America Responds to Vermont’s Arrest Warrants for Bush/Cheney

80 Comments

1. Hawthorne,

   Which freedom(s) are you talking about? The freedom of the press which the Republicans bent over backwards to suppress outside of the RNC this past week – including preemptive arrests of independent video journalists whose cameras and computers were seized despite the fact that they were charged with no crime?

   Our 4th Amendment Freedom to peacefully assemble which were trounced upon when hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up and arrested when Ramsey County Sheriff (loyal GOP) Bob Fletcher cut the length of the permit to an hour THE MORNING OF THE PROTEST WITHOUT NOTIFYING MARCH ORGANIZERS.

   “Should we sit down and wait for another attack on U.S. soil? NO! We should get the idiots out of office that stood by and allowed it to happen. We should also work to establish decent schools in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq so that the radical militant madrassas don’t poison the minds of young people against us. It would help if we would stop blowing up their fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers, aunts, uncles and neighbors too in blind attempts to “kill Bin Laden”.

   The raping and murdering of children in Iraq before we occupied them was horrible. The death and destruction that we have brought to them is horrible today.

   “Leave my country!!”

   Uhhhh… pardon me Mr. Hawthorne, Sir… but it occurs to me that… if I may be so blunt.

   IT AIN’T YOUR F***ING COUNTRY. YOU ARE SIMPLY ONE OF ITS CITIZENS AND NOT ONE OF THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED AT THAT SO SHUT UP, READ MORE AND BREAK OFF YOUR ADDICTION TO FAUXNEWS AND DRUGGIE LIMBAUGH FOR YOUR DISINFORMATION.

   You might learn something… doubtful… but you might.

2. There are a lot of bleeding heart liberals that can’t not grasp the concept of freedom that we have. Can anyone honestly say that we would be better off without the actions that were taken? If your answer is yes, then you are not very educated!! Should we sit down and wait for another attack on the United States soil? For all you liberals, you are pro life and anti war. You should love everyone and possibly hug a tree now and then. What about the innocent children that were being raped and murdered in Iraq? I guess none of those issues matter since it’s not our children!! Well, it is time to wake up because it does happen in our very own country (just not in the mass fashion as Iraq). If anyone does not like this country and the way the elected president makes decisions, I have one thing to say……. Leave my country!!

3. It’s so good to know that freedom of speech and thought are still flourishing in a nation that has been bombarded with capitalist propaganda for the last seven+ years. Never be afraid to stand up to your government, it is one of the fundamental principals of the democratic system! Cudos and never give up the good fight, the world IS watching!
   -Me (Canada)

4. Kurt Vonnegut washed his hands in a Bloody Bucket.

5. “Go back under the rock you slithered out from under.”

   That rock would have a great big Bloody Bucket on top of it. Yes, I wash my hands in a Bloody Bucket, that’s why I have blood on my hands.
   Would you like to see it?

6. Mack Smith,

   Dahr Jamail is a true journalist of the highest integrity and caliber. I have met him and spoken with him. He isn’t affiliated with any corporate news organization. He has traveled to Iraq a dozen times or more and speaks the language so is able to get first hand accounts from eye witnesses that embedded ‘journalists’ are not allowed to make contact with.

   Chubby,

   You are a waste of my time, 30%er. You are so far disconnected from facts and reason it makes no sense to bother communicating further. Go back to sleep. Go back to FAUXNews. Go back under the rock you slithered out from under.

7. Of course Iraq had no WMD’s. Ask a Kurd, they’ll agree with you when pigs like yourself grow wings. Hitler didn’t have any WMD’s either and neither did Slobodan Milosevic.
   I’m willing to bet Mikael doesn’t know about the Israeli airstrike in Syria a few months back, do you Mikael? Do you know what the mission was for and what the target was? Your buddies at AfterDowningStreet took a good guess, but only got it half right. I’ll give you two clues and Russia & Belarus holds the key to both of them.
   1) Prior to the April 2003 liberation of Iraq, what cargo was Russian transport planes flying out of Iraq into Syria while the hand wringers at the UN were debating resolutions and what cargo was was being convoyed in trucks going into Syria on Highway 11?
   2) What had the Russians sold to Syria and Iran and has become operational but has proven to have serious defects?

   http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/2006/04052006.htm

   And of course Al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq….Get Sam Pender’s book Mikael and just read the appendices.

   http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/06/question_and_answer_with_autho/

8. I’m not sure I trust this article for a variety of reasons:

   “by Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*”

   These two have written a number of very similar articles jobbed out to a variety of news services. Dahr Jamail has made a career out of repeatedly accusing U.S. soldiers of deliberately slaughtering Iraqi women and children, but without any credible evidence other than his own word.

   “BAGHDAD, Feb 8 (IPS)”

   Portions of this story appear in an earlier article in IPS by the same authors, datelined January 11. That in itself is not unusual, but there are some changes between the two versions. In the January story the bomber types and bomb tonnage are attributed to a direct quote from “lawyer and human rights activist Mahmood al-Dulaimy” In the February story the same data in the exact words are attributed to an unnamed “resident” of the Juboor villages.

   “The use of B1 bombers shows the terrible failure of the U.S. campaign in Iraq,” Iraqi Major General Muhammad al-Azzawy, a military researcher in Baghdad, told IPS. “U.S. military and political tactics failed in this area, and that is why this massacre. This kind of bombing is usually used for much bigger targets than small villages full of civilians. This was savagery.”

   Other than these two articles and reprints of them on a variety of anti-war websites, I can find no mention of any airstrike on the Juboor villages on any news service. Nor can I find any other mention of “Iraqi Major General Muhammad al-Azzawy.” A Muhammad al-Azzawi was acquited for lack of evidence in the war crimes trials that saw the sentencing of Hussein, and another Muhammad al-Azzawi was mentioned as the “puppet police commander” of Bakaz on an Islamist site.

   “Residents said two B1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets dropped at least 40,000 pounds of explosives on the villages and plantations within a span of 10 minutes.”

   Nice estimate. (And “carpet bombing” went out in the 1970s; it isn’t an economical use of ordnance.)

   “The cluster of Sunni villages was bombed just weeks after the U.S. military encouraged families to return to their village after heavy bombing earlier in which scores of people were killed. Many residents had fled fearing sectarian death squads, which they say were backed by the U.S.”

   No stories as to earlier bombings with scores of casualties either.

9. “Why don’t you join Al Qaeda or the Taliban Mikael? That’s who’s side you’re on. You know, like John Walker Lindh? Of course you’d have to submit to Islam and give up your Christianity.
   Then maybe you could blow yourself up in a crowded market place or better yet find some Down’s Syndrome women and blow them up by remote control in a crowded market place.”

   You are insane. Seriously. You need psychological help, Chubby. So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a terrorist? You would be hilarious if you weren’t so pathetic and sad.

   And nice try pretending you have ever heard of IPS. You are just playing your ‘straw man’ games again and pretending that you know things you don’t have any clue about.

   Don’t some alarm bells go off in your head when you realize that 70% of the country thinks we are heading in the wrong direction, that invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and that Bush is an idiot?

   Ever thought maybe that YOU are the one who is confused?

   The point of the story was that indiscriminate ‘carpet bombing’ kills innocent men, women and children and by doing that many survivors are pushed over the limit and commit to taking revenge against Americans. I know you are incapable of understanding this basic logical track, but hopefully someone else will read that article and come around to understand that systematically killing children in a foreign country is going to piss off their families.

   “we didn’t beat the Germans or the Japanese by playing pattycake.” The Japanese had attacked us and the Germans had been at war with our allies for years before we entered WWII. Iraq posed no immediate threat against us, had no WMDs, had no connection to 9/11 and the Bushies knew it and lied to make us think we were in danger. Don’t even begin to pretend there are parallels here. To do so is to make yourself look ridiculous.

   “At least I know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.”

   No Chubby… you have no fucking clue what is right and what is wrong. Your moral compass has been so knocked off kilter after 24/7 being pulled in the direction of the Sludge Report, the O’LieDaily Factor or Hate-ity and Colmes that you wouldn’t recognize the truth if it crawled up your ass and bit you on your tongue.

