Home > Uncategorized > Monday, Monday

Monday, Monday

Here’s a good rule of thumb about both TV and radio –listenership and viewership improve over the course of a week. A Friday show is almost — almost — always better than a Monday show. There’s something about Mondays, even after almost fifteen years on the radio. You’re just coming off the weekend, you’re trying to regain focus, getting listeners back in the habit of calling in, etc. To be honest, Tom and I just try to get through the show on Mondays with a minimal number of screw-ups. The brain isn’t fully switched on.

Today was a perfect example. I read the article from yesterday’s Trib about the county suing itself over the dismissal of a county manager involved in sexual harassment. I suggested the civil service commission was wrong in hiring the guy back and that the county was right to challenge the decision.

We go to the phones. First up was Gary from SLO, wanting to ask me a question. “What about Bill Clinton?” he asked. “Shouldn’t he have been fired?”

My mind couldn’t process a simple argument. I know what I wanted to say, but just couldn’t focus, mumbling something about Clinton being impeached and therefore punished.

This is what I should have said:

First, Clinton and Monica was not sexual harassment on any level. That was totally consensual sex. No formal complaint was ever filed. In fact, Monica was entrapped by Linda Tripp — that’s the only way we found out.

Second, 2500 American soldiers and 50,000 Iraqi civilians didn’t die because Clinton was having sex with an intern. I’d gladly have four more years of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush.

Third, even at the height of Monicagate, Clinton’s popularity remained in the upper 50s. Care to compare that to what W. has today?

Now, if George had called in on a Friday, well, then I would have been ready!

Advertisements
  1. Kirk In SLO
    July 25, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    I think anyone, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, man, woman or child that writes about the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky thing in this blog should be forced to buy lunch for Jerry Dagna or Santa Maria Bill (whomever annoys you more).

    It is the ultimate “Oh YEAH? Well, my dad can beat up your dad” arguement about which conservatives and liberals will NEVER agree.

    Although it did make me chuckle to hear Gary play that card, it was about as off-topic as it gets.

    And if you think county government is screwed up, you just haven’t looked closely enough at city government.

  2. Rich from Paso
    July 25, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Excuses, excuses, Dave. I’m surprised to hear you say that you were short a snappy comeback. We’re all genuises 10 minutes after the comeback was needed.

    By the way, Rush is talking right now that a Harris poll has 50% of Americans think that Iraq had chemical weapons. Here is the link to the poll. There is enough substance in the poll for each side to claim that they are right on Iraq. What do you all think?

  3. Bob from San Luis
    July 25, 2006 at 11:32 pm

    It is amusing to hear the right bring up Bill Clinton in any way; almost every time it is an attempt to somehow place the blame for our nation’s current troubles on Clinton. Lame.
    As for the Harris Poll, the only thing that that poll tells me is that the right has done a good job of selling the disinformation put out by Rush, Sean, Bill etc, ad nauseam. The facts are out there, but most Americans either are afraid to believe that their political leaders lie to them, or they are too lazy to research what is the truth that the corporate owned media won’t report.

  4. Rich from Paso
    July 26, 2006 at 4:08 am

    Bob, you have to be the second biggest conspiracy whack-job on the central coast. Everything is some underhanded work done by the Right. Not only that, but the poll goes against what you want to believe so therefore it just has to be fundamentally flawed. Oh, but when the poll confirms what you want reality to look like, well, that poll is from God’s lips to your ear, isn’t it? You’re the worst kind of hypocrit… one that has no idea how hypocritical you really are but thinks that he is as intellectually pure as newly driven snow.

  5. Anonymous
    July 26, 2006 at 5:30 am

    I’m just amazed. The public has been completely lied to about WMD and this administration continues to perpetrate that lie through conservative talk show/tv hosts so much that 50% of the people polled actually believe it to be true.

    Well it doesn’t make it true just because 50% of the population has been duped.

    There isn’t anything fundamentally flawed with the survey. What it shows is 50% of population believes something that isn’t true.

  6. jjwill
    July 26, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    I think you all need a beer. ( or local wine). Seriously, I believe George W. is doing what he thinks is best for the country, right or wrong. He tells you what he thinks and sticks to it. You don’t have to wonder if the man is going to follow the latest opinion poll or not. You really couldn’t say that with Bill C. In any case, until the media starts replaying the 911 scenes or another terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., the American public will continue to become more and more complacent. We all know how short of a memory we have, and how we believe that the fight isn’t here anymore. Yep, it is over there for now. Hmmmm, wonder why that is. Oh yeah, it was Al G. who kept it out of the US for the past 5 years. No wait, it was John C. I think.

