MSNBC poll: 88% want to impeach Bush

Okay, everybody here should know by now the way I feel about those stupid, lame-ass, online polls. But I must say that I do find it amusing — if not actually meaningful — that a stupid, lame-ass, MSNBC poll now shows 88% of 48997 respondents saying that President Bush should be impeached.


  1. 1

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Stand by, Goldy. Your lame-ass troll brigade will be frothing over this one. I particularly want to hear from Mark The Moron.

  2. 2


    FYI Goldy…

    This poll was featured in a DailyKos diary, which was recommended, titled “Freep This Poll!” But still, it’s nice…

    I voted earlier. (Just once)

  3. 5

    Mark The Redneck spews:

    President had legal authority to OK taps

    By John Schmidt (Bubba’s Asst. AG)
    Published December 21, 2005

    President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

    The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

    In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

    In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”

    The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an “agent of a foreign power,” which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law’s procedures.

    But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.”

    Every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act’s terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

    FISA contains a provision making it illegal to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The term “electronic surveillance” is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication “sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person” (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by “intentionally targeting that United States person.” The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance.

    The administration has offered the further defense that FISA’s reference to surveillance “authorized by statute” is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

    But even if the NSA activity is “electronic surveillance” and the Sept. 11 resolution is not “statutory authorization” within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, “encroach upon the president’s constitutional power.”

    FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

    Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

    But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

  4. 7

    Donnageddon spews:

    Holy Craps MTR, you took, like a zillion lines to post that crappola?

    How is the “Vaginas cause women to be stupid” theory going?

    Is it hard to formulate a coherent response with a rake planted on your face?

  5. 9

    Donnageddon spews:

    Hey MTVIR, how is the whole “vaginas make women stupid” thing working out for ya?

    Getting laid frequently?

    Ooops, I know that is a sore spot with you.

    Well, at least you have Danno. And he does look good in that dress you bought him!

  6. 11

    Donnageddon spews:

    Although unscientific, I hardly find the question loaded.

    One could always jokingly choose

    No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

    People who are not paying attention, or live in Mongolia, coulod always choose that option.

  7. 13

    Richard Pope spews:

    If Goldy put the same lame-ass impeachment poll for his lame-ass poll here on Horse’s Ass, I bet the percentage wanting to impeach President Bush would be a good bit less than 88%. There are probably a higher percentage of conservatives in the Horse’s Ass readership than in the MSNBC readership.

  8. 14

    EvergreenRailfan spews:

    If it is a web-poll, than it is not scientific, I wonder if Gallup will even do a poll, they used to be non-partisan, and their founder never even voted, to maintain the integrity and objectivity of his polls.

  9. 16

    Ed spews:

    Well, just because a majority of people want it, doesn’t mean it will automatically happen. I was recently listening to a book on tape – “Secrets” by Daniel Ellsberg. He states most people voted for LBJ in ’64, believing he was seeking “no wider war.” But he ended up doing the opposite. The Pentagon planners were designing a wider war while he was campaigning against it. And most Americans voted for Nixon in ’68 because LBJ failed this task, believing Nixon would curtail it. But Nixon expanded it. It’s really about a small ruling elite forcing its will on the public, time and time again.

  10. 17

    Mike spews:

    Heh. Something tells me the pool they used to sample from is less than representative of the population as a whole. While this type of thing may serve to make one group or another feel good. Doesn’t it amount to some form of media manipulation?
    That might serve a political agenda some might find agreeable. Whats to stop them from doing the same thing to a person or issue you DO support?
    Some bitch about media political bias, which is valid at times. What I find more than bias is that they jump on a theme that they think applies to a situation and doggedly stick to it. Regardless of what the facts may be. (A good example is the way in which the media continues to portray the events that surrounded hurricane Katrina. Even though most of what has been reported about the rampant violence, why emergency services were delayed, the socio economic and race issues have been proven bogus. And of course the reporting out of Iraq)
    Basically I think the media, our “fourth estate, is out of control with no serious checks or balances to counter it.

  11. 18

    Mike spews:

    The other whack thing about that poll is while it claims to show 80 plus percent of the population thinks he should be impeached. Other polls show his overall approval rating jumping to 47 percent.