10. The IPS?

    You might as well have been quoting Granma, Pravda, or the Volkisher Beobachter.

    You have a massive guilt complex as big as Howard Zinn’s.
    Don’t take that as a compliment.

    Why don’t you join Al Qaeda or the Taliban Mikael? That’s who’s side you’re on. You know, like John Walker Lindh? Of course you’d have to submit to Islam and give up your Christianity.
    Then maybe you could blow yourself up in a crowded market place or better yet find some Down’s Syndrome women and blow them up by remote control in a crowded market place.

    War is cruelty and the more cruel it is the faster it will be over. There is no sense in refining it. War is hell and we didn’t beat the Germans or the Japanese by playing pattycake.
    I have a friend who’s dad was preparing for the invasion of the Japanese mainland in WWII. He was grateful for Truman dropping the bomb. That horrible act saved millions of lives. Who knows how many lives were saved by taking out those “suspected militant hide-outs, storehouses and defensive positions.”

    Please note this last quote was the only sentence from the other side of the story. Just take the rest for granted and a grain of salt, eh Mikael?

    How many lives were saved? Ask a grunt and he’ll probably say “I don’t know, but maybe mine.”

    I know.

    That’s an idea you never would have thought Mikael because you’ve never been in that situation and it never would have occured to you.

    “Blood on your hands”? Gawd, I feel absolute pity for your frail bleeding heart.
    If you say so Mikael, so be it.
    At least I know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

11. This is your war Chubby. The blood is on your hands:

    More Bombing Creates New Enemies

    Inter Press Service
    By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*

    BAGHDAD, Feb 8 (IPS) – Now that the smoke has cleared and the rubble settled, residents of a group of bombed Iraqi villages see the raid as really a U.S. loss.

    Many Iraqis view the attack Jan. 10 by bombers and F-16 jets on a cluster of villages in the Latifiya district south of Baghdad as overkill.

    “The use of B1 bombers shows the terrible failure of the U.S. campaign in Iraq,” Iraqi Major General Muhammad al-Azzawy, a military researcher in Baghdad, told IPS. “U.S. military and political tactics failed in this area, and that is why this massacre. This kind of bombing is usually used for much bigger targets than small villages full of civilians. This was savagery.”

    The attack on Juboor and neighbouring villages just south of Baghdad had begun a week earlier with heavy artillery and tank bombardment. The attack followed strong resistance from members of the mainly Sunni Muslim al-Juboor tribe against groups that residents described as sectarian death squads.

    “On Jan. 10, huge aircraft started bombing the villages,” Ahmad Alwan from a village near Juboor told IPS. “We took our families and fled. We have never seen such bombardment since the 2003 American invasion. They were bombing everything and everybody.”

    Residents said two B1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets dropped at least 40,000 pounds of explosives on the villages and plantations within a span of 10 minutes.

    “The al-Qaeda name is used once more to destroy another Sunni area,” Akram Naji, a lawyer in Baghdad who has relatives in Juboor told IPS. “Americans are still supporting Iranian influence in Iraq by cleansing Baghdad and surroundings of Sunnis.”

    The cluster of Sunni villages was bombed just weeks after the U.S. military encouraged families to return to their village after heavy bombing earlier in which scores of people were killed. Many residents had fled fearing sectarian death squads, which they say were backed by the U.S.

    Few people in the village now talk the language of reconciliation of U.S. President George W. Bush and of some Iraqis in the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.

    “We have no alternative but to fight this occupation and its allies,” a former army officer in Baghdad speaking on condition of anonymity told IPS. “We can see clearly now that Americans came with the idea that we, Sunni Arabs, are the enemies they have in mind no matter what we do to please them. We will fight for our existence, and this massacre will not go unpunished.”

    “It was a miracle that I could evacuate my family at the last minute,” said Omar Hussein, who fled for Dora in Baghdad from the bombarded area. “My house and farm are on the outskirts of the village. I took my family out the minute I saw the aircraft in the sky.

    “Apache helicopters later fired at the trucks that were carrying the families out of the area, and killed so many civilians. They took some wounded people to their military base. I am sure hundreds of people would have been killed. It is just like the Fallujah crime.”

    Thousands died in prolonged attacks on Fallujah to the west of Baghdad, particularly in 2004 and 2005.

    Taha Muslih al-Joboory, his wife and three sons were among those reported killed in the bombing. Juboory was an Iraqi journalist who lived all his life in the area. Many families were reported buried under the rubble of their houses.

    The U.S. military said that the aircraft which bombed the area targeted “suspected militant hide-outs, storehouses and defensive positions.”

    “We know they will get away with their crime now, but we will teach our children that America and the whole West are our enemies, so that they take revenge for these crimes,” 35-year-old Nada, a woman who has relatives in the village told IPS.

    (*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East)

12. Chubby says:

    “You can’t name one civil liberty that has been taken from you.”

    That is such a ignorant statement all it does is prove that you are incapable of paying attention. Once again, I have little to no motivation to attempt to communicate basic facts to someone so committed to the denial of reality. There are literally hundreds of articles you can access through this site proving you wrong.

    “Where’s the proof that Mikael has been harmed…”

    Therein lies the difference between us – I regard anyone’s liberties being compromised as a threat to mine and everyone else’s. You, on the other hand are fully committed to the politics of selfishness – only caring about what affects you directly. Only caring about yourself to the detriment of others.

    Your mindset was very common in Germany in the thirties: “They aren’t coming after me, I am a prominent Jewish businessman. They are only going after the gypsies, communists and homosexuals. I am safe, why should I worry?”

    The NeoCons are only going after the homosexuals, dissidents and Arabs. Why should you worry?

13. You can’t name one civil liberty that has been taken from you.
    Not a single one. Where’s the proof that Mikael has been harmed by Mean & Nasty Uncle Sam?
    And don’t hand out that crap about illegal wiretapping.
    Ever since the invention of the telephone ALL governments have been listening.
    Robert Kennedy was quite fond of wiretapping and it wasn’t jihadis, it was other liberals like MLK, yet I’m sure he’s still a big libtard icon with you Mikael. Good old “Ruthless Bobby”.
    Carter? Sound environmental policies? Wear a sweater? Oh yes…the “New Ice Age is coming!” Ummm…Mikael, back then Carter believed if we didn’t conserve energy (oil) the world would run out of it by today. He tried to fix the price of oil at $50.00 per barrel. Remember the long gas lines at the pump or are you that delusional? Nothing like breaking the number one rule of economics….supply and demand. Now you have the Reformed Church of Latter-Day Climatologists (aka “The Goremons”) preaching the same clap trap only it’s “climate change and global warming”. We are living in the most stable climate period in homo sapien’s 50,000 year history.
    Watch out for killer rabbits, you know, the big splay-toed swamp bunnies like the kind that tried to kill Jimmy.

14. “Leftists = Communists”

    ~ Cold Warrior

    Oh please…. Do you really see the world through such narrow blinders?

    I am a Christian. I believe in labor’s right to organize. I just want a government – PAID BY MY TAX DOLLARS – that represents what is best for the people at least on par with what is best for larger companies and corporations. I want to see the balance of powers returned to our government after the gross power grab of the Bush years. I want my Constitutional liberties restored. Of course I want our borders defended, but from real threats, not paper tigers created in order to frighten the populace into voting against their own interests.

    Does that really make me a communist in your eyes?

    You think Hillary is a liberal? Really? Her health care ‘reform’ plan is just a new way to pander to the major pharmaceutical companies. She is as much of a hawk as McCain and will pander to military and defense contractors (different than actually making America safer). She spent seven years on the board of WalMart during their worst labor abuses without lifting a finger for the workers. She is the only Democratic Party candidate who has not signed the commitment to restore the Constitution from the Bush/Cheney assault on it.

    Bill ran on a platform that included opposing NAFTA then voted it into office. He reversed the environmentally sound policies from the Carter years that would have had us all driving 30-40 m.p.h. Detroit-made vehicles by now.

    The Clintons are died-in-the-wool corporatists. They are far from liberals.