    About WMD’s. Fact. Iraq with a dictator had and used them at some point in time. So you have to ask yourself this question. When do you believe they got rid of them?
    I know, the dictator decided to just dispose of them because the UN said so. Or, he hid them or smuggled them out to Syria just before the telecast US invasion. Wasn’t there a recent report that turned up that claimed to find over 500 chemical weapons after the invasion?

  7. Bob from San Luis
    July 27, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    About WMDs-fact: A large portion of those WMDs were destroyed by the UNSCOM Inspection team. That was on the tv. President Bush claimed that Hussein would not let the UN inspectors in; the fact is that the inspectors who were in-country had to be evacuated immediately prior to the invasion by the US in March of 2003. The 500 shells recently reported on were pre-1991 munitions that had degraded to the point that they posed no serious threat other than to those who handled them without gloves or respirators.
    Rich: As anonymous mentioned (which was my main point) just because a group believes that something is true does make it true; if the facts are wrong, they are wrong, period. I repeat myself but, Rush, Sean, Bill, Michael et all are very good at staying on message and repeating information in a manner designed to lead people to think a certain way, the facts be dammed. That is no “conspiracy theory”, that is a statement of opinion that I think is true.

  8. Rich from Paso
    July 27, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    Again, Bob, you don’t know what you are talking about. Those “pre-1991” shells that you (who know only what you read) claimed posed “no serious threat”. Tell that the to the two EOD soldiers that were treated for lung damage from mustard gas leaking from two shells that were being set out to be an IED. Count on this, Bob: every time you try to tell me something that doesn’t fit with what I experienced in Iraq, you are going to get punched between the eyes, figuratively speaking. You are not going to propagandize around me.

    Bob, you seem like a smart guy. Why do you parrot everythign the libs and Dems on TV say? “No serious threat”? How in the hell would YOU know that unless you are taking the word of people you read or watch on TV? Here is a tip: trust me, I was there. I saw the reports first hand. Friends of mine were on the ground at the chicken farm used to hide sarin gas (chicken crap masks the smell). Look, this is America, you can believe what you want. However, I will have more respect for your opinion if you were to listen to veterans more than the NYT and the MSM.

    As to the truth and who puts it out… here is the math on that as far as you are concerned:

    Democrats/liberals = truth

    Republicans/conservatives = propaganda

    Break the cycle of dependancy and stop blindly following the MSM that wouldn’t know a WMD from an IUD or their ass from a hole in the wall. I was outside of the Green Zone. Rarely does a reporter even try to leave the zone.

  9. Kirk In SLO
    July 27, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    Rich, don’t you get it yet? You’re not credible, as you’re one of *them* . You know, the vast right-wing conspiracy.

    You really only believe this stuff because Rush Limbaugh told you to. You’re suppressing your memory of US soldiers killing puppies while Iraqi freedom fighters were holding peaceful demonstrations and inviting those puppy killing Marines to tea to discuss their differences.

    Any pictures you produce are surely Photoshopped, and any video footage was shot on a soundstage at Halliburtan.

  10. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    July 27, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    Dave, you are so off the mark. Consensual? 21 vs. 55, intern cs. president of the US., Kathleen Wiley, Jonita Broderic (better put some ice on that lip honey), and the list goes on. You constantly accuse our sorry Gov. Arnold as being a groper during a hollywood shoot, yet you dismiss Bill and the many other credible accounts.

    Lets call you double standard Dave., or DD.

  11. Dave Congalton
    July 28, 2006 at 6:07 am

    You have a valid point, NewTone. There are cases other than Monica involving Bill Clinton that are inexcusable and you mention a couple. I think both Arnold and Clinton are flawed in that department. Arnold seems to have redeemed himself since becoming governor, recognizing that he can’t act like a Hollywood brat anymore. I applaud him for that and have tried to give him a second chance in that department.

    Clinton is also flawed and that one character flaw kept him from greatness because he certainly has the smarts and the political know-how lacking in our current President, who probably has never finished a book in his life.

    But Monica doesn’t fit that category. It’s sort of sad and pathetic, but it wasn’t criminal and it wasn’t impeachable and it certainly doesn’t warrant the spotlight everytime the Right is desperate for an argument.

  12. Rich from Paso
    July 28, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Dave, you of all people resorting to low-brow smears? Bush has finished several book while in office. He reads and here is the link. How many books did Clinton read in between diddling Monica or selling out America to the Chinese or the Riady family or trying to nationalize the healthcare industry? I’m sure he had plenty of time to read because he sure as hell wasn’t doing a damn thing about terrorism except showing America’s soft underbelly. Democrats singular hatred of Bush will be their downfall in November.

