George W. Bush in every sentence I type on here I don't care. Get a grip, not everyone is obsessed with him and his supposed lies as you and your ultra-liberal pals are.

.

news flash, Conservatives hate Bush

lots of them

;)

[elprincipe]

news flash, Conservatives hate Bush

lots of them

;)

Maybe not lots of them, but some of them no doubt, for various reasons (incuding being too liberal!).

As for your Clinton remark, since I brought it up I'll respond. It was simply to point out the utter hypocrisy from those on the left who are now saying, and I quote:

I believe that having broken the law, a president should be impeached.

I found that particularly amusing because the same people who yell this about Bush think Clinton's impeachment was wrong, even people who admit that he committed perjury, which is a crime. It was not meant as an excuse for anything Bush has or may have done, just a little jab at holier-than-thou leftists who seem to bleat in every thread on this board "Clinton good, Bush bad!"

[alonzomourning23]

But most people view it as a shade of grey. Certain crimes demand harsher punishment. Impeachment is not justifiable for some crimes, but it is for others.

[PKRipp3r]

Maybe not lots of them, but some of them no doubt, for various reasons (incuding being too liberal!).

As for your Clinton remark, since I brought it up I'll respond. It was simply to point out the utter hypocrisy from those on the left who are now saying, and I quote:



I found that particularly amusing because the same people who yell this about Bush think Clinton's impeachment was wrong, even people who admit that he committed perjury, which is a crime. It was not meant as an excuse for anything Bush has or may have done, just a little jab at holier-than-thou leftists who seem to bleat in every thread on this board "Clinton good, Bush bad!"

no, lots of them and i disagree that it's b/c he's being too 'liberal' it's SO not that black & white in my opinion

we can get into a stupid intarweb list war if you want but i'm ready to rock with scores of R pols who have been feeling free enough to slam Bush on lots of issues lately from immmigration to homeland security (his main weakness)

and i can't speak for anyone else but ANY ____ good, ______ bad stance is a mentally deficient one. as a registered Independent, i believe this strongly.

the fact remains that ESPECIALLY now, it is used NOT as an excuse but as a diversion... as a way of just totally deflecting the conversation into another tangent, b/c so many people are passionate about defending Clinton. it's a VERY easy and VERY cheap way to dodge, and can be summed up thusly....

"Buh... buh.. buhhh... Cllliiinton!!!"

Lame and a clear admission that the person using it is out of any genuine points to be made and wishes to debase the conversation to their favor.

The second someone brings up Clinton to me in the middle of a Bush discussion (w/RARE exception) I know the discussion is over b/c either they ran out of actual facts or they know they are wrong.

[elprincipe]

no, lots of them and i disagree that it's b/c he's being too 'liberal' it's SO not that black & white in my opinion

we can get into a stupid intarweb list war if you want but i'm ready to rock with scores of R pols who have been feeling free enough to slam Bush on lots of issues lately from immmigration to homeland security (his main weakness)

Umm..did you not read the part where I wrote "for various reasons (including being too liberal)"?

and i can't speak for anyone else but ANY ____ good, ______ bad stance is a mentally deficient one. as a registered Independent, i believe this strongly.

Good, of course it is. And it's good to have more independents on this board as it is dominated by a lot of leftists and a few outspoken righties.

the fact remains that ESPECIALLY now, it is used NOT as an excuse but as a diversion... as a way of just totally deflecting the conversation into another tangent, b/c so many people are passionate about defending Clinton. it's a VERY easy and VERY cheap way to dodge, and can be summed up thusly....

"Buh... buh.. buhhh... Cllliiinton!!!"

Lame and a clear admission that the person using it is out of any genuine points to be made and wishes to debase the conversation to their favor.

The second someone brings up Clinton to me in the middle of a Bush discussion (w/RARE exception) I know the discussion is over b/c either they ran out of actual facts or they know they are wrong.

Well, I've already given my reason for bringing it up and why it was no attempt at a dodge. Since I wasn't even defending Bush in this thread, it's hard to see what I would have to dodge anyway.