15. Mark & Chubster,

    Please name every communist currently a member of the ACLU leadership…

    How many are there total? Really, I am curious. I am sure you have all the current scuttlebutt. You live to please your idol – Joe McCarthy. Maybe there is someone in your neighborhood you can turn in for extra credit!!!

    NEWS FLASH!!! The Cold War is over. The rest of us have moved on – evolved to a greater understanding.

16. Extra beets and potatos for Mark Logan.

    Roger Nash Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was an avowed Communist until the day he died. He broke with Moscow though in 1939 after the two leftists, Hitler and Stalin, entered into a non-aggression pact paving the way for WWII.
    Ignorant statement? No, just the facts.
    Communism gave birth to the ACLU and there is no way you can deny it. It’s common knowledge, and those are Roger’s own published words and goals.

17. ” […] the ACLU. Who has attempted to attach communism to most all of their cases.”

    Unbelievably ignorant statement. I have no interest in further interaction with someone who couldn’t relate to a fact if it bit him in the ass. Go back to listening to Rush & Hannity. Go back to sleep.

18. Chubby Huggs wasn’t trying to attach communism to every people’s movement, just the ACLU. Who has attempted to attach communism to most all of their cases.

    -Mark

19. Chubster,

    Obviously you are trying to attach communism to every people’s movement which is so naive as to not warrant serious reply.

    Once again, cloistered thinking from a monochromatic mind.

20. Just a few words from Roger Nash Baldwin (1884*1981):

    “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. … [There] I saw … fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.”

    “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose — the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”

    An extra ration of beets and potatos to the first person to name what organization Roger founded.

21. Out of curiousity, when and where did this Minnesota Westboro incident take place? They were scheduled to protest a similar funeral around these parts last spring, but I never saw any coverage of an incident here…and I suspect it would have made the local news.

22. “So the ACLU wasn’t defending the right of Christian protestors, but rather of psuedo-Christians after all? I wonder if the ACLU would have been so eager to leap to the defense of the Westboro bunch had a state enacted a law prohibiting their protests back when they confined their activities to protests at gay funerals.”

    The ACLU defends the Constitutional Rights of anyone who they consider to be getting those rights violated. They defend NAMBLA – an obviously putrid organization – on the grounds that they have the right to voice their opinion, just as White Supremacists do or any other ugly organization. In defending one organization’s right to voice their opinion, the rights of everyone to voice their opinion is defended. ImpeachforPeace was asked to be part of a preemptive lawsuit to protect everyone’s right to protest during the GOP convention in St. Paul. After the rights of protesters were trampled in NYC, the ACLU has started the case early to assure justice is done.

    If you make a thorough check of the cases the ACLU has taken on, you’ll find an amazingly diverse group of causes. The common denominator is defending of Constitutional liberties. If that makes them leftist, then being a leftist is patriotic.

    The group shielding the grieving families from the protestors in Minnesota didn’t belong to any organization. They had just read about the situation and decided on their own to intercede. There is no law against holding up sheets in a public cemetery and nobody complained.

23. Cold Warrior: You don’t have to be a vet to ride with the Patriot Guard, but a lot of the riders are. And they don’t hold up “a string of white sheets; they are proud to display an American flag. Based on that I’d say this wasn’t the Patriot Guard. Of course, they’re the only ones I been able to find any news story on in counter-protesting the Westboro bunch at a Minnesota serviceman’s funeral.

    Mikael, to parse your reply:

    “On the contrary, Sir. Just as you have the right to delete an email from someone or block a sender, we all have the right to choose not to listen to what others have to say.”

    Absolutely. I have the right to ignore you. But I do not have the right to silence you.

    “The definition of harassment is: “ongoing unwelcome communication or advances”. ”

    A single distateful and odious protest constitutes “ongoing unwelcome communication or advances”?

    “My friends – acquaintances, really – simply expressed themselves by counter-protesting with a ‘silent’ message.”

    So…If I disagree with the viewpoint of someone else, it is acceptable to engage in a silent protest by blocking their printed placards and signs with sheets? If so, is it okay if I climb a billboard with a bucket of whitewash and plaster over a sign that offends me? There’s this Right to Life organization that has put up billboards around here that I disagree with. Can I go hang up a sheet in front of it?

    “The families were grateful to be shielded from the pseudo-Christian wackos.”

    So the ACLU wasn’t defending the right of Christian protestors, but rather of psuedo-Christians after all? I wonder if the ACLU would have been so eager to leap to the defense of the Westboro bunch had a state enacted a law prohibiting their protests back when they confined their activities to protests at gay funerals.

    “If they had decided to erect a tent and allow only family and friends inside, that would have been acceptable as well. We all have the right to sign up for exclusive use of a room in a library, school facility or park within certain criteria. No different in a taxpayer-funded cemetery.”

    Unless of course you want to hold a Bible study during your lunch hour:

    “Since 2000, Mindy Barlow and Dalia Smith have been members of a group of [Superior Court of San Diego] courthouse employees who were studying the Bible in an empty jury or courtroom during lunch. In April 2006, courthouse officials told Barlow and Smith they could no longer use a jury room for their meeting. Courthouse officials claimed that using courthouse facilities to study the Bible raised concerns under the “separation of church and state.”
    At the same time, the court created a policy that required anyone wishing to use court facilities to apply in writing for permission. When members of the Bible study group submitted their written request, it was denied.”

    ” am glad to hear that you support the right to protest. That is novel for anyone on the ‘far right’. There may be hope for you after all!”

    Oh, I’m afraid not. There’s no hope for me. While on an absract level I can jab at your friends–er, acquaintances–for violating the Westboro folks’ freedom of speech, in the actual situation I would be delighted to smash the lead protestor over the head with his own sign and chase his minions off with the broken stump. (But I do like the way that you tag me as “far right” for disagreeing with you.)

24. “That is novel for anyone on the ‘far right’.”

    Not ‘far Left’ => ‘far Right’

    -Mark

25. Quote Mikael:
    “My friends – acquaintances, really – simply expressed themselves by counter-protesting with a ‘silent’ message”.

    Friends? Really? Acquaintances? Really?
    Mikael, I’m damn sure The Patriot Guard would’t for a nano-second consider you either one.
    That’s a damn lie to make that claim.

    [This is a classic example of a ‘straw man’ argument. Mr. Chubby pretends that Mr. Rudolph has claimed to be a member of The Patriot Guard, which Mr. Rudolph never did. Then Mr. Chubby assails Mr. Rudolph – calling Mr. Rudolph a liar for allegedly making a statement that Mr. Rudolph never made. – Ed.]

26. “So your friends effectively, respectfully and non-confrontationally silenced the expression of free speech that they disagreed with?”

    On the contrary, Sir. Just as you have the right to delete an email from someone or block a sender, we all have the right to choose not to listen to what others have to say. The definition of harassment is: “ongoing unwelcome communication or advances”. My friends – acquaintances, really – simply expressed themselves by counter-protesting with a ‘silent’ message. The families were grateful to be shielded from the pseudo-Christian wackos. If they had decided to erect a tent and allow only family and friends inside, that would have been acceptable as well. We all have the right to sign up for exclusive use of a room in a library, school facility or park within certain criteria. No different in a taxpayer-funded cemetery.

    I don’t question that the GOP can choose not to allow me to attend their convention in St. Paul this fall. If I get a press pass, on the other hand, they cannot legally bar me.

    (Working on that…)

    I am glad to hear that you support the right to protest. That is novel for anyone on the ‘far right’. There may be hope for you after all!

    🙂

27. My apologies. I used an ambiguous term. I meant public property as in “public school.” I should have used “government property.”

    “When this group [the Westboro Baptist Church] came to a soldier’s funeral in Minnesota, friends of mine organized a group of people to show up and shield the grieving family members from the picket signs by silently holding up a string of large white sheets. Effective, respectful and non-confrontational.”

    So your friends effectively, respectfully and non-confrontationally silenced the expression of free speech that they disagreed with?

28. “Nah. It doesn’t include a disclaimer that free speech does not apply to any pro-Christian statement made on public property…”

    Oh really?