  13. Bob from San Luis
    July 29, 2006 at 6:58 am

    Rich: Again with the canard that “Clinton didn’t do anything about terrorism”; here is a link that addresses the Republican efforts to thwart Clinton’s efforts at fighting terrorism. Here is a link to PBS detailing the derailing of the attempted attack on LAX. Rich, for a smart guy you sure seem to buy into the pundits on the right that Clinton didn’t do anything right; after reading the links I provided, comment on your perception that “Clinton didn’t do anything on terror”. He may have not done enough, but he did some, attempted to do more and didn’t blame Bush 41 for the WTC attack that happened one month after he took office; he simply hunted down the perpetrators, prosecuted them and sent them to prison for 240 years each.
    As for “Democrats singular hatred of Bush” as you put it, speaking only for myself, I don’t “hate” President Bush; I have said this before and I really do mean this, I dislike (or hate if you prefer) what George W. Bush has done to our country. Now most on the right will jump up and respond to that statement that “Bush is protecting us”; what I am focusing on for this comment is President Bush’s consolidation of power, his administration’s pushing for a unitary executive that is able to ignore the oversight of Congress as well as any potential rulings by the Supreme Court that would limit his power. Here is my last link for now to the blog sight of a lawyer who was apolitical for most of his adult life, and slowly began to pay attention to the abuses of the Constitution that this administration has done since, and even before, Sept. 11, 2001. Read some of his assertions and see if you don’t think that just maybe President Bush has gone a little too far in his “defense” of America.

  14. Dave Congalton
    July 29, 2006 at 8:18 am

    Rich,

    The BBC link about Bush’s “reading list” proves nothing. Remember, I’m married to a PR/marketing specialist and I know a thing, or two about spin and that’s exactly what’s taking place here.

    For years, critics have lampooned Bush for being low brow and intellectually challenged. Suddenly, he’s READING and the White House makes a big deal out of these books he’s supposedly reading. Give me a break!

    You would have to go back to Warren Harding to find a weaker mind in the White House than what we have today. If you don’t believe, I refer you to the “open microphone” exchange with Tony Blair where Bush ended up sounding like a school boy, in between trying to massage the back of the German president.

    In 2001, Bush was asked what books he reads. His response is more than telling, “I don’t read books. I read people.”

    It probably won’t be disclosed in my lifetime, but somewhere down the road, historians will discover that W. has some kind of learning/reading disorder. It is not by coincidence that he married a librarian.

    By the way, Rich, 5000 more troops gooing into Iraq. Glad to see we’re scaling down!

  15. Rich from Paso
    July 29, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Bob: Okay so I get chasticed fr speaking in absolutes. You’re right, Clinton did catch the 93 WTC bombers, etc etc. But he stopped at the water’s edge. He didn’t go in to Sudan and get bin Laden the two opportunities he had to get him. You said so yourself that he “didn’t have a legal claim on bin Laden”, even after he was linked to the 93 WTC bombing. After the Kenya and Tanzania bombings, Clinton fired a few Tomahawk missles into Sudan, may or may not have hit a chemical weapons plant, and a few into Afghanistan, destroying a long vacant training camp. But more importantly, it was the Clinton Administration that prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators, the so-called “Gorelick Wall”. In the interest of balance, I have posted Ms. Gorelick’s defense here and the Heritage Foundation’s rebutal here I still find it amazing that she even sat on the 9/11 commission because she played a part in the intelligence failure itself. I think you are totally right that Clinton didn’t do enough an becasue of that George W Bush had to fight the War on Terror on his watch.

    Dave: So now we’re down to Bush having a learning disability? How low will you go in denigrating our president? He flew jet fighters, for Christ’s sake! Have you ever even sat in a cockpit of a fighter to know just how ridiculous your “learning disability” claim is? I’m amazed you went back to Harding (sucky prez, I freely admit) but didn’t stop at that old actor, Ronald Reagan. First, Reagan was too old, an actor, then when it was learned he had alzheimer’s, it was “oh, that explains his falling asleep in meetings heeheeheehee” taking pleasure in the man’s infirmaty. He probably, I just guessing, that he married Laura becasue he was in love with her. I think it is no coincidence that you married your wife becasue you wanted to learn how to spin things like her. Can you hear how ridiculous that statment you wrote sounds? Trying to figure out the angle why a man marries his wife is none of anyone’s damn business, mine or your’s. His “open mike” moment with Tony Blair, so friggin what! He said what we all were thinking and he used the word SHIT, big damn deal. He tried to create a moment of levity with Chancellor Merkel, so friggin’ what! Dave, let me recap what yur “schoolboy antics”, “learning disability”, and “married Laura because she’s a librarian” comments:

    I HATE BUSH!! I HATE BUSH!! I HATE BUSH!! I HATE BUSH!! I HATE BUSH!!I HATE BUSH!!I HATE BUSH!!I HATE BUSH!!I HATE BUSH!!I HATE BUSH!! W got that from you and Bob (despite his objections) a long, long time ago.

