June 29, 2007

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority."

USA Today transcribes the remarks of Barack Obama.

Let's try to understand what this means. We've got to wait until the next election unless... unless what? George Bush deliberately puts on some incredibly serious pants?

107 comments:

Peter Palladas said...

Well if you gonna have the right to 'bare arms' you gotta compensate with some serious strides.

Technical question: are breeches the same as 'britches' as worn by Pa ['The Waltons' passim]?

You can see the logical link, yet the two garments simply don't conjure up comparable images.

Bush in britches down on the farm - a natural. Bush in breeches in the Oval office - oh how we laughed.

The Drill SGT said...

You would think that both the reporter/transcriber and the editor would have a better grasp of breach versus breeches. Sad when a poor illiterate ex-soldier like me recognizes the error :)

I guess J schools don't focus much on basic tools like English.

I wonder if they would ascribe:

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,"

as a comment about getting into the pants of a French cutie named Harfeur

Doyle said...

Of course Obama's going to oppose impeachment, because he's a pragmatist, but for someone who recognizes how flagrantly criminal the Bush administration is, it's unprincipled and thus a little disappointing.

Bush and Cheney are the worst case scenario. They are absolutely what the framers had in mind when they provided for impeachment.

Richard Fagin said...

The Consitution also states that Article III judges shall serve "during good behavior." That seems on its face to be a whole lot lower threshold for impeachment than "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Maybe Tom De Lay was on to something.

As for the "breeches", well that's one more nail in the coffin of the MSM's claim to superior product by reason of the "layers" of editorial review.

Kim said...

And yet there are so many who say we have a right to free "speach" ... I see that one all the time.

Sloanasaurus said...

Bush and Cheney are the worst case scenario. They are absolutely what the framers had in mind when they provided for impeachment.

You are off the mark Doyle.

Actually, the framers had more in mind to impeach those who violate the constitution - that being someone more like Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens.

Richard Fagin said...

...and as for Doyle's comment, how can one reasonably say that Bush and Cheney are the "worst case scenario"? Are we forgetting President Nixon, who miusused his office to obstruct justice with respect to domestic criminal activity? In Nixon's case, the criminal activity wasn't even performed for a possible public benefit - it was for the private political gain of the Nixon Administration.

We can argue all day about whether conduct in the Bush Administration rises to the level of impeachable offense, but in no way is his administration the "worst case scenario", not even close.

I think we've now esatblished that Bush Derangement Synrome even sweeps Nixon under the carpet. That should give us all pause.

Pogo said...

USA Today, what a bunch of loosers.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This is what happens when we rely on spell checking instead of good old fashioned proofreading. This and the fact that most college graduates are abysmally undereducated. Another testament to modern education.

Doyle said...

I think we've now esatblished that Bush Derangement Synrome even sweeps Nixon under the carpet. That should give us all pause.

So wise! It's almost as though my failure to address Nixon suggests that I thought he was a great president.

We could argue who is more criminal and corrupt: Bush or Nixon. But that's a separate question from whether Bush should be impeached.

The more recent comparison would be Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

Too many jims said...

Given Prof. Althouse's disdain for men in shorts, I think that if Bush wore breeches (i.e. short trousers) we may have found an offense that he committed which would be impeachable.

Barry Kearns said...

Of course, such an impeachment trial could only be presided over by Roy L Pearson Junior...

SteveR said...

Doyle, Whose fault is it that Congress is not proceeding to impeach Bush/Cheney? We can argue whether lying about a blow job was impeachable but so what? If BushmcChimpyHilterBurton and Dick "go f yourself Cheney are so bad, go for it. If fact I'm begging you to go for it. Please!

Sloanasaurus said...

The more recent comparison would be Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

It's interesting trying to understand the twisted immoral logic of the left. They think Bush is a criminal for going "beyond the law" in his attempt to protect the American people at personal risk to himself for being impeached. Worse yet, they are peeved that Bush has been successful at protecting the American people - no attacks in 6 years.

Clinton, however, is innocent because he was only violating the law in an attempt to look out for himself. Despite the fact that Clinton failed in protecting the American people.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Imbreechment: Althouse's crime of wearing short pants as an adult male not engaged in a sporting or recreational activity.

Doyle said...

Stever, you'll notice the point here isn't that I'm angry at anyone for not pursuing impeachment. If it would hurt Dems' electoral chances then I guess it's probably not worth it.

But as to whether he SHOULD be impeached, that's a no brainer.

I don't excuse what Clinton did, but he never claimed that he should be able to lie and break all sorts of other laws with impunity because of the terrorist threat.