    “The ACLU fought for the Westboro Baptist Church and Shirley Phelps-Roper after legislation prevented the group from picketing outside of veteran’s funerals.[59] The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their picket signs that contain messages such as, “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11.” The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a “law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper’s rights to religious liberty and free speech.”[60]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union (Wikipedia is not a totally reliable source, but this is, in fact, true.)

    When this group came to a soldier’s funeral in Minnesota, friends of mine organized a group of people to show up and shield the grieving family members from the picket signs by silently holding up a string of large white sheets. Effective, respectful and non-confrontational.

29. “This appears to be a statement from a card carrying member of the ACLU!!!”

    Nah. It doesn’t include a disclaimer that free speech does not apply to any pro-Christian statement made on public property or any statement critical of Islam made at any time.

30. Timidi mater non flet.

    O civile, si ergo,
    Fortibus es in ero.
    O Nobile,
    Deus trux!
    Vatis enim?
    Causan dux.

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    -Mark

31. “Freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was “likely to incite imminent lawless action”. To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a person proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.”

    This appears to be a statement from a card carrying member of the ACLU!!!

    Welcome to the good side of justice!!!

    Violated? No. You would enjoy that too much.

32. Would that be “Pravda on the Potomac?” (Always was a fool for alliteration.)

33. Freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was “likely to incite imminent lawless action”. To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a person proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.

    I believe I’ve been violated.
    -Mark

34. I certainly am glad for that excerpt of the editorial comment policy from the Washington Post in comment #45. If I ever post a comment there I’ll be sure to refrain from calling anybody a Brown shirt loyalist or partisan hack, simpleton, or puny little pea brain. I’ll definately not accuse other posters of being digitally lobotomized or suggest that they engage in amatuer self-proctology. And I will never ever sneeringly use the phrase “people like you.” I might get banned if I did.

35. Damn that Reichwing WaPo!

    From the Washington Post:

    Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

    CURSES! FOILED AGAIN!

36. To be sung all over America on January 21st, 2009:

    Where have all the Sociopaths gone, long time passing?
    Where have all the Sociopaths gone, long time ago?
    Where have all the Sociopaths gone, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, UN Charter, International Law violated by them?
    Oh, when will they ever return?
    Oh, when will they ever return?

37. From the Washington Post:

    Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

38. Mack….It’s Faulkner stolen from Shakespeare’s “MacBeth”.

    Yeah, the Zarkman was setting up shop for a year before we liberated Iraq (ask any sane Iraqi). Of course, the evil Bush had the CIA plant him there without the knowledge of Valerie Plame, the Super Spy.

    Uday, Qusay, & Zark

    Has anybody here seen my old friend Zarqawi?
    Can you tell me where he’s gone?
    He beheaded a lot of innocents,
    But it seems the good they die young.
    You know, I just looked around and he’s gone.

    Anybody here seen my old friend Qusay?
    Can you tell me where he’s gone?
    He killed a lot of Iraqis,
    But it seems the good they die young.
    I just looked around and he’s gone.

    Anybody here seen my old friend Uday?
    Can you tell me where he’s gone?
    He tortured a lot of people,
    But it seems the good they die young.
    I just looked ’round and he’s gone.

    Didn’t you love the things that they stood for?
    Didn’t they try to kill infidels for you and me?
    And we’ll be free
    Some day soon, and it’s a-gonna be one day …

    Anybody here seen my old friend Che?
    Can you tell me where he’s gone?
    I thought I saw him walkin’ up over the hill,
    With Uday, Qusay, and Zark.

39. Quoting Rupert Murdoch’s “Weekly Standard” as a legitimate source??!?!?

    BWAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That’s hilarious!!! Tell me another one!!!!!!!!!

40. I know this isn’t a reliable source, but it is the best I could do to prove to you that there was no Iraq link to 9/11:

    Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
    President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

    By SCOTT SHEPARD
    COX NEWS SERVICE

    WASHINGTON — President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

    The president’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press” program that Iraq was the “geographic base” of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

    Once more, Cheney proves himself incapable of telling the truth – OBVIOUSLY AS MOST 9/11 TERRORISTS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA, HOME OF THE CLOSE BUSH FAMILY FRIENDS, THE BIN LADENS, AND AFGHANISTAN WAS THE PLANNING CENTER IF YOU BELIEVE THE STORY TOLD BY THE BUSHIES THEMSELVES – and Bush proves himself incapable of thinking in even moderately sensical sequence.

    Showing that representatives from the Iraqi government met with representatives of Al Qaeda means about as much as showing that Marilyn Monroe met with Joe Dimaggio and ergo sum, Monroe could hit .300 and play center field. Nice try, but it doesn’t hold water. Representatives of all countries meet with representatives of lots of nations and lots of organizations. That in and of itself proves nothing at all.

    THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAAM OR IRAQ WITH THE EVENTS OF 9/11. THERE IS CONCLUSIVELY NO LINK. NONE. NOTHING THERE. ONLY THE DIGITALLY LOBOTOMIZED 30%ers STILL CARRY THAT MYTH AROUND IN THEIR PUNY LITTLE PEA BRAINS.

    I’m “mean”? Maybe that is because I grow weary of debating long ago proven facts that people like you are so loathe to accept. Your addiction to propaganda sources and rejection of independently verifiable facts makes debate and discussion with you relatively pointless. So to amuse myself, I just slap you up one side of your mediocre minds and down the other. I at least get the schaedenfreude ‘thrill’ of mocking you and the pathetic, lost and hopeless intellectual swamp you live in. I toy with third tier intellects like yours as a cat does with a field mouse. Eventually I lose interest and search for someone – anyone – who lives in a fact-based reality.

    Oh… and do you think you impressed me by coming up with the new numerical designation of 333 to 799 upon the commencement of the new congress? Hardly. I can name nearly all the 333 cosigners off the top of my head. Don’t injure yourself attempting to slap yourself on your own back.

    Pursuit of impeachment – which is well warranted for both Bush and Cheney on multiple counts easily verifiable by public information alone – may well not lead to an impeachment trial, but the effort has not been wasted. The private and public pressure in tandem has pushed members of Congress and the public to pay more keen attention to the crimes and abuse of power of the far-less-than-mediocre Bush Administration. The additional publicity contributed to the washing out of numbers of complicit Republicans in 2006 and as many have resigned since. Not all Democrats are an improvement, but the odds are Congress can only get better by ridding itself of as many sold-out “Abramoff Republicans” as possible.

41. “Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    ”Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing…”

    What is that from?

42. Yep Mark,

    Not to mention the Zarkman set up shop a year before March 2003….no connection there either.
    I’m just waiting for these loonies to say Dick Cheney strapped those remote controlled bombs on those two women with Downs Syndrome since nobody from the “Religion of Peace” would be capable of such an act. Only the evil Bushitlerian AmeriKKKans would do such a thing. Just like 9/11.

    Bush sure must be smarter than Bill Clinton though. Clinton bombed the WTC in 1993 and failed miserably. Yes! I blame Clinton and Gore for the 1993 WTC Bombing!

    Brattleboro? Just another example of local political grandstanding that has nothing to do with local government.
    A meaningless vote for a meaningless ballot that came from a meaningless motion made by meaningless morons elected by meaningless moonbats. Puffery and hot air. Better yet to quote the Bard…”Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    ”Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing…”

    Nothing indeed.

43. “…THERE WAS NO CONNECTION AT ALL BETWEEN IRAQ OR SADDAAM AND 9/11 OR AL QAEDA AT ANYTIME IN 2001 OR BEFORE, SIMPLETON. CAN”T YOU COME TO TERMS WITH THAT? IT IS TRUE IN A FACT-BASED REALITY AS OPPOSED TO A PARTISAN, ROVIAN, FANTASY SURREALITY.”

    Man, you are so deluded. You gotta get out more.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=1394C77AB

    “… 11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

    14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a “regular and reliable source,” [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.”

    Make sure to read the whole article – slowly, and more than once if need be. That will give you the scope of the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Then have a drink, read it again, and come back to apologize to me for being so mean.

    “…Maybe I can get someone to dumb it (the article I posted above) down to the level of a standardized GOP talking point so that you might come to terms with it.”

    Seems to me Mack Smith dumbed it down just fine, but thank you anyway.

    And you are a bit late with the posting of H. RES. 333. It has since been reintroduced as H Res 799. But I digress, as does the Judiciary Committee, apparently, because H Res 799 is now more or less in the same state as H Res 333, awaiting a hearing in committee. Which will never come. Hence my observation that this site will become a monument to your Quixotic quest. Hence you are a dolt. And a mean one at that.

    So There.
    -Mark

44. An interesting article by Dave Lindorf. He asserts that:

    “The president states in writing that he is not going to obey and will not be bound by four parts of a law duly passed by the Congress.

    “Just so you know that we’re not talking about the naming of a bridge or a new ship, the four provisions of the act which the president is going to ignore are:

    “the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
    the protection for whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment or official retribution
    a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to Congressional requests for documents
    a ban on funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq, and on any actions that would seek to give the U.S. control over Iraq’s oil resources or oil money.”

    What the President actually stated in writing was:

    “Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.
    Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
    GEORGE W. BUSH
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    January 28, 2008.” (Full text of White House Press Release)

    I don’t see a statement in writing that “he is not going to obey and will not be bound by four parts of a law duly passed by the Congress.” I see a statement that four and possibly more provisions of the Act MAY have overstepped Congress’s constitutional authority and that the adminstration will act according to their interpretation of the Executive Branch’s Constitutional duties and powers. If Congress disagrees with this position, then the Supreme Court has to make a decision as to where the line separating the respective Constitutional authorities lie.

    Mr Lindorf continues, later in the article:
    “And yet here we have the president, at the start of his last year in office, announcing that he will not obey a law duly passed by the Congress that requires his administration to establish a commission to investigate the rampant corruption among private contractors operating in Afghanistan and Iraq,”

    Actually, that section (Title VIII Subtitle D Section 841) authorizes Congress to establish the investigating commission and invites the Executive Branch to nominate two members of the committee. The commission is to be a creature of Congress, not the Executive, and rightly so; it would be kind of pointless to say “We think your contracting is corrupt, so you need to appoint a committee to investigate yourself.” The most the President can do concerning the creation of this commission is fail to get two of his own people on it.

    Lindorf continues: “that he will not obey a law barring him from punishing whistleblowers who disclose such corruption,

    The Section in question (Title VIII Subtitle D, Section 846) prohibits contractors from retaliation against whistleblowers, not the administration. (My guess is that the administration objects to the substantial lowering of the requirements of proof for those reporting suspected incidents of fraud, but that is ENTIRELY a guess.)

    Lindorf continues “that he will not obey an order that his intelligence services must respond to requests from Congress for information (about issues such as torture of captives, or spying on American citizens, or destroying documents),”

    Scanning through the pretty lengthy section (so I may have missed them), none of these specific allegations seem to appear in the section cited (Title X Subtitle F Section 1079). It does, however contain the specific provision “In response to a request covered by subsection (a) the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center,or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall provide to the Committee making such request the document or information covered by such request unless the President determines that such document or information shall not be provided because the President is asserting a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.” It looks to me as if the President is taking advantage of this provision from the outset.

    Lindorf continues: “and that he will not obey an order banning the establishment and construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and banning attempts to gain U.S. control over Iraqi oil.”

    Close, and this section is potentially disturbing (Title XII Subtitile B Section 1222). The section does not ban the construction of permanent military bases or an attempt to gain U.S. control over Iraqi oil. It bans the use of any funding from this specific Act for being used to “establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” or to use any funds from this specific Act to “excercise control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

    At any rate, it’s 1:50 a.m. my time and I’m going to bed.

45. HRES 333 IH

    110th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. RES. 333

    Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    April 24, 2007

    Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    RESOLUTION

    Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Article I

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
    (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
    (A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
    (B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
    (C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (D) `We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
    (F) `Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
    (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives accounts.
    (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
    (3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
    (A) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.’.
    (B) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.’.
    (C) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.’.
    The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
    Article II

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
    (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
    (A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
    (B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
    (C) `We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
    (F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
    (G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (H) `I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (I) `First of all, on the question of–of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
    (A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda’.
    (B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’.
    (C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network’.
    The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
    Article III

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
    (1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
    (A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
    (B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
    (D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
    (2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
    (A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
    (B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
    (C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
    (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
    (A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
    (B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
    (C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
    (D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
    (E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
    (4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
    (A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
    (B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.
    (C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
    The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
    Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

46. “… tell the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11 that their loved ones’ deaths were just a myth.”

    And be sure to tell those same families about all the lies Dick Cheney alone has told in and around that day, won’t you, brown shirt loyalist? Ohh.. I forgot… you deep throated all those lies and still remain convinced that the 9/11 Commission wasn’t a sham. That is a very sad place for you to be in.

    Only FAUXNews-addled brains like yours are so far detached from reality that they STILL think there was some sort of link between Iraq & 9/11. You were deceived. You were lied to, as was I. The difference between you and I is that I have the intelligence to figure that out. You, on the other hand, do not. Another pitiful and pitiable aspect of your so very sad predicament.

    THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION AT ALL BETWEEN IRAQ OR SADDAAM AND 9/11 OR AL QAEDA AT ANYTIME IN 2001 OR BEFORE, SIMPLETON. CAN”T YOU COME TO TERMS WITH THAT? IT IS TRUE IN A FACT-BASED REALITY AS OPPOSED TO A PARTISAN, ROVIAN, FANTASY SURREALITY.

    Goofy? If you had taken the time to read the article I posted above you would have found one more impeachable offense to add to the dozens already in the public record. Apparently you were one of those incapable of comprehending the advanced language. Maybe I can get someone to dumb it down to the level of a standardized GOP talking point so that you might come to terms with it.

47. Your witty repartee keeps me coming back, Mikael. Be sure to tell the families of the 3000 victims of 9/11 that their loved ones’ deaths were just a myth. I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear that.

    And I never criticized your beautiful website, in fact, I offered to purchase your domain name. Your goofy quest to impeach the President, on the other hand…

    -Mark

48. The “War on Terror” is an Orwellian myth created to keep stupid people like you voting against your own interests.

    Did you notice that ALL FOUR OF BUSH’S OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES have made clear that the “War on Terror” HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SAFE RATHER THAN MORE SAFE? Of course not, you were too busy watching FAUX News.

    Funny how you criticize this website but just can’t seem to stay away. You must enjoy your own shit.

49. So while the War on Terror trudges on through ’09 and beyond you’ll be howling in the wings yet again for the heads of the warmongers in office?

    You know, it’s funny that you mention “probing my lower bowels,” that’s how I found your site in the first place.

    -Mark

50. Mark,

    It is only your monochromatic view of politics that would see things that way. Our call for impeachment is simply one facet of a comprehensive effort to restore the rule of law and the power of the Constitution into the hands of the people.

    If Hillary or Obama commits the same crimes, we will call for their impeachment. Your simplistic partisan view sees our world through your eyes. We are not partisan, we are for full accountability of all criminal and anti-democratic activity by our public servants of any political party.

    We don’t live in your “I don’t have a brain I have a political party to swear my loyalty to” world. Sorry that partisan hacks such as yourself can’t understand that to be possible.

    Deal? Why would I bother to shake your hand knowing it has been probing your lower bowels in search of your head?

    ~ Mikael

51. Mikael,

    I’m just curious, what are you guys going to do after Bush’s term expires? Are you secretly hoping that another Republican gets elected so you can keep your site up and running? (A quick search & replace of Bush’s name with {INSERT_REPUBLICAN_NAME_HERE}, and you’re good to go, eh?)

    I’ll tell you what: I’ll offer you twenty bucks right now for your domain name to spare you the shame and embarrassment of watching your beloved website become a giant monument to your Quixotic quest. Soon this place will become a quaint backwater of Al Gore’s internet, and I am willing to be your Dr. Kevorkian, your “liberator,” to end your suffering.

    What do you say? Do we have a deal?
    -Mark

52. For those who are literate enough to read the entire article above you will see clearly that we are suffering under the acts of a wannabe tyrant who considers himself above the law, holding authority above Congress and therefore above “We the People”.

    If there had not been a single impeachable offense documented to this day, this latest act would by itself be grounds for impeachment and removal from office for abuses of power.

    Can you rabid haters of “all things left of center” (actually all things left of fascism, but that is another issue) stop and consider for just a moment what you would be saying if these signing statements came from the pen of President Hillary or President Obama? Do we really have to wait a year to clearly identify you as partisan hypocrites? Of course you would (will?) be screaming for their heads on a pike.

    The difference between you and I is that I will join you in calling for impeachment of a Democrat for these type of offenses while you only attack Democrats and bow at the feet of all things Republican, conservative or neo-conservative. You don’t have brains, you have a political party to think for you.

53. Crime of the Century: Time for Congress to Act
    By Dave Lindorff:

    Unless otherwise noted, all original content and headlines are © BuzzFlash.

    Who’s minding the store in Washington While President George W. Bush was standing before the members of Congress on January 28 laying out his plans, such as they are, for the final year of his second term in the White House, he was also seriously and perhaps fatally undermining the authority of Congress with a new signing statement, attached to the latest National Defense Authorization Act, in which he declared that he would simply violate or fail to comply with four provisions.Let me say that again. The president states in writing that he is not going to obey and will not be bound by four parts of a law duly passed by the Congress.

    Just so you know that we’re not talking about the naming of a bridge or a new ship, the four provisions of the act which the president is going to ignore are:

    the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
    the protection for whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment or official retribution
    a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to Congressional requests for documents
    a ban on funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq, and on any actions that would seek to give the U.S. control over Iraq’s oil resources or oil money.
    Now first of all, let’s see what the Constitution has to say. Article I, the first actual statement about how our government works, which comes right after the preamble about “We the People,” states unambiguously:

    “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
    It goes on to state that:

    “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration by two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it.”
    Note that there is no asterisk or footnote saying anything about the president having the power to simply ignore those legislative powers or to violate them at will. If he does not veto the entire bill – and in this case he did not, he signed it – it becomes the Law of the Land.

    Article I also defines the powers of the Congress expansively, stating that it has the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, to call forth the militia, and

    “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
    Article II goes on to define the powers of the president. It states:

    “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
    It goes on to explicitly define and limit the president’s powers, specifically to being “commander in chief” of the armed forces (not of the country or of the government!), to the granting of reprieves and pardons (except in the case of impeachments), to making treaties (subject to Senate approval) and appointing officers to the cabinet and the courts (all subject to Senate approval).

    That is it. There are no other presidential powers in the Constitution. Certainly there is no power granted to disobey or ignore Acts of Congress or to violate the law.

    And yet here we have the president, at the start of his last year in office, announcing that he will not obey a law duly passed by the Congress that requires his administration to establish a commission to investigate the rampant corruption among private contractors operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he will not obey a law barring him from punishing whistleblowers who disclose such corruption, that he will not obey an order that his intelligence services must respond to requests from Congress for information (about issues such as torture of captives, or spying on American citizens, or destroying documents), and that he will not obey an order banning the establishment and construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and banning attempts to gain U.S. control over Iraqi oil.

    Logically one would expect members of Congress in both parties to be up in arms over this illegal and clearly unconstitutional defiance – the more so because both houses of Congress are in the hands of the Democratic Party.

    But we have heard not a peep from the “people’s representatives” at this brazen abuse of power. The reason: Congress is afraid of impeachment.

    It is so afraid to confront this usurper president that, incredibly, its members, Republican and Democrat alike, seem happy to surrender not only their own power, but also the power of the institution of Congress, to avoid doing what the Constitution calls upon them to do: to impeach a criminal in the White House who has abused his powers of office, who has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and who has broken the law multiple times.

    This is an appalling abrogation of responsibility on the part of our elected representatives in Washington, who also took oaths of office committing themselves to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

    How can these hundreds of cowards and traitors in the Capitol, with straight faces, hold hand to heart and pledge allegiance, as they do at the start of every day in Congress? How can they with straight faces go before their constituents and pose as honorable men and women?

    The Constitution is clear. It states that:

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Please observe that the operative word is shall, not may.

    Now although the evidence is overwhelming, one can nonetheless debate whether the president broke the law when he went to war in Iraq or whether he knowingly lied about the reasons for that war. One can debate whether he broke the law by personally authorizing torture of captives. One can even debate whether he broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These are matters that require hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. But there is no need to hold hearings to decide whether the president has abused his power by declaring his intention to ignore laws passed by the Congress. This is an objective fact. A High Crime has been committed and openly confessed to by the President of the United States. Congress has only to vote on it as an impeachable act to restore its Constitutional authority, and to restore the damaged Constitution.There is no question here of “diverting” Congress from its important duties. This need not be time-consuming business. Moreover, defending its authority from a usurper is surely the most important thing Congress can do. Neither is there any question of this being “divisive.” Every member of Congress should want to protect the Constitutional authority of the legislative branch from this fatal encroachment which, if unchallenged, renders Congress nothing but a talk shop no better than the local diner. Nor can there be any question about whether the votes are there or not, either to vote for an Article of Impeachment, or even to convict in the Senate. What member of Congress, of either party, would vote to approve and to sanction in perpetuity this or any president’s right to ignore the Constitution and willfully violate laws passed by the Congress – particularly given the likelihood that the next president could be a Democrat?

    Here then, is an issue that Congress cannot ignore. Here is an issue that renders ludicrous House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that “impeachment is off the table.” Here is an issue that should inflame every American citizen. Here is an issue that should be put to every candidate for office, including those running for the office of president:

    Is President Bush, and is every future president, a dictator, who personally determines what laws are to be obeyed and what laws are to be ignored? Or is the president bound, like the rest of us, by the rule of law and the Constitution?

    The choice is now squarely before us all.

    DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at thiscantbehappening.net [1] where you may also order a signed hardcover copy of the impeachment book at an author’s discount.

    http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/059

54. Anyone interested in returning to the actual topic of this thread? (The crimes for which Bush and Cheney are being threatened with arrest in Brattleboro?).

55. Cold Warrior, Mack Smith, Chubby Huggs and all your pseudonyms,

    Are all of you trolls so paranoid? For the eighty fifth time… we manually approve each message and we are volunteers so it takes time for each message to pop up. Take off your tin foil hat and ignore the black helicopters for just a minute and think this one through. We WANT to see you 30%ers posting on here because it makes us look so reasonable by comparison. Mounds of impeachable evidence laid out for all the world to see and you dance through the dead bodies and criminal actions pretending they don’t exist. If for nothing else, please continue to visit for our entertainment!

    The only posts that have EVER been deleted on this site are those of yours and your marginally sane cubey buddies who can’t refrain from personal attacks, physical threats and tangents completely off the thread subject. Just pretend you learned how to follow rules in kindergarten, play nice and you are welcome to continue to shame yourselves on this site with your moronic perspectives.

56. ColdWarrior: That is probably because it hadn’t yet been moderated. Think people! If we didn’t wish for the comments to appear, they never would. Nor would you have the opportunity to publicly debate it.

57. Mack/Chubby:
    Just as I said, the comments need to be moderated before they appear. YOUR OWN comment can be seen as soon as you’ve entered it (But only by you before it’s been moderated). So, you were #20 (as far as you could tell), until “RicKelis” was moderated. Because he left his comment chronologically before yours, it was properly then placed as #20, and yours (which probably hadn’t even been approved yet) was moved (as far as your browser indicated) to #21.

58. Jodin Morey, I’m not sure how the software works but I don’t think it works the way you think it works. I’m not “Chubby Hugs” and the same thing has happened again. When I posted the query as to whether or not comments were being edited/deleted I left the window open. Went and caught “No Country For Old Men” (good flick, by the way) and just got back. I opened a new tab on my browser and checked the comments. What was comment #20 (mine) posted at 3:37 right behind a post by “Gregory L. Tackacs” at 12:41, is now comment #21, and something by “RicKelis” is now #20, posted at 1:35. Here’s the original:

    >>>

    I believe Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of a military/corporate/zionistic coup that took over on 9/11 and is actually giving them orders. Sounds a bit out of the ballpark radical, I know, but Webster Tarpley & co along with Alex Jones and recent revelations concerning Operation Gladio in Europe plus the Sibel Edmonds accounts all point in that direction. This agenda was known personally to me in 1969 when my mentor from WVU told me about ‘Strauss’ and the right wing think tanks’ plans to do exactly this somewhere down the pike. Cyber networks, spyware and satellite communications apparantly make it easy to steal elections as well as menace otherwise conscientious and patriotic legislators because something has most of the country’s leaders frozen. I, too, applaud the people of Vermont for practicing the spirit of Thomas Paine and stepping up to the plate. Right on!!

    Comment by Gregory L Takacs — February 2, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

    Now this is a bit confusing to me. Do some of the posters here have access to a time machine? About 12:30 my time I checked back here to see if there had been any replies to my initial comments (#15). At that time there was only one other message, a comment by “Chubby Hugs” (yuck!) that accused “Mikeal” (site admin?) of deleting my post. Mine was still at #15 and the one by “Chubby Hugs” was #16. I thought it was kind of odd, since my post was sitting there right above his and figured it was just somebody trolling to irritate.

    Now it’s 4:30 my time and there are two comments, one by “orangutan” at #16 and one by “Marty Sinjohn” at #17, then the one by “Chubby Hugs” at #18. These weren’t there the first time I looked. IS somebody in fact editing the posts here?

    Comment by Mack Smith — February 2, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

    >>>

    It looks to me like something got inserted between these two replies.

59. No one’s editing or deleting posts. We believe in free speech at IfP. However, we do moderate posts mainly for spam, but also for illegal speech (threats of violence, etc). Since we moderate it, your post will appear to you but not others until it’s ‘approved.’ This means that Chubby must actually be the same person as Mack. That’s the only was ‘Chubby’ could have known about Mack’s comment before it was approved. While this will relieve anyone’s anxieties about perceptions of IfP using censorship, it will simultaneously delegitimize Chubby/Mack. Sorry dude, my intent wasn’t to call you out, but then again you called yourself out.

    By the way, there is overwhelming proof of Bush’s crimes which can be found here:
    http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence

    In fact this is an extremely incomplete list. All you need do is turn on your TV for a few minutes to learn of the most recent impeachable offenses Bush has committed. Like the most recent signing statements this last week.

60. Now this is a bit confusing to me. Do some of the posters here have access to a time machine? About 12:30 my time I checked back here to see if there had been any replies to my initial comments (#15). At that time there was only one other message, a comment by “Chubby Hugs” (yuck!) that accused “Mikeal” (site admin?) of deleting my post. Mine was still at #15 and the one by “Chubby Hugs” was #16. I thought it was kind of odd, since my post was sitting there right above his and figured it was just somebody trolling to irritate.

    Now it’s 4:30 my time and there are two comments, one by “orangutan” at #16 and one by “Marty Sinjohn” at #17, then the one by “Chubby Hugs” at #18. These weren’t there the first time I looked. IS somebody in fact editing the posts here?

61. Recently posted on the Brattleboro Reformer comment section of their editorial “Sending A Message.” —

    This is a story that the pundits would say “has legs”. Some 377 articles are referenced on Google News, from all over the nation and the world. Early ones, such as that in the Boston Globe on January 26th were simply reporting the event. Soon the coverage emphasized the negative reaction and now one can see all the positive comments being covered – even here in this forum, which is mostly positive and displays a good deal of intelligent comment. That’s great — it is deserved by the town folk of Brattleboro, and the state of Vermont.

    In response to the negative coverage, I posted this reference to the Times Argus- Rutledge Herald (Vermont papers) coverage a few days ago, on the internet progressive site, BuzzFlash.net:

    Brattleboro gets Internet buzz over Bush/Cheney petition

    Brattleboro, Vermont has a vote coming up aimed at arresting Bush and Cheney if they come to town. The town officials are getting drubbed by the Drudgies and freeper types. “..most of the…e-mails and phone calls, nasty, nasty e-mails…the outpouring of political vitriol,…was largely prompted by a posting on the Drudge Report Internet site”. Buzzflash folk might want to get some positive input to Annette Cappy,Town Clerk at [email protected]

    and sent this email to the Brattleboro town clerk:

    Kudos to brave patriots
    Hello, Annette –
    I hope you don’t mind but I posted the article describing the plight of your home town concerning the Bush/Cheney petition and the rude, crude responses you received from the Drudge Report thugs.
    I wanted you to know that there are many who admire the position that Brattleboro and other towns in Vermont have taken. You have exhibited much courage in bucking the powerful Bush machine. But they won’t be powerful much longer – just 355 days to go!

    followed by another post referencing the editorial we are discussing:

    Update on Bush/Cheney indictment for war crimes

    Vermont has been hammering away at Bush and Cheney — with resolutions of impeachment, bringing their National Guard militia members home, and an indictment of Bush/Cheney for war crimes. When this petition news was posted on the Drudge Report, Bush Loyalists went crazy, calling, emailing, threatening — being their nasty selves. This Brattleboro Reformer editorial satirically understands their woes while defending the town’s stance. It’s a good listing of Bush screw-ups, too.

    I’d like to add that the editorial writer set things up well so that only the most foolish Bush Loyalist would try to make an argument using the usual Right Wing talking points, although opening him/herself up to strawman and elitist charges. And opening myself up to a charge of condescension, it is difficult to talk to people of a lower order of awareness without sounding condescending.

    Overall, the Brattleboro town paper and the towns people have scored their point and underscored the point that great changes, indeed, revolutions begin with small steps and actions. This revolution to come starts where it should – at the grassroots, ground level – in a small town, in a small state, prompted by that small voice to be found in the very heart of the American spirit – the voice of freedom.

62. I believe Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of a military/corporate/zionistic coup that took over on 9/11 and is actually giving them orders. Sounds a bit out of the ballpark radical, I know, but Webster Tarpley & co along with Alex Jones and recent revelations concerning Operation Gladio in Europe plus the Sibel Edmonds accounts all point in that direction. This agenda was known personally to me in 1969 when my mentor from WVU told me about ‘Strauss’ and the right wing think tanks’ plans to do exactly this somewhere down the pike. Cyber networks, spyware and satellite communications apparantly make it easy to steal elections as well as menace otherwise conscientious and patriotic legislators because something has most of the country’s leaders frozen. I, too, applaud the people of Vermont for practicing the spirit of Thomas Paine and stepping up to the plate. Right on!!

63. Mikeal…quit deleting the truth. It hurts doesn’t Mikael?
    You just can’t stand it when somebody makes total sense and you can’t. Shame.

    Here’s Mack Smith’s post that you thought you could erase without anybody noticing:

    Kathy, I am sorry you feel so victimized and oppressed. There really isn’t any reason for you feel this way. Congress has not impeached Bush for the simple reason that there are no grounds for impeachment. I know the response: “But Bush lied about WMDs and tricked us into an illegal and immoral war!” That statement does not hold water. Congress, through various subcommittees, has access to the same intelligence data as the White House; if the President was in fact purposely lying to Congress to gain approval for an invasion of Iraq, all manner of bells, gongs, and whistles should have sounded in Congress. That they didn’t is a good indication that both the Administration and Congress were acting in good faith on the available data…or that Congress is a pack of incompetent place-servers who can’t be trusted to fulfill their Constitutional duty to check and balance the Executive Branch. In either case, the President cannot declare war on his own (a power reserved exclusively to Congress) or continue operations in an undeclared conflict without the specific authorization of Congress (See Section 5 of the War Powers Act for the specifics; it is available on-line via the Avalon Project at Yale University). If you are opposed to this conflict, you should be railing against Congress, not the President. As to your fear that “he must have something on them thru his secret surveilance,” do you (and I’m sorry for the all caps; I’m not shouting, but we don’t have an “italics” option here for emphasis) REALLY believe that the majority of the Democratic senators and representatives (the ones who ought to “stand up” against the alleged abuses of power) are so mired in corruption, or perversion, or illegal activities that they can be blackmailed into silence by the administration? If so, how do they keep getting elected?