    You sound like Airhead America and not “hometown radio” like you claim. You , my friend, add to the “coursening of our culture” with statements like yours.

    Oh, before I forget, it’s 3,700 troops, you yourself said it would get worse before it gets better and Clinton would have pulled out with his tail between his legs after the first 500 casualties if he went to war with Iraq at all. Memory serve that he had something against Iraqi janitors, but not against Saddam Hussein. Clinton also had no problem with dark-skinned genocide as he stood by and watched 800,000 get slaughhtered in Rwanda and the 400,000 get slaughtered in Iraq. What a guy.

  16. Dave Congalton
    July 30, 2006 at 7:04 am

    Rich,

    I understand your loyalty to the President, but it doesn’t detract from my argument. Bush will never be confused with an intellectual giant. He did say early on that “I don’t read books. I read people.” And I do believe the day will come when historians will demonstrate just how stupid this guy is.

    I’m certainly not an expert in this area, but the way he mangles his language, his tendency to speak in short sentences. The way he is shielded from the press constantly. It all points to a larger problem.

  17. Rich from Paso
    July 30, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    It’s not about loyalty, it’s about common sense. Clinton is not the intellectual heavy-weight you all on the left claim. He is definately a product of a well groomed speaking style. I never heard anything in his time as President that said “genius”. Maybe that’s why Clinton failed as a Rhodes scholar. But for you to claim that Bush has a learning impediment is ridiculous bordering on the insane. The man is a Yale grad (Dave C: “He probably cheated, courtesy of th Skull and Bones”), learned how to fly and did fly F-102 jets and was a graduate of Havard Business School. I think that it is just crazy on your part to think he has a learning disability. You sound like the lunatic Michael Moore and it demeens your own credibility to talk like the lunatic Liberal Blogosphere fringe. Come back to the light, Dave, come back to the light.

  18. Bob from San Luis
    July 30, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Rich: How about another possibility concerning President Bush and his malapropisms; sure, he got into Yale (legacy admission) and had a C average, and he did learn to fly jet planes, no small feat. The mention of his flying jet planes does bring up the still unanswered questions about why Bush did not finish his tour of duty in the Texas Air National Guard; how he did not report for a flight physical and what, if anything, was he either afraid of or hiding. My point here is that there should be a consideration that President Bush developed a learning disability because of his alleged cocaine use and his reported alcohol abuse. Long term alcohol use has been shown to kill brain cells, and drug abuse can do the same. Maybe President Bush is not as smart as he used to be.
    Going back a few of your comments on this thread, you wrote how your interpretation of many on the left, Dave and myself included, of having an underlying message of “I HATE BUSH” ; since you and I seem to be at opposite viewpoints concerning this administration, would that mean that you are a Bush “Lover”? My question is based on how based on your comments posted here show an unquestioning loyalty to President Bush. Do you believe that there is nothing that the President does that is of questionable legal or ethical or moral standing? Do you believe that “If the President does it, then it is not illegal”? If you don’t recognize that quote, that was from Richard Nixon before the Watergate scandal brought down his administration.
    We are at a time in our nation’s history that almost parallels the situation during the American Revolution in that there is a very large number of citizens who want to support the current leadership no matter how bad that situation makes their daily life or how devastating the potential is for future generations. The people who did not want the American Revolution were called loyalists; those that wanted independence were called patriots; I say at this time you cannot be both, you have to choose; are you a loyalist (to the President and/or the Republican Party), or are you a patriot (loyal to the Constitution and preserving the historical American values). A definition for you here: When I listed “historical American values”, what I was meaning was the idea that the three branches of government are coequal, that the administration does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights by violating the law, and that we drop the use of a “preventative invasion” of a sovereign country. So, Rich, are you a loyalist or a patriot?

  19. Rich from Paso
    July 30, 2006 at 10:46 pm

    Bob, you pose your last question as if they are mutually exclusive, which they are noy. I am loyal to my government and my president, but not at all costs. I would no more follow a president into tyranny any more than I would let one give our country away for a song. I am a patriot because I have sworn to give my life for you and the rest of America. I love America for what it stands for in the world and what America represents. George Bush is no more damaging America with his war on terrorism than Bill Clinton did w2ith his skirt chasing. They are just men that reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for no more than 8 years. Amercia survived Clinton despite extreme right wing opinions to the contrary and America will survive George Bush despitye extreme left wing opinions to the contrary.

    As for this thread that George Bush is mentally defective, again it is ridiculous and beneath you and Dave to go on and on about it. His medical recods have been released all the way back to when he was in the TX air guard. I think that maybe John Kerry is mentally defective because he never released his military medical records, that would explain the lack of release. Can your possibly obtuse minds see that there is no link between the two events? It is just as preposterous as thinking that just because George Bush minds moves faster than his mouth (or vise versa) or that he doesn’t care to try to pronounce NEW-Clee-er as opposd to NUKE-u-lar, that he is a retard or brain damaged from coke or boozing too much. You can see that, right?