The Bush administration recognizes no limits on its "inherent Article II power," which is a fancy way of saying we live in a dictatorship at the moment.

It's an unprecedented and radical regime that really should be changed immediately.

Did you see Bush's response to the immigration bill defeat by the way? What good is he doing anyway? The guy's just a drain on our country while he remakes it for the worse.

MadisonMan said...

sloan, how did Clinton fail to protect US Citizenry? Where were the attacks on US soil after the WTC in 1993? I admit to a faulty memory, so maybe I'm forgetting something important.

SteveR said...

But as to whether he SHOULD be impeached, that's a no brainer.

They have a constitutional duty of their own to proceed then. Putting political motivations above their constitutional duties is inarguably worse than Bush's motivation.

Do you see anything wrong with that Doyle? He refuses to acknowledge their subpoenas. He's obviously hiding something.

Steven said...

It boggles my mind how easily people throw around these silly charges that we live in a "dictatorship."

If that were true, most of the people saying it would be in jail or dead. Not to mention the fact that if we were living in a dictatorship, we would have a new immigration law today, courtesy of our "dictator."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

sloan, how did Clinton fail to protect US Citizenry? Where were the attacks on US soil after the WTC in 1993? I admit to a faulty memory, so maybe I'm forgetting something important

Hard to say how he failed or not failed. Maybe we should check Sandy Berger's sock drawer. Since he went to the trouble to steal documents from the National Archives and then destroy them, I assume they would have been something important and detrimental to the Clinton "Legacy". If they were positive documents I kind of don't think they would try to hide that.

However, since he isn't talking and the documents are shredded, we will never know.

Luckyoldson said...

you think the "msm" as you call it was caught off guard?

how do you think fox (faux) news felt about this?

In its new poll, Fox News asked:

“If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?”

Democrats 41%, Republicans 38%, Both the same 9%, Don’t know 12%

HA!!

Luckyoldson said...

wittle dust bunny...

you neglected to address the question: were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001??

well...??

Luckyoldson said...

sloan says: "They think Bush is a criminal for going "beyond the law" in his attempt to protect the American people at personal risk to himself for being impeached."

i love this part: "at personal risk to himself..."

duh.

and you wonder why i think this man is an idiot.

Luckyoldson said...

witle dust bunny..."Another testament to modern education."

yeah!!

what happened to that good ol' fashioned "education"..without them damn computers and the internet!!

p.s. still waiting for your response regarding the attacks on american soil between 1993-2001.

cat got your wittle tongue?

SteveR said...

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted

Luckyoldson said...

IMPEACHMENT:

Deadliest Three Months For US Troops Since Iraq War Began...

Luckyoldson said...

stever,
you mean the suckfest?

Fen said...

how did Clinton fail to protect US Citizenry?

Clinton was busy sodomizing interns and sexually assualting campaign volunteers WHILE Al Queda plotted 9-11. Maybe if he took half the energy he spent deceeving his wife/staff/country and instead focused on the terrorists after WTC bombing, Kobar towers, USS Cole, etc...

Basically, Clinton was our Caligula. Immersed in decadence and depravity while barbarians were beating on the gates.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo said..."USA Today, what a bunch of loosers."

kind of says it all...

Luckyoldson said...

fen-fen...have you mentioned this "sodomizing" thing to pogo?

so far to the right of reason...you're barely on the planet.

*oh...and when exactly were we attacked on american soil between 1993-2001?

got a location, date and time?

Luckyoldson said...

fen-fen,
what state are the Kobar towers and USS Cole in?

Luckyoldson said...

in case you didn't see it:

FOX NEWS POLL:

“If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?”

Democrats 41%, Republicans 38%, Both the same 9%, Don’t know 12%

Fen said...

Doyle: Of course Obama's going to oppose impeachment, because he's a pragmatist, but for someone who recognizes how flagrantly criminal the Bush administration is, it's unprincipled and thus a little disappointing. Bush and Cheney are the worst case scenario

Whats the High Crime?

Dems won't impeach over the "mislead us into war" meme, because they know its a lie that won't survive scrutiny.

Sloanasaurus said...

you neglected to address the question: were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001??

Duh... Lucky you are the biggest moron on this board. Al Qaeda was too busy building up their army during this time... the army they unleashed on Sept 11. In 1993 they had no organization. IN 2001, they had tens of thousands of trained terrorists in 50 countries across the world.

Fen said...

what state are the Kobar towers and USS Cole in?

Idiot. The point is that Al Queda was telegrpahing their threat all during Clinton's administration. He chose to kick the can down the road because warfare would destroy his "popularity". He told you what you wanted to hear [idiot again] and let AQ become more embolden. He should have stopped them in Africa instead of using the Office of the President to get laid.