    And lets be real about the impeachment thing. It’s an extension of the pathetic tit for tat politics the country has degenerated into and its lame.


  12. 19

    JCH spews:

    If dead Democrats get to vote, then why not Hillary/”Tookie” 2008? Just because “Tookie” toasted doesn’t mean he can’t run with Hillary!! [Democrats: domestic terrorists!]

  13. 20

    LeftTurn spews:

    You know we’ll have to wait until we take back the House in 06 to actually impeach this lying cowardly piece of shit Bush. But the difference between our impeachment trial and the phoney one that the commie republicans used on President Clinton is our impeachment will be about something that matters. And oh yeah, our trial will end up in the chief chickenhawk’s conviction!

    This turd has done everything in his power to ruin America. If he doesn’t deserve impeachment, nobody does.

  14. 21

    jaybo spews:

    Bill O’Reilly had the following poll results;

    “Should the Bush administration have the power to authorize eavesdropping on telephone conversations without a warrant when national security is involved?”

    90% of respondents said yes.

    Go ahead and stake out this position too moonbats, I’m sure that you will be rewarded handsomely for it in 2006.

  15. 22

    Winston Smith spews:

    The problem with politicians and their judgements upon what is and is not a “national security” issue tends to get entangled in what they perceive to be as good or bad for their political careers. In other words, without strong oversight , they will abuse their power and use it to spy upon political enemies whether real or just perceived.

    It has been my observation with this administration that disagreement with them is tantamount in their minds with sedition. We can not have the likes of G.W. Bush and company with unlimited power to spy on whoever they wish.

    To make a Biblical analogy: Thank God for trusting men like Joseph, but when I hear a “trust me” story like Mary’s, I’m inclined to be a more than a little sceptical.

  16. 23

    Libertarian spews:

    BTW, has there been any serious polls as to impeaching Bush? The stuff from MSNBC ain’t exactly a scientific poll. Neither would one from Fox News be a good sample of the population because their audience porbably has an ideologicl slant to the right just as MSNBC’s autdience slants towards the left.

  17. 24

    klake spews:

    Hey Goldy, is there going to be a DL on the 27th? I might be able to make that.

    Comment by Donnageddon— 12/22/05 @ 1:08 am

    Donnageddon you might recheck your day timer, I heard you going to claim political asylum in Canada that night. I do recall you were the one who had a Canada flag flying in West Seattle and singing the national anthem after the election of 2004. The beer in Vancouver is a lot better tasting and the women love Green Peace member with tattoos all over their chest. Merry Christmas you all

  18. 25

    jaybo spews:

    I think you moonbats will be unpleasantly shocked by public support for wiretapping if it is used to prosecute the war on terror.

  19. 26

    Voter Advocate spews:


    Impeachment Poll
    Tue, 2005-11-08

    By Dan Froomkin,

    Back in June, Zogby asked Americans if they agreed or disagreed with the following question:

    “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.”

    An astonishing 42 percent of Americans agreed. (I wrote about that in my July 6 column .)

    Since then, no news organizations has expressed any curiosity, and no polling company has decided to ask the question on its own.

    But , a group urging Congress to launch a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war, keeps asking.

    In October, they commissioned Ipsos Public Affairs to ask a similar question. That poll found that 50 percent of Americans agreed.

    Now, a new Zogby poll commissioned by the group finds that a clear majority — 53 percent of Americans — agree with the statement.

  20. 29

    JCH spews:

    This turd has done everything in his power to ruin America. If he doesn’t deserve impeachment, nobody does.

    Comment by LeftTurn — 12/22/05 @ 7:19 am [Left Turn, I must have missed you post on Hillary’s access to 1000 classified FBI files. Please repost!! Thanks in advance you Democrat parasite POS, JCH]

  21. 30

    Janet S spews:

    Polls are a great use by the media of creating a story that supports their view, and then writing about it like it is fact.

    If a poll doesn’t give the answer that the media wants, they ignore it.

    But that doesn’t stop all of you from frothing at the mouth. Kind of entertaining on a Thursday morning.

  22. 32

    Voter Advocate spews:

    Between June and October the impeach opinion went from 42% to 53%. Now that we’er all being spied on, I submit it will be higher, once more.