  20. Bob from San Luis
    July 31, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Okay Rich, maybe Bush moves his mouth faster than his brain can follow. I certainly have done that myself, as I am sure most people have done at some time or another. But none of us the leader of the free world, and if you or I or Dave were suddenly thrust into that position for even a minute, wouldn’t you think that we would be very careful of what we said, how it is said and with consideration of how it will be heard. President Bush does not seem to care how what he says is heard and he does appear to speak without thinking through his thought processes. Some of his supporters will say the President is a “plain speaker” as a means of not questioning his abilities to remain coherent, or showing their loyalty.
    I have said this before but let me repeat: Any person who joins the military and serves our country with distinction certainly does so out of a sense of patriotism and deserves respect for doing so. My question to you about your sense of loyalty to Bush versus a sense of patriotism in “protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” When the Congress comes back into session after the November elections and there is a Democratic majority in both houses, would you support an inquiry into articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney? An inquiry will only gather the facts using subpoenas and sworn testimony and then if the facts substantiate an actual impeachment, that can go forward at that time. Of course if the facts don’t point to a case against the Executive branch, it would be dropped at that time. Would you support such an inquiry?

  21. Bob from San Luis
    July 31, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Okay Rich, maybe Bush moves his mouth faster than his brain can follow. I certainly have done that myself, as I am sure most people have done at some time or another. But none of us the leader of the free world, and if you or I or Dave were suddenly thrust into that position for even a minute, wouldn’t you think that we would be very careful of what we said, how it is said and with consideration of how it will be heard. President Bush does not seem to care how what he says is heard and he does appear to speak without thinking through his thought processes. Some of his supporters will say the President is a “plain speaker” as a means of not questioning his abilities to remain coherent, or showing their loyalty.
    I have said this before but let me repeat: Any person who joins the military and serves our country with distinction certainly does so out of a sense of patriotism and deserves respect for doing so. My question to you about your sense of loyalty to Bush versus a sense of patriotism in “protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The point here is that the Executive Branch has violated the Constitution many times and Congress has failed to perform their role of oversight. When the Congress comes back into session after the November elections and there is a Democratic majority in both houses, would you support an inquiry into articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney? An inquiry will only gather the facts using subpoenas and sworn testimony and then if the facts substantiate an actual impeachment, that can go forward at that time. Of course if the facts don’t point to a case against the Executive branch, it would be dropped at that time. Would you support such an inquiry?

  22. Bob from San Luis
    July 31, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Whoops, sorry for the double post.

  23. Rich from Paso
    July 31, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Bob, no, would not support any inquiry into article of impeachment. I did not support the Republican impeachment of Clinton either. I do not see how the inquiry and the return of articles of impeachment, which is a foregone conclusion in a Democrat controlled senate, can be anything other than a politically motivated stunt and pure revenge on Bush for the impeachment procedings against Clinton. What would be the charges? Bush lied us into war: So did FDR in WWII and Johnson in Vietnam. FDR was forwarned iprior to Pearl Harbor and Johnson used the sham of the Guolf of Tonkin incident (where two of our own ships fired on each other) as the reason to expand the Vietnam war and get tens of thousands of our servicemen killed and wounded for an eventual defeat. No impeachment procedings there. Besides, Bush didn’t lie, per se, he just went with the same intelligence that Clinton used in 1998 to say that Iraq had WMDs and was working on a nuke. The terrorist surveilance program? You libs need to be careful here because if your buddies in Congress come out with article of impeachment on that, Bush and Cheney will just declassify tons of info on that program and its effectiveness and embarass the shit out of the Democrats. Bad juju in the run up to the 08 election.

    I knwo what I have sworn to do. I said I would no more follow Bush into a tyranny anymore than I would let Clinton or any other Dem give our country away for a song. We in the military don’t get to pick the where and the when we go to war. The line from “Crimson Tide” is “we protect democracy, we don’t practice it”. That is a fact. Every servicemember is compelled to execute orders that are legal, moral and ethical. Only a handful of soldiers and marines have objected to deployment to Iraq out of the hundreds of thousands that have gone, served and come home. Again, I remind you that 2500 have died out of the 390,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. That amounts to .6% of all servicemembers dying in Iraq. That is an amazing change from past wars. You wi;ll counter with: 1) what about all of the wounded? 2) more Iraqi civilians have died, what about them? Both valid and both irrelevant when it comes to articles of impeachment.

    Is it a War on Terrorism or is it a cops and robbers action like under Clinton?