You're the kind of moron who would have claimed that Hitler's no threat to us, he just wants more living space

Fen said...

Dolye: The more recent comparison would be Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

Lying about sexual harassment & sexual discrimination of subordinate employees. [see: 1994 Crime Bill, signed by Clinton]

/fixed

Dust Bunny Queen said...

old lucky asks: what state are the Kobar towers and USS Cole in?

Any official Embassies, military installations and other offical government facilities are considered American soil.

We were attacked repeatedly during the years you question. Since you seem to have so much free time....google it.

Sloanasaurus said...

in case you didn't see it:

the story at Picadilly is that the authorities accidentially stumbled upon a bomb before it went off...hmmm...this seems hard to believe. Most likely the authorities knew it had been planted.

Lucky, I assume you are out making sure your surrender monkey buddies put pressure on the British not to "aggressively question" anyone found in connection with the Picadilly bomb to track down other bomb plots. After all, we wouldn't want to risk violating some terrorist's human rights to save 1000 people.

Doyle said...

Whats the High Crime?

Well the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is highly illegal. The military tribunals were illegal. Torture of prisoners is illegal. Using the offices of the federal government, up to and including the Justice Department, for partisan purposes is illegal. Lying to Congress is illegal, yet Gonzalez retains the "full confidence" of the president. Then there's the refusal to allow Congress it's constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Then there's the outsourcing of the executive branch to his Vice President, who then claims not to be a part of it. His signing statements announce that he reserves the right to violate the law he's signing, if he deems it necessary.

In short, we know some but not all of the ways in which he's broken the law. Finding out the rest requires investigations, which of course are being stonewalled.

ITMFA.

Luckyoldson said...

fen-fen asks: "Whats the High Crime?"

well, if there's no "high crime"...why not provide the testimony and documents requested by congress??

this isn't a dictatorship, it's a democracy/republic with branches of government to protect our rights.

remember nixon?

same bullshit.

Seven Machos said...

Over 25 percent of the posts here are by the same fatuous person. Do you find that odd?

Doyle said...

Over 25 percent of the posts here are by the same fatuous person.

Ann?

Seven Machos said...

Actually, considering the matter in depth, over one-third of all the posts here are by the same two fatuous people.

Weird.

Sloanasaurus said...

Well the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is highly illegal.

The Constitution allows searches without warrants if they are reasonable. Listening to terrorist calls from a foreign country is more than reasonable. Not listening to these calls would be an impeachable offense.

The military tribunals were illegal.

They wern't illegal during any other war. How are they all of a sudden illegal now. Military tribunals are the proper forum for enemy soldiers/combatants making war against the United States.

Torture of prisoners is illegal.

Exept you define torture as sleep deprivation. Your definition of torture is twisted and unreasonable. Torture means the streatching rack. Under normal views of what torture is we do not torture.

Using the offices of the federal government, up to and including the Justice Department, for partisan purposes is illegal.

You mean like when Bill clinton fired all of the US Attorneys in 1994. What a joke argument. To you anything that isn't liberal is a partisan purpose.

Lying to Congress is illegal, yet Gonzalez retains the "full confidence" of the president.

So are you saying Congress should impeach Gonzalez? Now you are stretching.

Then there's the refusal to allow Congress it's constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

Ba ha ha ha haha. Too bad Bush is refusing to allow Congress its fishing expedition. Maybe Congress should pass laws that aid the american people like protecting the borders, reforming social security, solving the health care system, rather than finding out if Bush looked at a dirty magazine.

Your arguments are so pathetic, it's a wonder the blog allows your posts to stick.

Luckyoldson said...

wittle dust bunny says: "Any official Embassies, military installations and other offical government facilities are considered American soil."

wrong...as usual.

Contrary to popular belief, embassies are not considered American soil; however, American embassies are used by American diplomats and citizens.

On January 11, 2008, this administration will finally tie the Clinton Administration's record for keeping Americans safe from a terrorist attack on American soil. That period of six years and four months was from the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995 to September 10, 2001. The Clinton Administration managed this period of bomb-free American soil without:


* Preemptive strikes that led to the death or maiming of tens of thousands of American servicemembers
* An invasion that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians
* Spending over $450 billion dollars
* A PATRIOT ACT
* Massive surveillance programs

Luckyoldson said...

seven,
hey!!

who you calling fat?

Mr.Murder said...

New to the thread, but you know the adage.

A lie makes its way half way around the world before the truth has its pants on. How prescient this remains in blogtopia's discourse!

