Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« The Alec Rawls Trap | Main | Utah whip strikes blow for the Enlightenment »

February 27, 2006

The logic of impeachment

Finnegan has a very impressive post about the logic of impeaching George W. Bush for spying on Americans in violation of FISA: Put Your Modus Where Your Ponens Is.

Finn hammers home a point that can't be stressed forcefully enough or too often: Impeachment for FISA is a no-brainer. There's no question the president broke the law, and there's no question that his offense is a serious felony that he committed in his official capacity as POTUS. There are no nagging questions about whether his misconduct could be dismissed as a personal matter, or whether his misdeeds rise to the level of national importance. Nor is there any doubt that Congress has a duty to impeach any president who commits crimes on this scale--the alternative would be to put the president above the law.

Only practical questions remain: Do Democrats have the political power and the popular support to impeach George W. Bush. Right now, the answer is clearly no. However, the 2006 elections might drastically alter the balance of power in Washington. If and when they do, we should be ready. That means keeping the impeachment discussion alive until justice can be done.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The logic of impeachment:

» All Your Phone Calls Are Belong to Us! from Scott Paeth's Semi-Daily Blog
Whatever should we do about the crimes of the Bush Administration? Why, fix the law so that it's not a crime anymore!The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, [Read More]


The war on TERROR -- which involves Iraq, but is not limited to it -- is even more deadly for America and the world than WWII or the Civil War.

So you must be pretty pissed at Bush for fucking things up so badly in Iraq, then, seeing as you're claiming it's one front in the Most Important War Ever.


I am critical of many aspects of the war in Iraq, yes. It should have been fought, but the planning could have been a lot better, etc.


Japan and Germany did not have access to the type of nuclear and other weapons that Al Queda and their lot are actively seeking and may some day get.

If the US had been so craven as to do so, they could have cut a deal with both Japan and Germany. There is no such possiblity with Osama and the Islamofascist movement, disengenous truce talk nonewithstanding.

Read their own words. They knocked down two 110 story buildings in your country.

The Iranians have said that they want to obliterate a country that has done them no harm, and they may very soon have nuclear weapons.

There is a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement that aims at the subversion and subjugation of all Western countries. Are you not aware of this? Are you guys concerned about it?

Hitler and Hirohito were stopped with conventional arms ( and the Atomic Bomb, which I am sure you would all be in favor of ). Eliminating this deeprooted threat will not be so " easy ". It may take centuries to do.

You spend your time crying about Ashcroft and Bush and the Patriot Act and FISA when metaphorical triggers are being pointed at you, your family, and everyone you know.

Go ahead, and fiddle when Rome burns. Yeah, Bush is the real problem, everyone on the campus knows that.

How can a trigger be pointed at something?

Its usually pointed in the same direction as the barrel!

Japan and Germany did not have access to the type of nuclear and other weapons that Al Queda and their lot are actively seeking and may some day get.

Posted by: The Phantom | February 28, 2006 at 02:03 PM

1. Nazi has a heavy water plant.

2. Key nuclear US nuclear physicists and rocket scientists are German expats or refugee from Nazi posecution. (starting with Einstein, Niels Bohr, Fermi, Heisenberg, Hilbert, Planck, ...)

Vermork Heavy water plan

Nazi was more advance in nuclear technology at the beginning of WWII.


Now, please show me
1. Al qaeda nuclear scientist
2. Al Qaeda nuclear capability
3. Possible scenario of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapon. (no, asshat neocon science fiction and Fox news doesn't count.)

You have 21 hour to bring your proof, write back if you need more time.

Hitler and Hirohito

Posted by: The Phantom | February 28, 2006 at 02:03 PM

Look,It is fairly obvious, you are pulling stuff out of your rear end. You are an operative, complete with fake blog #3.

So from now on, please include LINK, verifiable info, the basics. damned poster for hire. Why can't they at least put out a good operative instead of the usual idiots. Next thing we know we are talking about can of Ravioli again.

Posted by: The Phantom | February 28, 2006 at 01:19 PM

of course it's unworthy.

for each asshat post you do here, I will make a thread in Hannity forum. We'll see how you wingnut logic hold up. I haven't done that in a long while. Last time I did it. there is almsot a religious war in Hannity forum. People were yelling left and right threatening to kill each other.

damned, this will take awhile. I have to recreate my avatar.