  24. Bob from San Luis
    August 1, 2006 at 2:34 am

    Rich: Okay, so you don’t support the inquiry into impeachment hearings based on your question: “What would the charges be?” Did you look at the last link I provided a couple of comments ago? Here is that link, again, if anyone wants to check out a First Amendment lawyer’s research and writings on the criminal actions of the Bush Administration. Here is a short excerpt to give you an idea of the flavor just in case you’re expecting some “wild eyed liberal looney”: “We face a genuine and profound crisis as a country because we have a President who has continuously exploited the threat of terrorism and engaged in rank fear-mongering in order to expressly claim the power to act without any checks or limits at all — including, literally, the power to break the law. And he has been exercising that law-breaking power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways, all of which are radically changing our national political character and the system of government that we have had since our founding.” It is not just about “lying” us into attacking Iraq; it is about the violating of the Constitution that George W. Bush took an oath to protect, the same oath that our service personal take when joining the military. If you don’t believe that President Bush broke any law, didn’t violate the Constitution in any intentional manner and therefore you would not support an inquiry into whether or not there are grounds for articles of impeachment to drawn up, you are then, a Bush loyalist who would rather follow a leader bent on expanding the scope of power of his office rather than worry about if he were violating the Constitution, that document that President Bush is attributed to claiming is: “Why that’s just a G__damn piece of paper.” Link here if you haven’t heard about this alleged outburst by our President. Rich, you can call me a Bush hater all you want, truth is I am simply embarrassed for our country that he remains in office.

  25. Bob from San Luis
    August 1, 2006 at 2:44 am

    Rich or anyone else interested in “What would the charges be?” question being answered, link here to another consideration about impeachment hearings.

  26. Rich from Paso
    August 1, 2006 at 5:29 am

    Bob, you totally ignored your own post’s disclaimer:

    “(WRITER’S NOTE: When this story was written, three sources told me they personally heard President Bush call the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper.” I have since learned that two of the sources were not present for the meeting and were, in fact, passing on second-hand information. The third now refuses to either confirm or deny the report(emphasis mine). That leaves us with a decision. Do we kill the story or add this explanation? I originally killed the story but decided later to restore it to the database because there is still enough information floating around that suggests the President of the United States did make the statement. His actions through warrantless wiretapping, abuse of “signing statements” and attacks on civil liberties suggest such a statement reflects how he feels about the document that is supposed to define our country. I leave it to the reader to decide. At this point, two of the story’s sources say they are repeating what they heard happened. It may be true. It may not. But we feel is worth consideration as part of the national debate. I have edited the column to reflect what the sources now claim.”

    So the charge is enough to investigate it, huh, Bob? What a load of horseshit, Bob. Why don’t you start quoting the Weekly World News and all of the reports that Bush has made deals with aliens and that the Bible mentions Bush by name. Those are just as credible as you pile of hearsay crap you’re peddling now. James Monroe invented the signing statement and no proceding has ever been successfully won in the Supreme Court. The evasedroppingn program on terrorists will be revealed to be the first line of defense against another 9/11. Americans are smarter than you Bob, because they know who is keeping them safe and it ain’t you and the Democratic party.

    As for you impeachment charge, even Conyers in you link says that the violations are minor but widespread. That sounds to me like “You speed to work 10 miles over every day, therefore you should serve 10 years in prison.” Talk about dispoportionate. You have nothing, Bob, but your own embarassment, which is more real than your bullshit “g-damn piece of paper” inuendo link. Some advice: take an addition 30 seconds and put something worth debating. If you were a prosecutor on the Bush impeachment, you’d be laughed out of Congress.

    You also like to speak for people. I said that I am loyal to my government and my president, but not at all costs. I would no more follow a president into tyranny any more than I would let one give our country away for a song. I also said in a later post the same thing, only a little different when I said I said I would no more follow Bush into a tyranny anymore than I would let Clinton or any other Dem give our country away for a song. I guess you must need to clean you reading glasses or soemthing because you obviously aren’t understanding me. Let me try again, for the third time: If Bush is impeached and convicted, that’s it, he’s done and no more will there need to be said about it. I don’t think he has violated the constitution regardless of what you lunatic liberal whackjobs say. As I said earlier, you have nothing but seething hatred of Bush and it comes across in everything you post. No, I am not a “Bush Lover”. I think he has the same problem his old man had: strong on on Iraq, weak at home. The main reason why he is weak at home is because liberals will never give him credit for anything positive because you liberals all still believe he is an illegitamate president (despite getting over 50% in 04) and are still reliving Florida EVERY DAY and it still burns you up. Break the cycle of hate, Bob, and grow up a little, okay?