Perhaps USA Today's commitment to 'bringing the right wing viewpoint' into media at its founding is what contributes to its snark-worthy highlights that Ann notes here.

Cedarford said...

Pity the poor min wage copywriter/intern at USA Today. Accuracy in Media shows that not only are the bottom tier of apparachniks in the media bottom tier students, they catch them routinely altering straight news feeds into hyperbolic anti-war, anti-Bush tirades as those at the bottom also wish to be opinion columnists. A decent editor of 50 years ago would be appalled at the low standard at the USA Today, most cable news, and the NYTimes, for that matter. Mass firings..

**************
Fagin - Are we forgetting President Nixon, who miusused his office to obstruct justice with respect to domestic criminal activity? In Nixon's case, the criminal activity wasn't even performed for a possible public benefit - it was for the private political gain of the Nixon Administration.

We can argue all day about whether conduct in the Bush Administration rises to the level of impeachable offense, but in no way is his administration the "worst case scenario", not even close.

I think we've now esatblished that Bush Derangement Synrome even sweeps Nixon under the carpet. That should give us all pause.


And lying under oath and straight to the American people about a blowjob is not an act of Clinton seeking private political gain??? We didn't impeach Clinton, just disbarred him, because he was likeable and competent.

Nixon was competent, but very unlikeable to Jews, though he saved Israel, and other powerful forces on the Left.

We now know that JFK, RFK, LBJ did far sleazier things than Nixon did - but got away with it because the media was not on a vendetta against them the way they locked on Nixon over "red witch hunts" - even though "Saint Bobby" was deeper in it than Dick.

History shows Nixon was right about his "McCarthyite witch hunt targets" - traitors all of them..And his "cover-up" of a burglary and "taking power" to an imperial Executive doesn't begin to touch the stuff FDR, JFK, and LBJ did. Or the stuff, much of a scandalous or criminal nature, swept under the rug with the "diligent press" holding up the corner of the rug, as they pretended not to see.

History eventually favors the competent Presidents that ideologues reviled at the time -Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, TDR because Americans are still pragmatic people despite efforts of Ruling Elite ideologues to turn the mob on small flaws in leaders they oppose.

But flat out incompetents like Pierce, Harding, Carter, and Bush II stay at the bottom.

Look for both LBJ and Nixon to continue to rise in historical estimation.

MadisonMan said...

And what was the reaction of most Republican politicians, and most of the right-leaning talk radiosphere, when Clinton did go after Bin laden in Afghanistan & Sudan in 1998?

"The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities," Cohen said. "That is the sole motivation." Many Repubicans (not all) did not share this viewpoint.

Something I've asked before: How many American lives have been lost because Republicans in the late 90s were so focused on Clinton's penis? I do not excuse Clinton's gross behavior, but to lay all blame at his feet serves no one in this country. The same is true for Democrats now excoriating Bush: Do not take your eye off the terrorist ball.

Luckyoldson said...

oh, please.

my posts are all in the last hour and i'll be playing golf within minutes anyway.

sorry to intrude on the usual suckfest.

*and i LOVE the way you w-h-i-n-e..."A-N-N-N-N-N..."

Luckyoldson said...

cedar,
you don't consider selecting u.s. attorneys, based on their politics and race to be beyond the pale?

since when?

Seven Machos said...

Indeed, Clinton could have made the case that we should have gone after Bin Laden. The Good Lord knows, he would have done a better job than Bush has done.

But, he never made that case, did he? Arguably the one man in the United States who had the rhetorical skills to make a case about preemptively killing transnational terrorist leaders was -- uhh, how to say it? -- too busy.

Also, every time Clinton bombed the Sudan or Afghanistan, it was remarkably close to a time when Monicagate was on the frontpage again. Perhaps it was always a coincidence. Perhaps, since it is so unusual that coincidences repeat themselves (because repeating coincidences are not actually coincidences), Clinton was trying to avert negative press coverage and kill transnational terrorist leaders simultaneously. There is a certain moral taint to that.

Ultimately, both Clinton and Bush have failed in this war on transnational Islamic crazies. Clinton failed because he acted meekly at best. Bush failed because he is the worst rhetorician in the history of time.

Seneca the Younger said...

Oh, you truly should be ashamed of yourself.

The Exalted said...

Sloanasaurus said...
you neglected to address the question: were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001??

Duh... Lucky you are the biggest moron on this board. Al Qaeda was too busy building up their army during this time... the army they unleashed on Sept 11. In 1993 they had no organization. IN 2001, they had tens of thousands of trained terrorists in 50 countries across the world.


as always, you are wrong about everything.

Seven Machos said...

Lani Guinier.

Luckyoldson said...

sloan,
can you read? i didn't ask for the standard right wing talking points. it was a direct question:

"were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001??"

yes or no????

Luckyoldson said...

seven say: "Bush failed because he is the worst rhetorician in the history of time."

that has to be one of the most inane comments ever posted on a blog...ever.

the "articulation" excuse...

D-U-H...

Sloanasaurus said...

sloan,
can you read? i didn't ask for the standard right wing talking points. it was a direct question:


No one is going to answer your moronic question lucky, it is a classic lefty strawman. It is some picture of you screaming with your face red as your soil your pants with your leftist rants.

Go back in your hole. Prick.

This thread was a decent conversation before you arrived.

Every thread is decent before you show up.

Luckyoldson said...

the exalted refers to the assholes who took part in the 9/11 attack as..."the army they unleashed on Sept 11..."

"army??"

duh.

Seven Machos said...

January 25, 1993. Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

February 26, 1993. World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra'/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front

March 1, 1994. In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

March 8, 1995. Terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, armed with automatic rifles, murdered two American consulate employees and wounded a third as they traveled in the consulate shuttle bus. American embassies and consulates are U.S. soil under U.S. law.

February 24, 1997. Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7, 1998. U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda. American embassies and consulates are U.S. soil under U.S. law.

October 12, 2000. USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, the Buffalo Six Lackawanna Cell. An attempt to destroy an American naval vessel is an act of war.

Luckyoldson said...

sloan says: "No one is going to answer your moronic question lucky, it is a classic lefty strawman."

yeah...a direct question you refuse to answer because you know contradicts your standard right wing bullshit.

gutless...as usual.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001??"

Yes. World Trade Center February 26, 1993.

Now go ahead and move the goal posts some more.

Seven Machos said...

Althouse -- Seriously. Get this guy out of here. He ruins a decent conversation. I enjoy banter and ever hardcore criticism with and from the left. That's why I'm here.

It's true: one guy is ruining every thread.

Fen said...

Lucky: were we or were we NOT attacked on american soil between 1993 and 2001? [emph added]

Thats a stupid disqualifier. American interests were attacked by AQ between 1993 and 2001. Your concept that our interests stop at the US border reveals what an idiot you are.

You would have fought Hitler at Normandy. We would have fought him at the Rhineland.

BTW, still waiting on the Democrat "solution" to defeat terrorism. Its not enough to parrot intellegence, diplomacy, homeland security as an invocation. Details please...

Of course, I already know what the Democrat plan is: retreat from the ME, stall for time, chatter innanely at the UN, pass meaningless resolutions. In short: kick the can down the road like Clinton did - its all about being "popular" - and let the next GOP administration handle the fallout.

Luckyoldson said...

seven,
WOW!!!

now that's what i call TERRORISM!!! (but why didn't we hear about the panic? where was fox news??)

you are such a weasel.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Althouse -- Seriously. Get this guy out of here. He ruins a decent conversation. I enjoy banter and ever hardcore criticism with and from the left. That's why I'm here.

It's true: one guy is ruining every thread


/signed

Luckyoldson said...

fen-fen...when you constantly refer to bush as the ultimate "protector"...because we haven't been attacked on american soil...you can't just throw in "American interests"...as the guideline.

again:

"were we or were we NOT...attacked on american soil between 1993 (and...for the wittle dust bunnie's benefit...after the towers) and 2001??"

*is the the best you can do wittle bunny?

Luckyoldson said...

wittle dust bunny,
rather gutless on your part.

intruding on the suckfest?

Luckyoldson said...

seven, bunny, etc.

you know...you don't HAVE TO RESPOND.

stick with your buddies.

Fen said...

Dust Bunny: /signed

echo

Ann Althouse said...

What is he doing that bugs you so much? The main thing I'm seeing is frequency. But then I skip over him. Feel free to email me if I'm missing something, but I think the frequency problem could be solved by just starving him for attention. I'm not seeing the basis for deleting him. Really, why are you letting him get to you? There will always be someone like this.

Pogo said...

Re: imbreechment
Best neologism ever.

Sloanasaurus said...

Althouse has a good point.

Let the Wookie win.

Luckyoldson said...

ann says: Ann Althouse said..."There will always be someone like this."

as in; liberal, not a member of the conservative suckfest.

and i agree with her, too. if you can't respond, don't want to respond, don't know how to respond, have nothing of substance to respond with...DON'T RESPOND.

*you all have plenty of like-minded playmates to agree with...stick to what you're good at...staying on message.

Seven Machos said...

It is frequency. I feel like there is a nice back and forth going in a thread and the momentum just gets killed by three really juvenile posts in a row.

Ultimately, you are right, Althouse. Just ignore it. My problem is that it just drags down the level of conversation. The personal insults are grating. The inability to detect sarcasm. The unique ability to say the same stuff over and over yet fail to stay on topic.

The best thing would be if Lucky could rise to the level of conversation here. When I first started posting here, I know I had a few posts like Lucky's. But people set me straight, and I developed a much more moderated voice. Lucky seems incorrigible.

Joel said...

The evolution of the left since '92 is interesting.

Clinton kills men women and children in waco, deafening silence from these neo-civil libertarians, FBI assasinates a separatist's wife while she is holding a baby, again silence. In fact they attacked those who complained about it by calling their rhetoric "inflammatory"; shooting a mans wife in cold blood silence, calling the anti gun bureacracy "jack booted thugs", inflammatory.

1st WTC attack, FBI gets broader powers, left silent. Olympic bombing, FBI gets broader powers, left silent.

So you will have to excuse me if I do not consider the lefts' complaints about Bush's "attacks" on civil liberties as serious.

Pogo said...

It just reminds me of Eggagog:

THE SPIDER-CREEPS ARE LOOKING AT THE STALKS!!

WITTLE WABBIT, ITS A CONSERVATIVE SUCKFEST!!

THIS IS THE CELERY-STALKS!!
THE CREEPS ARE YELLING ABOUT THE HATS!!!

THIS MAN IS AN IDIOT!!! DUH!!!

Bissage said...

Admittedly, Luckyoldson’s an acquired taste. But I’ve come to appreciate the predictability of his mindless, flailing hostility and I’ve only ever known one other person like him.

It was this guy in high school who used to be perfectly nice but he was riding his bike one day and got hit by a car.

Three surgeries later the doctors put a steel plate in his head.

It wasn’t long after that he lost all his friends because it was just a matter of time before he’d start needling someone hoping to start a fight.

The guy completely forgot what it meant to hang out and have a good time. I tried to stay friends with him longer than most but I eventually gave up.

Mike Gallagher, is that you?

Richard Fagin said...

Doyle, I said your failure to address Nixon as "the worst case scenario" for impeachment instead of Bush calls your judgment into question about what's truly bad in an elected official. There was no evaluation of Nixon as a president expressed or implied. Of course, reaching that conclusion means reading what I wrote and construing it literally. Maybe that's asking too much.

I am not aware of any political enemy of Bush whose tax records have been reviewed by the evil Al Gonzalez or the Islamophobe crusader John Ashcroft. I am not aware that Bush has an "enemies list" against whom the weight of the Justice Department will be loosed. I am not aware of any anti-war protesters being shot, harassed or improperly restrained by law enforcement under Bush's authority. I am not aware of the head of the FBI ordering inflitration of Quanell X's organization in Houston. I am not aware of Dick Cheney under threat of indictment for tax evasion.

You want to argue Bush is incompetent, fine. Is that reason to impeach? Might well be. "High crimes and misdemeanors", frankly, are whatever Congress says they are. But by no stretch of the imagination is Bush the "worst case scenario." I am quite sure the man will timely vacate the White House on Jan. 20, 2009 and his duly elected successor will arrive the same day. The Constitution is safe. We weren't all so sure of that 35 years ago.

I purposefully avoided taking the Clinton bait. It's not necessary to discuss Clinton at all to make the case the Bush is hardly "the worst case scenario" for impeachment.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Pogo: Regarding imbreechment--Thanks.

MadisonMan said...

Olympic bombing,

There's the post-WTC bombing on American Soil during Clinton's administration. Add it to your list Seven. Too bad it wasn't Islamofascists what did it.

Seven Machos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luckyoldson said...

Bissage said this about little ol' me:

"...I’ve come to appreciate the predictability of his mindless, flailing hostility..."

the vast majority on blog takes part in a daily bush/republican/conservative suckfest and you think I'M predictable?

you could remove the monikers from 90% of the postings and not be able to distinguish between the postings of fen, sloan, bissage, pogo, sgt, ronin, seven, or many others.

you should all consider using the same moniker:

conservative talking points, inc.

Luckyoldson said...

pogo,
your "Eggagog" posting was brilliant.

and the caps made it even BETTER.

*what did fen-fen think?

Pogo said...

THE CARROT AND EGG ARE DANCING WITH TURKEY PUPPET! LOOK AT TURKEY PUPPET!

CONSERVATIVE SUCKFEST!!

Luckyoldson said...

joel says..."Clinton kills men women and children in waco..."

clinton? i hadn't realized he was even there.

*and...can we assume you support scumbag pedophiles like korish?

Luckyoldson said...

richard fagan says: "
"I am not aware of any political enemy of Bush whose tax records have been reviewed by the evil Al Gonzalez or the Islamophobe crusader John Ashcroft."

oh, really? so...if YOU'RE not aware of it...it must not be so?

were you aware of the torture before the story broke?

how about the fired u.s attorneys or the wiretapping?

or, hey...how about gonzales and card's visit to ashcroft's hospital bed? were you aware of that?

Luckyoldson said...

pogo,
are you upset?

r-e-l-a-x...

snuggle up with fen-fen and take a little nap.

Luckyoldson said...

seven has an important request:

"The best thing would be if Lucky could rise to the level of conversation here."

what?? you mean on the same "level" as something like this...provided by YOU?

"Also, every time Clinton bombed the Sudan or Afghanistan, it was remarkably close to a time when Monicagate was on the frontpage again. Perhaps it was always a coincidence."

COINCIDENCE? you've got to be kidding!

the right wing chased the man for 8 years, spent $70,000,000 and made damn sure monica was on the front page every day or fox news EVERY HOUR ON THE HOUR. (and the msm did their part too.)

that's not coincidence...that's a plan of action.

if you really want to to raise "the level of conversation"...think about moving a centimeter or so left of the far, far right.

*oh, by the way...i do love to lambast and aggravate the "loyalists" here, but i couldn't do it if it wasn't so easy.

James said...

Sloan says:

"No one is going to answer your moronic question lucky, it is a classic lefty strawman."

Well, sorry to break the news, but the whole "Bush must be doing something right, we haven't had an attack on the U.S. since 9/11" is the classic righty strawman. It means absolutely nothing. Yes, Clinton didn't do everything he could have to stop bin Laden, but Bush has essentially made the problem worse.

Opfor311 said...

Luckyoldson;

Don't the Embassy bombings techincally count as attacks on U.S.soil since Embassies have extraterritorial status. And the attack on the U.S.S. Cole also should count, since an attack on a warship is an act of war, in and of itself.

So, yes, we were attacked on U.S. soil between 1993 and 2001.

Pogo said...

Jes' call him Lucky Threadkill.

Luckyoldson said...

Opfor311,
look, any attack on u.s. soldiers, embassies, ships, etc. is in effect, an attack on america.

okay?

but...the point i and others have tried to make is this: while many here give g.w. credit for defending america from being attacked since 9/11...which is true...clinton defended us from for an even greater period of time and is constantly criticized for being "weak on terror."

and...if you want to use YOUR examples of the embassies, the cole, any american facilities, etc. as being defacto attacks on america...then let's tally up the attacks SINCE 9/11...under bush's watch.

we'll start with the 3,577 dead and 26,129 wounded soldiers who are in the green zone, in humvees, in helicopters, in planes, etc. (and won't even consider americans who were in spain, bali or any other locale where terrorists attacked.)

and...if you think things are better now, that's your preogative, but personally...i and a vast majority of americans...don't.

clear enough?

Luckyoldson said...

james,
good luck.

Mr. Bingley said...

I think someone at USAToday is a Rutles fan.

Peter Palladas said...

Imbreechment: Althouse's crime of wearing short pants as an adult male not engaged in a sporting or recreational activity.

...if Ann truly is an adult male as you suggest (you have the evidence to back this assertion I must assume), then I don't care what s/he is actually doing in shorts I just don't want to imagine it.

Darn, there are way too many trans-sexualists confusing my life as it is!

Bissage said...

Luckyoldson said: "[Y]ou could remove the monikers from 90% of the postings and not be able to distinguish between the postings of fen, sloan, bissage, pogo, sgt, ronin, seven, or many others."

Those are all commenters I respect and I am flattered to be counted amongst their number, though I do not deserve it.

You, however, I do not respect.

Why should I?

You accomplish nothing constructive. Your aim is to frustrate, to inhibit, to destroy. You do not lead. You do not follow. You are merely in the way.

It is as if you hate yourself and inflict yourself upon others, so as to punish them. Are you really so terrible a person?

There is an alternative.

You could simply lighten up.

Give it a try and you will likely find there are others here at Althouse who share your views.

Mr.Murder said...

The power to regulate the High Seas is delegated to Congress.

Was the USS Cole in water when it was attacked?

Does water count as US soil on the other side of the planet and not bordering a State or Territory to which we claim?

When you screamed 'wag the dog' what the vote record of the political right when Clinton asked for the authority and appropriations to go after bin laden?

You're aware no attacks succeeded outside of Muslim countries after WTC bombing due to our efforts to interdict such plans? Including the millennium bombing plot.

The Muslim crescent was the region to which their activity was able to work after Bill Clinton addressed issues of the WTC followup and prosecution. Patrick Fitzgerald won the most convictions vs. Al Qaeida to date for that event.

Meanwhile Michael Chertoff was counsel to a man known to have ties linking his funding funding terrorists. The man who ran a New Jersey HMO claimed Chertoff as his representation for potential criminal matters...


History really isn't on either side on the whole vs. terror, because it opposes both parties and isn't an item as much party to politicization until Karl Rove said things like "Run on the war" and "Only Republicans can keep you safe" through his press ledes 24/7.

Luckyoldson said...

Bissage said..."Luckyoldson said: "[Y]ou could remove the monikers from 90% of the postings and not be able to distinguish between the postings of fen, sloan, bissage, pogo, sgt, ronin, seven, or many others."

Those are all commenters I respect and I am flattered to be counted amongst their number, though I do not deserve it."

and, as i stated, and you reaffirm here...90% of the people here are interchangeable.

that's why i refer to it as a gigantic suckfest.

*oh, and, based on your posting, you take "sucking" to a whole new level.

Luckyoldson said...

tell me one single thing that is better today...than when g.w. bush came into power.

*and please, not unemployment numbers; they're about the same...and the dow is a non-issue to most americans.

c'mon...ONE SINGLE THING THAT IS BETTER.

Kirk said...

Lucky,

"tell me one single thing that is better today"

Back then, I didn't have you for entertainment. Truly that is a benefit that no amount of money could have bought a mere 10 years ago.

Bissage said...

Luckyoldson, you have a tremendous opportunity here at Althouse. Our hostess is generous and tolerant in her policy regarding commenters.

Personally, I agree with you that some commenters on the “right” go too far and presume to jealously guard the comments section so as to intimidate those on the “left.” You and others who want to predominate must find that frustrating.

However, to achieve your goal, I suggest you leave your comments each as a free-standing unit. This way you will make your point unburdened by distraction. Others will follow and there will be more balance here at Althouse.

I’d like to see that; not just because it would make the comments section a more pleasant place to hang out, but also because I’d learn more.

P.S. Did you notice that I didn’t respond to your taunt? And I have no special powers of forbearance. The truth is that it’s remarkably easy to stay on point – if you’ve really got something to say.

Give it a try.

Here’s hoping.

Luckyoldson said...

thanks, kirk.

now...how about something that is better now...than before bush took office.

*you notice absolutely NO ONE could provide a single example.

p.s. i'll try bissage.

Bissage said...

Cool.

ken in sc said...

This comment is about Bush’s articulation problem. He has what I call ‘fighter pilot syndrome’. I worked with and under people like him for twenty-four years. The Air Force and the Air National Guard promote them. You have to be a pilot to command a unit of wing size or larger in the Air Forces. The problem with this is that fighter pilots are actually athletes, not intellectuals. It takes an enormous amount of hand-eye coordination and physical ability to fly a high performance jet aircraft. The part of their brain that would be used to coordinate verbal communication is used up with spatial comprehension and muscle coordination. These people are not stupid. They are very intelligent but they appear stupid because of their inability to conduct normal verbal communication. In other words they can’t talk. They need an interpreter. In the Air Force they always had one—the First Sergeant, the Senior Enlisted Adviser, the Public Affairs Officer, someone. Unfortunately George Bush does not have a decent interpreter.

Theo Boehm said...

Unfortunately, neither eye-hand coordination nor the physical ability to fly high-performance jet aircraft are among the qualities most sought in Presidents of the United States.

Commonly needed are superior verbal ability, broad knowledge, judgment, and, most importantly, wisdom. Physical conditioning helps only insofar as it supports the general well-being and health of the President.

Mr. Bush has demonstrated an abysmal lack of all these qualities, save physical conditioning.

Do we need any clearer proof that athleticism is overrated?

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus burped as follows:
"Actually, the framers had more in mind to impeach those who violate the constitution - that being someone more like Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens."

I don't tolerate fools Sloan...hence my intoerance to your foolish brand of mischief...so calling you out on this one:

1. State specifically what Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens have done to be impeached for constitutional violations.

come on asshole. tell us. you are a lawyer so you say... let's hear it...this should be a hoot...and tell you what you nerd, on every post from now on I'm going to ask how you can make a statement like that with nothing but your tight little asshole to back it up.

This is why your ilk stinks. You got no game. You are all slogans and no brains.

I didn't know Phoenix University gave law degrees....for what? $10 and a hand job?