    I don’t understand the apathy and fear displayed in the statement “My question is why are we not all out in the streets? I guess I am not because I fel like it will do not good. The media will ignore us and Bush’s judicial system will arrest us and try us for treason.” From what I have seen in newspapers and on television news broadcasts, protest marches seem to gather a lot of coverage. Whether they are banging on buckets, operating giant puppets, or baring their breasts for peace, apparently they make good copy to the editors and producers who decide what goes to press and on the air. And unless there some awfully secret secret trials going on, I can’t think of any protestors who have been arrested and tried for treason. I know the warning at the bottom of the posted message (“NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders…”) is all scary and ominous sounding, but if we do live in such a dictatorship as described on this site, wouldn’t the owner of this blog have already been arrested and tried for treason? He hasn’t (and he should NOT be; freedom of speech is a fundamental natural right), and you haven’t, so where’s this police-state paranoia coming from?

    Comment by Mack Smith — February 2, 2008 @ 9:54 am

64. We, the people, can’t touch him until he is out of office.

    When he is simply Mr. Bush and the dick is Mr. Cheney they can be arrested and by citizens. There is an allowance for citizens arrest of another sitizen when the crime is apparent and official law enforcement is not present or refuses to act.

    A president or vice president cannot be sued for their actions while in office. However if there was a conspiracy before these men were in office, to commit the crimes they have committed, in our names and with our blood and treasure, perhaps they could be sued until they are living in trailor parks. We know that Iraq was on their agenda long before they were coronated by the Supremes.

    Whatever we have to do, we cannot allow them to walk away from what they have done with no consequences. If we do, the next preseident doesn’t stand a chance in hell of beginning the long journey back to American credibility and integrity.

    “The Whole World Is Watching”

65. Re: comment #13. I challenge anyone to name ONE good thing Bush has accomplished. Keep in mind that every dollar of tax break has been another dollar borrowed from some other country.

66. Kathy, I am sorry you feel so victimized and oppressed. There really isn’t any reason for you feel this way. Congress has not impeached Bush for the simple reason that there are no grounds for impeachment. I know the response: “But Bush lied about WMDs and tricked us into an illegal and immoral war!” That statement does not hold water. Congress, through various subcommittees, has access to the same intelligence data as the White House; if the President was in fact purposely lying to Congress to gain approval for an invasion of Iraq, all manner of bells, gongs, and whistles should have sounded in Congress. That they didn’t is a good indication that both the Administration and Congress were acting in good faith on the available data…or that Congress is a pack of incompetent place-servers who can’t be trusted to fulfill their Constitutional duty to check and balance the Executive Branch. In either case, the President cannot declare war on his own (a power reserved exclusively to Congress) or continue operations in an undeclared conflict without the specific authorization of Congress (See Section 5 of the War Powers Act for the specifics; it is available on-line via the Avalon Project at Yale University). If you are opposed to this conflict, you should be railing against Congress, not the President. As to your fear that “he must have something on them thru his secret surveilance,” do you (and I’m sorry for the all caps; I’m not shouting, but we don’t have an “italics” option here for emphasis) REALLY believe that the majority of the Democratic senators and representatives (the ones who ought to “stand up” against the alleged abuses of power) are so mired in corruption, or perversion, or illegal activities that they can be blackmailed into silence by the administration? If so, how do they keep getting elected?

    I don’t understand the apathy and fear displayed in the statement “My question is why are we not all out in the streets? I guess I am not because I fel like it will do not good. The media will ignore us and Bush’s judicial system will arrest us and try us for treason.” From what I have seen in newspapers and on television news broadcasts, protest marches seem to gather a lot of coverage. Whether they are banging on buckets, operating giant puppets, or baring their breasts for peace, apparently they make good copy to the editors and producers who decide what goes to press and on the air. And unless there some awfully secret secret trials going on, I can’t think of any protestors who have been arrested and tried for treason. I know the warning at the bottom of the posted message (“NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders…”) is all scary and ominous sounding, but if we do live in such a dictatorship as described on this site, wouldn’t the owner of this blog have already been arrested and tried for treason? He hasn’t (and he should NOT be; freedom of speech is a fundamental natural right), and you haven’t, so where’s this police-state paranoia coming from?

67. Thank you for standing up for what is right. I am so shocked at what Bush gets away with and why Congress does not stand up (he must have something on them thru his secret surveilance (sp). My question is why are we not all out in the streets? I guess I am not because I fel like it will do not good. The media will ignore us and Bush’s judicial system will arrest us and try us for treason. It feels like the whole world is falling apart-so much hate, so much violence. Beam me up Scottie. We should be at a place in consciousness-in our hearts-where war is not an option and an archaic idea and to cause the death of another person is beyond comprehension. Have we really evolved? I hope God, or the ET’s come to save us from destroying this world and ourselves. We have not learned from out mistakes, our hearts our shut down and we just wait-waiting to see what happens. Extremely sad.

68. Merle,

    I challenge you to name ten good things the Bush Administration has accomplished in the last seven years or ten ways in which the nation is better off than it was in 1999.

    Go ahead…

69. It hurts to know that there is a percentage of Americans that view the stand Brattleboro is taking as treasonous, stupid, etc. These same people are likely the ones that called for Clinton’s head during the Lewinsky incident (scandal is too strong to say in light of Bush setting the bar so freaking high). Yet it is heartening to see this town stand together and voice their concern, as well as Kucinich and Wexler in the Legislature. Let’s get back to being a sound country, based on the Constitution, and get Ron Paul into office!

70. Sadly, the politicians in Washington do not have the guts to stand up, because of the complications that arise from taking an unequivocal stand on an issue, and do what you have done. I hope your example, and the responses you get from it, inspire the rest of the country’s lawmakers to balk at Pelosi’s “impeachment is off the table” stance. Impeach Bush and Cheney, and save us from the past, present and future crimes of this administration.

71. Merle wrote: “There is no real charges or evidence to bring against [Bush and Cheney].”

    To the contrary, we have solid evidence that they’ve lied hundreds of times to bring America into this pointless war. There are *hundreds of thousands of people dead* because of their lies. Cheney alone has personally profited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars with huge no-bid contracts given to his company at rates far above the market rates for work that does not seem even to have been delivered.

    And this is just the tip of the iceberg — but these alone, which are a matter of public record, are enough to not only impeach the pair of them but to jail them for life for war crimes and corruption.

72. I wish more cities and counties and states would do this.

73. I`m pretty sure that the 32 percent of Americans left who actually feel Bush is doing a good job are also positive that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that ancient Egyptians rode around on dinosaurs.

74. hehe… my favorite…

    “no internet, no libraries, newspapers without integrity (probably true), no FOX NEWS” FOX News, are you kidding me… Yeah, faux news, the most reliable news source of disinformation in the world!!

75. Right on Brattleboro! Some nobody town in Vermont has more guts and courage than the rest of the country. I’m fucking jealous.

76. Bring back the GALLOWS for these criminals

77. I like this email:

    “Well you bunch of cow milkin hippies need to wake up cause if you think it’s bad now wait till you get one of those gay lovin, baby killin, lettin the illegal mexicans come over for free democrats in office then you gonna see bad you limp noodled cock eyed weirdos”

    It just goes to show the lack of intelligence and arrogance in the 32% that still support George Bush. They have no argument. The dumbing down of society at it’s finest.

78. Here’s the evidence: HERE

    And yes, the Democrat led Congress failed and is failing horribly.

79. While I whole heartedly agree they should be arrested, I find it interesting that you’re only posting the messages that agree with the town. Anyway, it’s only a message. The town council has no authority to force the police of the town to arrest anyone. That being said…WAY TO GO!

80. (This email just sent to the Brattleboro Chamber of Commerce) The recent resolution by your citizens to impeach Pres. Bush and VP Chaney are over the top, filled with hate and meanness. What a bunch of freaks live in your city and state! The people of your city are welcome to their opinion and i will certainly voice mine. As long as this resolution remains, we will never visit VT, buy its products or trade with its companies.

    There is no real charges or evidence to bring against them, for if there was the Democrat led Congress failed badly in taking no action. Its obviously it is an election year and the left hate machine is in full gear. Brattleboro’s action is similiar to Florida’s Democrats who said at the last election that Bush’s Cabinet should be lined up at a wall and shot!

Comments are closed.