  27. Anonymous
    August 1, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Welcome to the “Rich & Bob Blog”. Please post your thoughts, but please keep them short so there is more room for those 2 to fill pages and pages with their narcissism.
    sheesh! Enough is enough! Call each other or go to lunch once a week!

  28. Rich from Paso
    August 1, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    I do tend to spend more time than I probably should countering Bob’s mis/disinformation campaign. Brevity is the soul of wit, so the Bard has said, and I need to get back in touch with that soul. My apologies for bloviating too long.

  29. Bob from San Luis
    August 2, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Okay, I can do brief: Rich, you compared the violating of the US Constitution to speeding 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. Your party is the one that likes to spout off about the issues being “black and white” or it is either wrong or right; my point is that if the Bush Administration has violated the Constitution, the Constitution was violated, period. If any of those violations or if a cumulation of violations meets a standard of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors“, than the argument could then be made for bringing articles of impeachment. Comparing the Constitution to the speed limit is pretty weak, IMO.

  30. Rich from Paso
    August 2, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    You missed my point: Conyers said the violations were minor. Impeachment is High crimes and High misdeamenors. The word “high” modifies both crimes and misdemeanors. Otherwise a president could be impeached for treason, murder,(high crime) etc. and drunk driving (low crime in relation to the Constitution). The arguemnt is not weak. Bush may have “violated” the Constitution, in Conyers opinion, but it was on the periphery not a high crime or high misdemeanor.

  31. Bob from San Luis
    August 3, 2006 at 2:36 am

    Rich: Interesting tack for you to take; I have never seen the part of the Constitution that mentions impeachment as saying: “for high crimes and high misdemeanors”- I have always seen and read that passage as “high crimes and misdemeanors”. I am obviously am not a lawyer so I am sure that I could be wrong here, but I have never heard of “high misdemeanors”. Let’s say you are correct though and there is a category of “high misdemeanors”; is lying to Congress considered an impeachable offense, even if you are a Republican?

  32. Rich from Paso
    August 3, 2006 at 4:17 am

    I don’t know, Bob. Clinton did it when he lied to America, CCongress included, and got away with it. A lie is a lie, just as you said if the constitution has been violated it has been violated. If I am wrong, then name a misdemanor a President could be impeached for? Petty larceny at Rite Aid? jaywalking? How about too many parking tickets?

  33. Bob from San Luis
    August 4, 2006 at 2:44 am

    Rich: Wow, the way you let the logic zing right over your head is amazing. You mentioned that Rep. Conyers wrote that some of Bush’s violations of the Constitution were “mild”; so wouldn’t a “mild” violation of the Constitution by the President count as just such a “misdemeanor” as defined by the Constitution? I don’t think that a sitting President would be impeached for shoplifting (pretty weird to even consider that one would even do something so stupid), and there are other laws he could break that would not be grounds for impeachment as well. All I am concerned about here is whether or not the President has violated his oath of office by either willfully violating the Constitution, or by some stretch of the imagination he “accidentally” violated the Constitution. You agreed that if he committed any violations he should be considered for impeachment articles; that is exactly why there should be an investigation as to whether or not he has violated the Constitution. The committee empowered to run this investigation should have complete control of the investigation including the power of subpoenas and the ability of have testimony before them conducted under oath. If they are not given those tools, there is no way that any such investigation can give a fully investigated bipartisan report or conclusion.

  34. jonah caught a whale
    August 13, 2006 at 8:28 am

    Dave,
    The impeachement proceedings against Clinton were not “about” his dalliances with Monika Lewinsky.

    It was about perjury, and obstruction of justice during a grand jury investigation and trial regarding (allegations of) the rape of Juanita Brodrick.

    (Now was it Linda Tripp that mentioned it, or was it Monika who mentioned — on tape — that it wouldn’t be desirable to “end up like” that girl murdered in the Georgetown
    Starbucks, whom was previously seen coming out of the very same room of Bill & Monika’s later little escapade, shaken, angry, and saying that she didn’t or wouldn’t “do things like that” with Bill, since she was a lesbian, anyway? Then, a short time afterwards, she’s mysteriously shot and killed, in a robbery(?) in which the thieves didn’t even attempt to take any money(!)
    Uh, I’m sure I could dig up links for this stuff, if any feel that they want to challenge, heheheh…it will be like a Santa Maria Bill “trap”. GO FOR IT!!!)

    Bill Clinton well could, or perhaps should have instead been impeached for treason, regarding his accepting “donations” (bribes?) from the Chinese!
    (that story is a big one, going far beyond simple money exchanges)

    As another poster mentioned, the Gorelick memo (wall) helped hide those dirty deeds.