New Detention Sweep Targets Individuals from Muslim Nations
The Justice Department announced the Absconder Apprehension Initiative, targeting immigrants from Middle East nations against whom deportation orders are outstanding. The department seeks to apprehend and interview Middle Eastern citizens to "prosecute any who have ties to terrorism and [compile] the results of interviews in a new computer database." According to the New York Times, many of those picked up in this sweep are individuals with strong community ties, including small business owners, families, and parents of U.S. citizens.
Sources: The New York Times, "Cost of Vigilance: This Broken Home," Susan Sachs, June 4, 2002; The Washington Post, "Tenet Paints Grim Picture Of A …," Feb. 10, 2002

Ashcroft Collects Personal Data on College Students, Staff
Attorney General John Ashcroft has requested that U.S. colleges and universities submit personal information about foreign students and employees to the FBI, angering civil liberties activists. In late 2002, the FBI asked colleges to turn over information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers and citizenship information of foreign students and employees, allegedly to help avert terrorist attacks. The Association of American College Registrars and Admissions Officers has advised its members "not to pass on information unless served with a court order," and according to the FBI, compliance is voluntary.
Source: The Independent, "FBI Asks Colleges to Hand Over Files on All Foreigners," Andrew Gumbel, Dec. 26, 2002

Ashcroft Refuses to Identify Detainees
The Justice Department is appealing a ruling ordering the government to release the names of those detained as part of the war against terrorism. According to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gregory Katsas, the government opposes releasing the names of detainees, as well as the charges against them, on the grounds that it would allow terrorists to cull vital information. According to Kate Martin, the lawyer for one of the 22 groups asking that the government release the detainees' names, "the concept of secret arrests is odious to a democratic society."
Source: The Associated Press, "U.S. Argues for Secret Detentions," Jonathan D. Salant, Nov. 18, 2002,2763,921657,00.html

Bush war budget 'does not add up'

Mark Tran
Tuesday March 25, 2003

As President George Bush today formally asks Congress for $75bn (£48bn) for the war in Iraq, his emergency request has already come under fire.

The proposal includes $63bn for the war itself - enough to keep American troops in Iraq for nearly five months - $8bn for international aid and relief, and $4bn for homeland security.

Of the $63bn for the war effort, $53bn will go towards the deployment of troops, $5bn to replenish weapons and $1.5bn in payments to Pakistan and others, and unspecified classified expenses, most likely for the CIA.

Bush’s Tyranny for a Bankrupt Nation

By Mike Whitney

01/05/06 "ICH" -- -- President Bush has consistently defended his massive $500 billion tax cuts. He has insisted that deficit spending be a “permanent” part of the national budget. His economic plan has eroded the confidence of central banks around the world and increased the federal debt by a whopping $3 trillion. Still, he persists in his claim that deficits should be an enduring function of government.

Doesn’t this confirm that bankrupting the country is an integral part of the Bush grand strategy?

What more proof do we need?

Imagine someone stealing your credit card and running up a $450,000 bill year after year and then defending the theft as necessary to “create more jobs” as the “trickle-down” theorists do?

Would you take such a person at his word?

Deficits are theft; and the determination to make these lavish tax cuts for the wealthy permanent proves beyond a doubt that it is part of a larger strategy to bring about an economic meltdown that will change the political complexion of the country.;_ylt=A86.I1sngu1DUxUAgQQe6sgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

Iraq, not homeland, Bush budget buster

President Bush submitted a budget to Congress this week that is so big, most of us just shrug it off without thinking about what it means to us individually. Think about this:

• The $2.77 trillion budget for the fiscal year starting in October breaks down to an average of $9,293.62 for everyone in the USA.

• The latest budget request for
Iraq of about $96 billion brings the cost of that war to $322 billion, an average of $1,080.34 per person.

If you think big business or somebody else will pay the bill, think again. About 45% of the federal government's revenue comes from individual income taxes.

Greenspan: Bush Budget Bankrupting America

The Washington Post today reports that the economic worries of Americans just are not registering with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. While many people spend their days worried about gas prices, rising inflation and a falling stock market, lawmakers are busy interfering with the court system and trying to increase the deficit by privatizing Social Security. Increasingly, Congress and the President are just out of touch with the economic worries of Americans. Now it seems they are out of touch with the economic worries of the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Alan Greenspan testified today before the Senate Budget Committee and had this to say:

Indeed, under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending, these projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years. But most important, deficits as a percentage of GDP in these simulations rise without limit. Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse.

So the Federal Reserve Chairman is basically saying to President Bush and his allies in Congress, “keep this up and you’ll bankrupt the country.” Future generations will be stuck with the bill.

1. Iraq is in civil war. That means the raw cost (just equipments/fuel/supplies) will escalate. It will make the first 3 years look like a cheap picnic compared to what's to come.

2. The debt vs. GNP is already passing the dangerous 6% level. Bush gonna need to fake the economic stats really hard just to keep the deficit/GDP near 6%. It will start to distort all other economic data. And then the whole thing will collapse.


Nuclear techology has progressed a great deal since 1945. As has proliferation. You may have heard of Pakistan ( its next to India ) , where there are grave fears that its nuclear technology has been leaked now only to foreign nations but to terrorists as well?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Do your own research. If you think Al Queda is not seeking nuclear capabilities, as well as other means of mass killing, you're pretty naive.

This may start your education in this subject
Of course, you may have to put down the Noam Chomsky paperback in order to read it.

Squashed Lemon

Call the doctor and ask him to increase the dosage.



Absconder Apprehension
Excellent! What's wrong with that? They should have been doing that! I'd impeach any son of a bitch politician who did not support this! Impeach Kerry!

I remember when this thread was about impeachment...

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Posted by: The Phantom | February 28, 2006 at 06:30 PM

I am not going to do your homework, It is so obvious, Go search yourself, Everybody knows it.

(Look, pal. None of us are n00b here. that approximately translate to: I pull those out off my ass, and I am trying to bluster my way out)

now. let me repeat my RFI

"please show me
1. Al qaeda nuclear scientist
2. Al Qaeda nuclear capability
3. Possible scenario of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear"

Please note this is a second request. (I am pretty sure try to pull next BS. In that case try to be novel and interesting move. Everybody here already know the classics.)

The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer

Dialectic in this sense of the word has no other aim but to reduce to a regular system and collect and exhibit the arts which most men employ when they observe, in a dispute, that truth is not on their side, and still attempt to gain the day. Hence, it would be very inexpedient to pay any regard to objective truth or its advancement in a science of Dialectic; since this is not done in that original and natural Dialectic innate in men, where they strive for nothing but victory. The science of Dialectic, in one sense of the word, is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyse dishonest stratagems, in order that in a real debate they may be at once recognised and defeated. It is for this very reason that Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its aim and purpose.

Posted by: Eli | February 28, 2006 at 06:49 PM

enumeration of each point is comment events in argument.

--I remember when this thread was about impeachment..--

The motion to impeach does not carry.

The motion to impeach does not carry.

Posted by: The Phantom | February 28, 2006 at 07:10 PM

try not to get cute. You rightwing mofos are disgusting enough without being saccharin.

And let’s not forget that Cheney’s political albatrossity is only destined to grow more pronounced next year when the Libby trial commences. In the furor over Quailgate, it was easy to forget the recent disclosure that Libby had told the grand jury that his “superiors” had authorized some of his intelligence leaks to journalists. And it was easy to overlook Cheney’s startling suggestion in his interview with Brit Hume that, as vice-president, he has the power to declassify information unilaterally. Both revelations are ripe with legal import for Libby. And both are brimming with political implications for Cheney and Bush—none of them positive.


You want to suspend the constitutional limits on the President to enable us to fight a war that might go on for CENTURIES?

You just don't believe in our way of government. Neither does Bush. That's why he should be impeached, with the illegal wiretaps as exhibit A.

They even spy on their own.

ThinkProgress blog is reporting that the Minnesota Republican Party has been distributing a new CD about a recent proposed amendment. The CD poses questions about some of the hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration. The problem with this CD, however, is that it "phones home" to the Minnesota GOP, without making it clear that your name is attached. So, if you take a look at the CD and take time to answer the questions, beware. Once you are finished they will know not only who you are, but where you stand on the issues at hand.

--You just don't believe in our way of government. Neither does Bush. That's why he should be impeached, with the illegal wiretaps as exhibit A--

Please grow up. If you think that the inherent powers of a President in wartime, or this President, should be scaled back, then say that.

If you think that the wiretapping that has taken place is not within the inherent powers of a President in these times, then say that.

But to say that the President should be impeached over this is , hate to say it, stupid. If you want to say silly things re national security from a liberal point of view, then please don't be surprised that Americans do not trust liberals on the issue of security. They do not.

National security is the only issue Bush has got going for him. And you and the " Impeach the Chimp! " schumucks gave it to him. Congratulations.

The world changed on September 11. If your worldview didn't change that day, you're not thinking. You're just agreeing with your damned friends.

If you think that the wiretapping that has taken place is not within the inherent powers of a President in these times, then say that.

That is, indeed, exactly what we are saying, which is what makes it illegal and hence, potentially impeachable.

Well, from my vantage point in Brooklyn, the types that are babbling about impeachment now wanted to impeach GWB the day he took office. Its complete f***ing bullshit.

Partially related to the Clinton impeachment. Which I opposed vehemently.

This immature line of discussion betrays a terrible misunderstanding of the country and of the times we live in.

But ok, " Impeach the Chimp ", rah rah rah.

I like the fact that Phantom's rationale for wiretapping relies on some vague sense of GWOT "wartime" - yet he argues that this war will take centuries! So apparently this expansive reading of executive power is supposed to last for the next few hundred years.

The comments to this entry are closed.