  23. 33

    Voter Advocate spews:

    Someone said that Bush had an approval rating of 47%, that’s in one poll. I could just as easily quote the Pew Research poll that puts his approval at 38%.

    The average is 42%, as slight rise over November.

  24. 34

    dj spews:

    The President did not have the legal authority to snoop on Americans.

    Excerpted from Wired:

    Lawbreaker in Chief
    Jennifer Granick, executive director of the Stanford Law School and Center for Internet and Society

    Ignorance of the law is no defense. Someone should tell the president.

    This week, The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and intercepted telephone calls and e-mails from American citizens without a warrant. FISA requires that investigators provide a judge with evidence that there’s reason to believe the person they plan to place under surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Applications for these warrants are at an all-time high, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (often called “the secret court”) almost never denies the requests.

    Nonetheless, Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to ignore this relatively insignificant hurdle. The government has been monitoring calls to or from United States citizens to international locations, perhaps eavesdropping on as many as 500 people at any one time, according to the Times.

    Statutes prohibit government interceptions of the phone and e-mail conversations of United States citizens unless officials have first sought and obtained court approval, either under the Wiretap Act, for criminal investigations, or under FISA, for national security investigations.

    The only exceptions are following a declaration of war, when the president has very narrow, time-limited powers to order surveillance to obtain information to prevent attacks, terrorism or espionage, and under special circumstances when no U.S. citizens are involved. The administration’s actions clearly fall outside these boundaries.

    There is no legal justification for these warrantless interceptions, which included calls to and from American citizens.

    Nor is there any practical reason. FISA allows the attorney general to approve interceptions in an emergency, and gives up to 72 hours to seek court approval after the fact.

    Instead, the administration claims that it has the power to ignore the law. Bush cites his authority under the Constitution, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez cites Congress’ post-9/11 authorization for the administration to use force in combating terrorism. But even Gonzalez admits that the resolution authorizing force said nothing about surveillance. He denies that his argument is just a convenient excuse for illegal behavior.

    Underlying these explanations is the administration’s theory that there are no legal limits on the president when it comes to fighting terrorism. As long as there’s a terrorist threat, the president can do what he wants, and neither Congress nor the courts can stop him.

    Despite the best efforts of Bush’s lawyers, independent legal experts agree there’s little to no support for this view of presidential powers. Gonzalez’s memos arguing that the administration could ignore laws against torture as part of the “war on terror” glaringly ignored case law that says the president must obey statutes even during wartime.

    Former prosecutor and current law professor Orin Kerr says there’s no support for the view that the president can conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to protect national security from foreign threats, and that the administration mis-cites the legal cases it depends on.

    I think that 2006 will be a time when we look back on this surveillance with a clearer eye — one that takes in these violations, the lack of due process at Guantanamo and the government’s sanctioning of torture as illegal acts. In that light, recent administration speeches are less justifications of government policy than they are admissions of guilt.

    Yep…2006 will be an interesting year….

  25. 35

    jaybo spews:

    Voter Advocate,

    You are misleading everyone. This is the true average as documented by “Real Politics”.

    RCP Average 12/12 – 12/20: (approve)45.4%; (disaprove)51.4% (Diff.)-6.0%

  26. 37

    Voter Advocate spews:

    I’ll take my averages from my own calculations on data presentd at, thank you.

    42% it is.

  27. 38

    jaybo spews:

    Polling Report doesn’t take the total ccumulation of polls to create its average.

    Real Politics simply takes the total accumulation of the polling data and averages it out.

    You might as well add the MSNBC data to your average if you are not going to use complete data.

  28. 39

    JDB spews:

    Mark the Yellowback:

    I’ll see your Clinton DOJ guy, and raise you two conservatives, and I won’t bore everyone while doing it like you did:

    First, an old Reagan DOJ hand and now a columnist for the Washington Times Bruce Fein (See his pro-Alito columns if you doubt his credentials):

    “President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses.”

    Or we can look at an American Enterprise Institute Scholar, Norm Ornstein, who stated:

    “I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.”

  29. 40

    Winston Smith spews:

    re 25 : You can not have a war on terror any more than you can have a war on night raids. Terror is a tactic. You can’t make war on a tactic. You all may succeed in destroying our rights as citizens but it will be based on lies and fear-mongering.

    Fear-mongerers are the terrorists and traitors in our midst. Who would propound such idiotic premises except a paid fascistic propagandist like, Jaybo? Jaybo is a fear-ongering fascistic propagandist who is out to steal your freedom.

  30. 41

    JDB spews:

    The hard part with things like this is that the GOP just lies, and you have to play follow up with the truth. For instance, they now claim that Clinton did the same thing…, he didn’t.

    Rush Limbaugh, Rich Lowery and other wingnuts have “claimed that the Clinton administration had asserted “exactly the same authority” that President Bush has cited in defense of his controversial decision to allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance. [They have reffered] to then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which she stated that the executive branch has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches.”

    But “physical searches” are not the same as electronic surveillance and, as Gorelick’s testimony made clear, were not restricted at that time by the Foreign Intelligence Authorization Act (FISA), which has since been amended to include them. The foreign intelligence activity that the Bush administration has argued it can conduct without warrants — domestic wiretapping — has for 27 years been governed by FISA, which specifically requires court orders. On the other hand, the foreign intelligence activity to which Gorelick was referring — “physical searches” — was not covered by FISA when she said that Clinton had the “inherent authority to conduct” them. Further, Gorelick testified that she supported legislation requiring FISA warrants for physical searches. Following the passage of such legislation in 1995, the Clinton administration no longer asserted that it had the authority to conduct warrantless physical searches.

    . . .

    But at the time Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Clinton could order physical searches within the United States without a court order, FISA did not address such searches, as the weblog Think Progress noted in response to York’s piece. In her testimony, Gorelick clearly stated that electronic surveillance, such as the wiretapping Bush authorized, was governed by FISA at the time:

    GORELICK: In FISA, the privacy interests of individuals are protected not by mandatory notice but through in-depth oversight of foreign intelligence electronic surveillance by all three branches of government and by expanded minimization procedures.”

    It says a lot about the GOP that all they have left are lies.

  31. 43

    Voter Advocate spews:


    It says a lot about the GOP that all they have left are lies.

    And why are they so eager to lie for Bush on domestic spying? Do they not relate to the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller (First they came for the Jews)?

    Not if it doesn’t come from Rush, apparently.

    When a president is keeping something secret from only the American public, it isn’t for national security. The terrorist know their being spied on.

  32. 44

    jaybo spews:


    The website is; “RealClear Politics” and the polling averages have now changed.

    Presidential Approval Ratings
    RCP Average, 12/12-12/21: (approve)45.6%; (disapprove)51.4%; (Spread)-5.8%.

  33. 47

    JDB spews:

    Some one asked about a “real poll” on impeachment. On Dec. 13, 2005, before we knew Bush was illegally spying, Rasmussen published the following poll, showing 32% in favor of impeachment:

    Given that Rasmussen leans right, I would guess that the number might be verging on 40% now. It will be interesting to see if someone else polls on the subject now that Bush has been caught with his eye at the peephole.

  34. 48

    GBS spews:

    Mark The Yellowbelly Dick.

    When are you going to answer the McDermott question on the Cantwell thread?

    What’s the matter? Afraid you’ll be caught in your lie? Again?

  35. 49

    dj spews:

    Jaybo @ 42

    Arguing that one source of poll averaging is “more correct” than other sources is absurd…. Since the polls do not come out simultaneously, there is an arbitrary time element involved in how long to average over, and how to weight the older polls relative to the newer polls.

    Additionally, different sources pick up different polls. RealClear Politics does not seem to use very many polls, so their results are skewed by any big outliers.

    My suggestion is to look at the raw data graphically. In particular, this graph at pollkatz shows a larger selection of polls. Based on the most recent polls, it would be very difficult to argue an average approval rating as high as 45%

    But, what is undisputed is that a majority of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing overall.

  36. 50

    Robert spews:

    Hagel (R) Unloads on Bush/Cheney

    “Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA),” Hagel said. “No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view.”

    Based on the facts that are out there concerning whether domestic spying abuses were taking place, Hagel said, there was a “breakdown.”

    “I take an oath of office to the Constitution,” he said. “I don’t take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve.” […]

    Hagel, referring to President Ronald Reagan, said people trusted him because he was not a “vitriolic person or one to impugn the motives of people who disagreed with him.”

    “Never did he do that,” Hagel said. “There is no place for that in politics because it debases our system and our process. You can agree or disagree with your leaders and say whatever you like about your elected leaders and throw them out, but I do draw the line on the vilification and impugning of motives because someone disagrees with you.”

    He said the American people are “sick and fed up” with that type of politics.

    “Cheney’s poll numbers are very, very low,” Hagel said. “This should be about elevating the debate and enhancing America and finding the solutions that we need to move forward. It doesn’t help when you characterize people who disagree with you or threaten them or characterize them as unpatriotic or not caring about our people or our security. The American people see through that and it is beneath the dignity of this country.”

  37. 51

    Larry the Urbanite spews:

    Wow, Hagel is a total Republican flack (see his record here:

    I can’t believe he’s actually walking upright. If this guy is standing up to Bush, it’s really bad news for the Republicans. Especially since he’s a possible Presidential candidate, since he’s muddying the alleged message of the Republicans about being strong on “terror”.

  38. 52

    Donnageddon spews:

    Jaybonehead @ 21

    Bill O’Reilly had the following poll results;

    “Should the Bush administration have the power to authorize eavesdropping on telephone conversations without a warrant when national security is involved?”

    90% of respondents said yes.

    Even if the President should have that ability, he unfortunately doesn’t . Therefore O’Rielly’s Brigade of Wingnuts and Moron’s will just have to be content watching the Impeachment hearing, and Bush’s eventual frogmarch out of office!

  39. 53

    lame catch phrase spews:

    I find it intersting, that the GOP/right wing media strategy with regards to Bush’s wiretaps has been to identify the single most easily confusing element of the law in these matters and to exploit that to the fullest.
    407 U.S. 297 is the U.S. Supreme Court decision (apparatnly refered to earlier as the ’72 Keith decision) in which the court most clearly dips its toes into the waters of the Presidents’ Article II powers with regard to terror. To clarify, the Court DID NOT say, explicitly or otherwise, “that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad”. Instead, the Court held that the case before it did not require it to do so because the the relevant plaintiff, Plamondon, was not an agent of a foreign power
    In the midst of the Weather Underground bombings the FBI conducted wire taps on a suspected WU terrorist without a warrant. The lower court trials hinged on whether or not a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy using a telephone in a telephone booth. The U.S. District Court for Michigan held that they did. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court rejected these arguements entirely, instead finding that the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure were not confined to specific locations, but instead attach to the person. Further the Court held that the government had no authority to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens within the U.S. without first obtaining a warrant UNLESS THEY WERE SHOWN to be a foreign power or an agent of same. The court left it to Congress to determine how such a show cause might take place. The result, four years later was FISA. FISA courts don’t operate like other courts in alot of ways. But the most important way is that they aren’t there to decide if the government is reasonable in suspecting someone of being engaged in routine criminal activity. FISA courts don’t hear arguments about whether or not someone might be obtaining bomb making material, or stockpiling weapons (think Tim McVeigh here). Instead they hear arguments about weather or not someone might be a spy (think Aldrich Ames here). Once that condition is met the government can have at it, 4th amendment be damned.
    The President and his defenders are doing everything they can to confuse these warrants (which could be thought of as Article II warrants) with conventional criminal warrants (which could be thought of as 4th amendment warrants). And let’s face it. This will probably be a successful strategy. By using catch phrases like “National Security” it will be all to easy to portray efforts to limit the Presidents’ Article II powers as hamstringing him in his war against terrorism. Never mind that until now there has never really been any doubt that Article II did not grant the President the right to arbitrarily wage war against his own citizens (please refer to the Civil War and Reconstruction for context and legal history). But let’s stay away from that one. It always brings out the foil hat people.

  40. 54

    Donnageddon spews:

    lcp @ 50 “And let’s face it. This will probably be a successful strategy”

    I certainly hope not! IF this is a succseful muddying of the constitutional 4th amendment rights and gives the executive the “right to wage war against his own citizens”, then we can fold up the tent, and quit believing we have a bill of rights.

    Personally I believe if the people are angry enough, and if congress takes its job seriously (hasn’t so far I admit) then this is a slam dunk Impeachment offense of the worst type. No crime against the citizens of the United States could be worse than denying them their constitutional bill of rights. Without that we are no better than any other country, and what remains to fight for?

    There will be no Army anymore. Just conscripts and mercenaries.

  41. 55

    Donnageddon spews:

    klake @ 24

    Donnageddon you might recheck your day timer, I heard you going to claim political asylum in Canada that night. I do recall you were the one who had a Canada flag flying in West Seattle and singing the national anthem after the election of 2004.

    WTF? You recall I had a Canada (sic) flag flying in West Seattle?

    klake, are you

    c)pulling complete nonesense out of your ass so hard it makes even bystanders wince


  42. 56

    jaybo spews:


    My reference to the O’Reilly” poll carries just as much weight as the MSNBC poll that Goldy refers to. At some point, you lose credibility when you refuse to acknowledge any points that do not agree with your opinion.

  43. 57

    Donnageddon spews:

    I think everyone here acknowledged the lack of credibility of the MSNBC Poll.

    My point is that the phrasing of O’Rielly’s poll would not even spare Bush his inevitable frogmarch out of office.

  44. 59

    jaybo spews:


    Your inability to recognize anything that doesn’t fit your political ideology only lessons your credibility.

  45. 60

    Smoke spews:

    88% ??? If you say so.

    Impeachment? Dream on!

    Gathering intell to fight a war is not the same as a wiretap for a criminal investigation.

  46. 61

    JCH spews:

    58……..JCH @ 19. You’re an idiot

    Comment by Iwood h82bu — 12/22/05 @ 1:29 pm [Iwood n82bu, I bet you were the sissy on the first grade playground.]

  47. 62

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Mark the Armchair Lawyer — you left one thing out, dude … the law is different for wiretapping U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

  48. 63

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Hey Karl, how are you guys doing in the honest polls?


  49. 65

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Hey, if he did it, hang him! But this smells like a GOP frameup to me. Let’s start with a presumption of innocence and go from there. For the record, Roger Rabbit voted 12 times — once in each of the last 12 elections.

  50. 66

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    “Jaybo is a fear-ongering fascistic propagandist who is out to steal your freedom.”

    Actually, I think jaybo and his ilk mainly want two things:

    (a) our money
    (b) shove their religion down our throats

  51. 67

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Comment on 41

    “It says a lot about the GOP that all they have left are lies.”

    That’s all they ever had to start with.

  52. 68

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    “Bill O’Reilly had the following poll results;

    “‘Should the Bush administration have the power to authorize eavesdropping on telephone conversations without a warrant when national security is involved?’

    “90% of respondents said yes.”

    Where did he poll, trailer parks? Now we know what rednecks think; but I’m more interested in what the Constitution says.

  53. 69

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Are you new here? I don’t recognize your screen name. Ignore JCH — he’s our resident toilet chain puller.

  54. 70

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    “Gathering intell to fight a war is not the same as a wiretap for a criminal investigation.”

    Neat. You guys start a war, then use the war to justify violating the Constitution.

  55. 72

    Donnageddon spews:

    Gathering intell to fight a war is not the same as a wiretap for a criminal investigation

    Unfortunately for you and Bush, the FISA court was set up just for such “intell”. But Bush didn’t use the FISA court. That is why he is going to be Impeached and then be sent to The Hague for a trial and a first class hanging.

  56. 73

    jaybo spews:

    I finally understand why someone that posts here calls some of you “clowns”.

    (roger rabbit)
    ““Jaybo is a fear-ongering fascistic propagandist who is out to steal your freedom.””

    This is what happens to your ability to reason when you use “bozo thinking” to articulate your opinions.

  57. 74

    Iwood h82bu spews:

    JCH, yeah, the sissy on the first grade playgroung, yup, me and my friends smith & wesson.
    Bring it on asshole.

  58. 75

    klake spews:

    Unfortunately for you and Bush, the FISA court was set up just for such “intell”. But Bush didn’t use the FISA court. That is why he is going to be Impeached and then be sent to The Hague for a trial and a first class hanging.

    Comment by Donnageddon— 12/22/05 @ 3:12 pm

    Donnageddon that BC Bud is really getting you to hallucinate about things that are not really there. Keep dreaming;

  59. 76

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes or an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wished. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.”

    For My RIGHT Friends:

    Here’s wishing all of You a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah and a Happy New Year!

  60. 77

    jaybo spews:

    The radical left has finally taken up the “anti-Christmas” mantle! This one will really get the votes. You will notice that your hero, the McDermutt, signed on.

    (house resolution passed recently)
    “The text of the resolution read as follows:
    Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
    Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –
    (1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
    (2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
    (3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

    As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:

    Congressman Party-State District

    Ackerman D-NY 5th

    Blumenauer D-OR 3rd

    Capps D-CA 23rd

    Cleaver D-MO 5th

    DeGette D-CO 1st

    Harman D-CA 36th

    Hastings D-FL 23rd

    Honda D-CA 15th

    Lee D-CA 9th

    Lewis D-GA 5th

    McDermott D-WA 7th

    Miller, George D-CA 7th

    Moore D-WI 4th

    Moran D-VA 8th

    Payne D-NJ 10th

    Rush D-IL 1st

    Schakowsky D-IL 9th

    Scott D-VA 3rd

    Stark D-CA 13th

    Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th

    Wexler D-FL 19th

    Woolsey D-CA 6th

  61. 78

    Donnageddon spews:

    Jaybo, thanks for pointing out the extemely important Republican “Support of Christmas” resolution!

    I herby resolve that any and all congress people who introduced, discussed or spent more than 5 seconds on this resolution be sent immediately to IRAQ, with nothing but a “I heart Christmas” button and a target on their back.

    They are truly evil scumbags wasting congressional time while at a time of war.

    They will not be missed.

  62. 79

    JDB spews:

    Wow, jaybo, you are so right. It is amazing that you are so intelligent that you can see through our facade.

    Yep, all of us liberals are really just cogs in the greater socialist workers paradise. We all get together and have little meetings behind your back (just like how the popular kids ignored you in school), and we plan how best to wipe Christmas off the map. War? Justice? A better society? Nah, who cares about that, all we do is plot how to get rid of Christmas.

    It started with me when Charlie Brown asked what Christmas was all about. Then Linus spouts something about in the City of David there is born a Savior…, What sort of shit is that? Everyone knows that Christmas is about presents. Heck, why do you think Bill O’Rielly has wasted the last six weeks insisting that clerks at stores wish everyone Merry Christmas? Bill knows what the true church is. Bill wants to put the $ back in Chri$tmas.

    Ever since, I have slowly plotted to take over the world and force people to have abortions, smoke pot and engage in un-natural acts. Sure, I know I’m evil, and that it would be better to be like you or Ms. Chickenhawk and ignore the constitution. How foolish to expect the Government to stay our of religion. If Government did not force Christmas down our throats, it would just disapear. Why, without the Goverment, one would not know it is Christmas at all. I know for the last three weeks, all the pastor has be talking about at Church is tax code.

    Of course, I guess that you might not go to churce, which is why it matters so much to you that McDermot didn’t vote for a meaningless and unconstitutional (if it were law) resolution. To think, if a majority of congressmen ha voted against it, you would have not known it was Christmas. You would get to April and think to yourself, “Hey, self…., didn’t something use to happen before New Years? What was it…, Damne, why didn’t Congress remind me?”

    Sadly, my soul has long since vanished and I’m left plotting against you. Yep, when I wished you “Happy Holidays,” I didn’t say that as a friendly thing, I meant that as a political statement. And it is so smart of the likes of you and the various wise men of Fox News to make “Merry Christmas” a political statement. Yep, that sure was a smart thing to do.

    What a putz.

  63. 80

    Daddy Love spews:

    Smoke @ 60

    Gathering intell to fight a war is not the same as a wiretap for a criminal investigation.

    Granted. And both are important. But when a powerful executve branch CLAIMS to be “gathering intel to fight a war,” how are We The People supposed to know that they’re being stright with us, and following our Constitution? That’s why we passed a law regulating wiretapping, electronic surveillance and search in cases of intelligence gathering–it’s called FISA.

    And Bush VIOLATED that law. Get it? You should read the law. It’s quire specific.