    Shifting to the Middle East;
    During Clinton’s tenure, there was a marked shift away from actively working at thwarting Moslem type (ahem) terrorists, the reason being Clinton had designs on himself becoming an “historic” bringer of peace to the Middle East, and thus winning the undying praise and admiration of millions…

    Visible activity against Arabic type folks, particularly inside the U.S., at that juncture could would have jeapordized the effort. Which is part of why Reno was directed to instead, make a show of cracking down on “domestic” troublemakers (wanna-be terrorists?)
    like David Koresh, and before that, Randy Weaver…
    Both fiascos were such fine examples of “law enforcement”, weren’t they?

    As to who is the “worst” President;
    It is my view, that the legitimizing of Arafat, could not have been a bigger mistake— the biggest mistake ‘we’ have made in the region. Yes, bigger than the invasion of Iraq.

    Just look what happened!
    Arafat turned right around and launched the infitada! Which has, amongs the horrors brought to Israel by the PLO & Hamas, and the greivious worsening of conditions amongs the “Palistinians” since that time also, has further played a role in helping to justify the strengthening of Hezbollah, by giving more ready-made excuses for hatred, since attacking Israel and murdering it’s citizens quite often brings a deadly response from Israel.

    Thank you Bill Clinton, for nothing.
    Did you actually think Arafat would NOT go back on his word???
    And they call George Bush an idiot!?! HA! Clinton’s got him beat by a mile, just for playing kissy-kissy with that murderous pig, Arafat.

    In regards to WMD;
    Does anyone remember Operation Desert Fox? Wasn’t that the one, in 1998, in which Bill Clinton told us that there were WMD in Iraq, so that’s why he sent cruise missles into Iraq to destroy them???
    Wag the dog, don’t you remember?
    Oh, that’s right! That was when
    the lefty supporters of Clinton were all confused, they thought and repeatedly said, told us all, that it was all about Monika (and a consensual bj)
    No, it wasn’t. See the first paragraph of this post, for a clue…)

    Forgetting blue dresses, if we can
    (why did she keep the dress, uh, “dirty”? She had to have protection against ending up like that girl in Georgetown, that’s why!)
    and going back to the subject of Desert Fox and cruise misssles;

    What? There were WMD there in Iraq, then, but not later? Bill Clinton was telling the truth, but Bush full-on told us lies when he claimed the VERY same thing???? WTF???

    Aah, there’s a lot more about the WMD story…it’s too bad it’s become a rallying cry to used to help foment
    “Bush Deragement Syndrome”.

    Too bad, since the discussion and case made concerning WMD BEFORE the war, distracted far too many people, including opposition party Dems, from more fully discussing what happens AFTER our military eliminates what was left of Iraq’s ablity to wage State managed war, and removes Saddam as leader of Iraq.

    (It was obvious to me then, that the Iraqi army didn’t stand a chance.
    They did us all one better, and didn’t make much of a stand at all, much of it simply “melting away”….)

    I’ll move away from that for now, and turn back to this;
    Senator Hillary was on the Senate Intelligence Committee which reviewed the information prior to the Invasion of Iraq. She, and all of the others on the Intelligence Comittee voted for the use of force, knowing full well what that meant…

    Was she so stupid that she let the “idiot” Bush fool her, or were there actually compelling reasons, once one used their understanding and “connected all the dots”, so to speak?

    On another note;
    Personally, I hate to agree much with Michelle D., but I do on many points. I too, would have preferred to finish what was started in Afghanistan, before setting our military off on this additional dangerous, difficult Iraqi mission, regardless of the percieved threat Saddam posed to us…

    Where I differ with you leftys, is—I SEE the threat Saddam posed.
    Saw it then, and see it now.
    (it’s either that, or he did far too good of a job making us THINK he was sneaking around, trying to cook up something poisonous to feed us).

    In further support of the validity of the threat;
    There have been documents translated that show contact between Iragi government and Al Qaida, in Iraq, as far back as 1996. There are other documents of discussion amongst Iraqi officials of the possibility of using Al Qaida or Hamas to be the delivery agents of chemical/biological weapons against the U.S. in 2002. Then again, in 2003, when attack from the U.S. was imminent, there was a more urgent discussion of trying to use Hamas…

    Which leads to the present situation;
    The threat from Iran, of passing off WMD to any number of “terror” groups, is a HUGE problem.

    Concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it’s desire to “wipe Israel off the map”, it’s hatred of us (they have been swearing DEATH to us, every day since 1979) the message is clear, and undeniable. They do mean us, and Israel, great harm.

    Bush aint “lying” about this part. In fact, he’s barely speaking out directly about this even more dangerous threat, much at all, other than working mainly throught the U.N. Security council (law enforcement, anyone? HA!)

    The obvious possible, scratch that, LIKELY scenario is, Iran eventually, if not sooner, using Hamas/Hezbollah types to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S., then denotating them
    (if they can).

    Can you see it? How much clearer, more plain, does it need to be?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: