Sean Penn: Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney

[Cavalier22]

why should a celebrity opinino matter more than anyone else?

most of these hollywood celebrities have very little education

[Straw Man]

why should a celebrity opinino matter more than anyone else?

most of these hollywood celebrities have very little education

I didn't say they mattered any more

I don't think they matter any more or any less

you're presenting a celebrity who is saying that celebrity opinions don't matter

I just find that kind of ironic

they have better access to media than you or I (well at least me for sure)

education doesn't really matter (at least not to me)

what are the education requirements to offer an opinion on this site?

[Dos Equis]

So someone with a conservative bias can be objective in declaring that someone else has a liberal bias???  It can't go both ways. 

BTW - I'm not reading the book either.  It's irrelevant.  The House will investigate and if they decide there is an impeachable offense then they may choose to initiate an impeachment.  If it passes the House it goes to the Senate and then they get to decide.  Personally, I suspect that Bush has committed many crimes worthy of impeachment but I also think that impeachment would be really really bad for our country.   Besides, who wants a pissed off Dick Cheney running the country or for that matter Nancy Pelosi?

It's not about going both ways.  I just doubt Mr. I made up what he said about the author.  Not a big deal.  Certainly nothing worth debating.   

What, specifically, are they going to investigate?

Aside from the fact I think there is nothing to this impeachment talk, you raise a good point about the end result:  President Cheney.       

[Straw Man]

It's not about going both ways.  I just doubt Mr. I made up what he said about the author.  Not a big deal.  Certainly nothing worth debating.   

What, specifically, are they going to investigate?

Aside from the fact I think there is nothing to this impeachment talk, you raise a good point about the end result:  President Cheney.       

warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)

pre-war intelligence

war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)

medicare legislation

using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)

lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about

Remember Congress has done virtually zero oversight in the last 6 years....not counting the crucial hearings on steroids in baseball

[Straw Man]

Bias shouldn't matter - the arguments and supports of the argument are all that should matter.

no one is without some kind of bias.  Most are biased toward their own beliefs.

[Straw Man]

Which is fine, and A-Ok!

But when you evaluate the work of an author, to dismiss it because "he's a fookin neo!" or "damn liberal" is perhaps the stupidest thing one can do.

Far wiser is to look at the argument, look at the supports he/she uses, and determine if it's right or wrong.

hell, I am no longer a far right repub, but I still see much of what they write, and a lot of it still makes sense.  I believe Rush is a salesman for republican ideals that he doesn't even believe in, but he makes good points - when he is talking issues and not just spouting "the right is right cause they're better than the liberals!"  Now and then, even a guy like him has great ideas.  It's dismissing everything a person has to say because of their party which is perhaps the easiest way to stop growing your own party and belief system.

I think we're pretty much in agreement but there is no way I'd waste my time listening to rush's shit on the hope that he might drop some pearl of wisdom

If he says something important then I'm sure I'll eventually hear about it

he's also a celebrity so we should discount his opinion to zero

[Cap]

Alice Cooper said celebrity opinions don't matter?  Doesn't that mean that his opinion on celebrity opinions doesn't matter?

I should have posted clearer. Specifically he said that they have no business talking about politics.  His words were "we do all kinds of drugs, sleep til 4 in the afternoon and don't know much about what is going on"

Frankly they are idiots

[Straw Man]

rush is a highly paid whore

if you got him high he would probably admit that

[Cavalier22]

sean penn went to iran and got his camera and video equipment taken by the local authorities--and he was SHOCKED!

he really knows what is going on in the world

[Straw Man]

I should have posted clearer. Specifically he said that they have no business talking about politics.  His words were "we do all kinds of drugs, sleep til 4 in the afternoon and don't know much about what is going on"

Frankly they are idiots

so Alice Cooper speaks for all musicians? people on drugs? people who are famous?? 

and I guess you speak for Alice Cooper or at least use his words

which one is sean penn?

[Cap]

so Alice Cooper speaks for all musicians? people on drugs? people who are famous?? 

and I guess you speak for Alice Cooper or at least use his words

which one is sean penn?

No I don't consider him the celeb spokesperson but he makes alot of sense.  Their lives are not impacted by any president, congressman, senator, etc.  When Martine Sheen spoke out, he sounded like an uneducated moron saying he supported the people we were fighting.  Same for Alec Baldwin.  He said he was going to move to Canada if Bush won.  I'm pretty sure he is still here.

Sean Penn was in "Colors".

[Hugo Chavez]

Alice Cooper said celebrity opinions don't matter?  Doesn't that mean that his opinion on celebrity opinions doesn't matter?

Cooper is a stupid twit.  He doesn't think Rock should ever be political.    Alice Cooper is a coward.  At least a band who want to do something political isn't hiding anything, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy their CD, so what... They're right up front what they want to express... UNLIKE COOPER, who just drops subtle right wing political innuendos while he's on the radio playing his selection of non-political rock  Fucking turd.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Well, just to belabour the point.  How do we even know she's biased.  The person who said it clearly has his own bias.  Has he read all 51 articles.  How many other articles has she written.  Are they all one-sided?? and on and on - blegh - do we really even care anymore

Well of course I haven't read all 51 articles, but judging by the titles of the articles, I'd say she's really has it in for the Pres!

http://www.google.com/search?q=elizabeth+de+la+vega&btnG=Search&domains=www.tomdispatch.com&sitesearch=www.tomdispatch.com

[Hedgehog]

Well of course I haven't read all 51 articles, but judging by the titles of the articles, I'd say she's really has it in for the Pres!

http://www.google.com/search?q=elizabeth+de+la+vega&btnG=Search&domains=www.tomdispatch.com&sitesearch=www.tomdispatch.com

Read one article, give us some feedback on it. It would be interesting.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)

pre-war intelligence

war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)

medicare legislation

using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)

lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about

Remember Congress has done virtually zero oversight in the last 6 years....not counting the crucial hearings on steroids in baseball

So you're saying Congress should use our tax dollars to investigate whether George Bush committed a crime by being involved, in some way, in the preceding activities?  Sounds like a witch hunt to me.  I can see from a mile away that none of those issues involved "high crimes and misdemeanors" by George Bush. 

[Straw Man]

So you're saying Congress should use our tax dollars to investigate whether George Bush committed a crime by being involved, in some way, in the preceding activities?  Sounds like a witch hunt to me.  I can see from a mile away that none of those issues involved "high crimes and misdemeanors" by George Bush. 

It's interesting that you can already see "from a mile away"  that no "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed.   How could you possibly know that when there has been no congressional oversight.    Perhaps you should contact the incoming congressional leaders and let them know that you've looked into all those things so they don't have to waste their time.    I can't see how investigating the alleged massive corruption in government contracts for Iraq and also Katrina would be a waste of our tax dollars.  We're talking about billions and billions of $'s that are unaccounted for and/or lost through fraud and corruption.   How many of our tax dollars were wasted investigating  whitewater, clintons hummer from monica, or even the Clintons alleged misuse of the whitehouse Christmas list.    Those "investigations" were witchhunts that accomplished nothing.   The stuff were talking about are actual crimes and worthy of investigation.  Regardless of our opinions it appears that congress will start doing their job again soon and you may have a whole bunch of new facts to digest.   I do think it's quite possible that they will discover many impeachable offenses but still  choose not to impeach but either way, oversight is coming like it or not.

[Dos Equis]

It's interesting that you can already see "from a mile away"  that no "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed.   How could you possibly know that when there has been no congressional oversight.    Perhaps you should contact the incoming congressional leaders and let them know that you've looked into all those things so they don't have to waste their time.    I can't see how investigating the alleged massive corruption in government contracts for Iraq and also Katrina would be a waste of our tax dollars.  We're talking about billions and billions of $'s that are unaccounted for and/or lost through fraud and corruption.   How many of our tax dollars were wasted investigating  whitewater, clintons hummer from monica, or even the Clintons alleged misuse of the whitehouse Christmas list.    Those "investigations" were witchhunts that accomplished nothing.   The stuff were talking about are actual crimes and worthy of investigation.  Regardless of our opinions it appears that congress will start doing their job again soon and you may have a whole bunch of new facts to digest.   I do think it's quite possible that they will discover many impeachable offenses but still  choose not to impeach but either way, oversight is coming like it or not.

I was completely opposed to the Clinton witch hunt.  A complete waste of my tax dollars.  I thought the "impeachment" was a joke.  A partisan vote on impeachment is never good for the country.  And the underlying offense wasn't even a crime IMO.  I was stunned that the Starr report (and I read the entire thing) never addressed the fact that Clinton's lie under oath was not about a material issue, and perjury is lying under oath about a material issue.  But I'll get off that soap box . . . .

In a nutshell, here is why there will likely not be any "investigations" into the issues you raised:

warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
I'm not sure the order to do warrentless wiretaps came from Bush, but even assuming it did, he relied on the advice of counsel, just his predecessors.  No way he gets impeached over this. 

pre-war intelligence
Democrats do not want to go here, because they are knee deep in comments to the American people about what a threat Saddam posed.  There is no logical way to separate Bush's stance on Saddam's threat before the war with the numerous Democrats who echoed Bush's comments.  Not gonna happen.

war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
Red herring.  Bush isn't a party to the contracts with private companies.  I doubt his name appears as a responsible party anywhere.  These aren't government entities.  Halliburton is a private company.  Absolutely nothing to investigate regarding Bush here. 

medicare legislation
Congress is going to investigate whether Bush committed a crime by advocating and/or signing various pieces of legislation?  I don't think so.

using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
This is a civil, not criminal matter.  I'm sure if there was violation of tax laws, groups like Common Cause or Judicial Watch would have been all over it.  Nothing there.

lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
That would be part of the definition of witch hunt, I believe.   

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum doesn't understand the laws and concepts we're discussing here.  No offense to the guy, he's very loyal, but he's blind and a little behind the curve.

240 you don't know the first thing about the law.  Anytime you try and discuss specific provisions of the law (like the time you said American citizens were going to be arrested under the new law recently passed by Congress to combat terrorism), your brain gets tied in knots.  Stick to your conspiracy theories.  The law, logic, and common sense aren't as much of a factor when addressing those issues.  That's where your strength lies.

But anytime you want to stop acting like a little punk kid and discuss specific provisions of laws you think Bush violated, you let me know.     

[Straw Man]

I was completely opposed to the Clinton witch hunt.  A complete waste of my tax dollars.  I thought the "impeachment" was a joke.  A partisan vote on impeachment is never good for the country.  And the underlying offense wasn't even a crime IMO.  I was stunned that the Starr report (and I read the entire thing) never addressed the fact that Clinton's lie under oath was not about a material issue, and perjury is lying under oath about a material issue.  But I'll get off that soap box . . . .

In a nutshell, here is why there will likely not be any "investigations" into the issues you raised:

warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
I'm not sure the order to do warrentless wiretaps came from Bush, but even assuming it did, he relied on the advice of counsel, just his predecessors.  No way he gets impeached over this. 

pre-war intelligence
Democrats do not want to go here, because they are knee deep in comments to the American people about what a threat Saddam posed.  There is no logical way to separate Bush's stance on Saddam's threat before the war with the numerous Democrats who echoed Bush's comments.  Not gonna happen.

war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
Red herring.  Bush isn't a party to the contracts with private companies.  I doubt his name appears as a responsible party anywhere.  These aren't government entities.  Halliburton is a private company.  Absolutely nothing to investigate regarding Bush here. 

medicare legislation
Congress is going to investigate whether Bush committed a crime by advocating and/or signing various pieces of legislation?  I don't think so.

using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
This is a civil, not criminal matter.  I'm sure if there was violation of tax laws, groups like Common Cause or Judicial Watch would have been all over it.  Nothing there.

lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
That would be part of the definition of witch hunt, I believe.   

Applying the witch hunt label is pejorative.  One persons witch hunt is another persons investigation.


I rattled that list off in about 5 seconds.  In hindsight I agree with you about the Medicare legislation
although it's not the "signing" that needs to be investigated but how the whole deal was put together but it most likely does not involve Bush (though it could possibly involve the White House).  BTW - notice I didn't even include 9-11 on that list. 

Everything else on that list - who knows?  Neither you nor I have much information.

Regarding pre-war intelligence - I don't really get your argument.   If someone lies to you and then you support them because of it that's make you responsible for their lie and also makes them immune? 

All the other stuff - while I can respect your opinion but that's all it is, your opinion.  The fact is that all of your opinions (as mine and everyone else's) are all based on the scant information that leaks into public domain.  I'd like to let Congress actually do their job.  Investigation will lead to more information.  If there weren't questions then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  You should welcome oversight because if you're right you will be vindicated and if you're wrong you'll still win because it will hopefully lead to reform (or if not at least justice).   For you investigation is win - win.

   

[Dos Equis]

Regarding pre-war intelligence - I don't really get your argument.   If someone lies to you and then you support them because of it that's make you responsible for their lie and also makes them immune? 

All the other stuff - while I can respect your opinion but that's all it is, your opinion.  The fact is that all of your opinions (as mine and everyone else's) are all based on the scant information that leaks into public domain.  I'd like to let Congress actually do their job.  Investigation will lead to more information.  If there weren't questions then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  You should welcome oversight because if you're right you will be vindicated and if you're wrong you'll still win because it will hopefully lead to reform (or if not at least justice).   For you investigation is win - win.

My view on pre-war intelligence is there is no question Saddam had WMDs and was trying to acquire more before we invaded.  The issue is when he moved those items out of the country.  He may have done so long before we invaded.  But essentially the entire world believed he either had them or was trying to obtain them.  It wasn't just Bush and his administration making the claim.  Numerous members of Congress, including Democrats, made categorical statements that Saddam had WMDs before we invaded.  Did they solely rely on information provided to them by Bush?  I doubt it.  Then you have numerous resolutions supporting the war after it started, which most all Democrats supported.  I don't see a logical way for those same members of Congress to then target Bush, claiming he never should have gone to war.  Too late.

Yes this is all a matter of opinion.  I don't believe the impeachment talk makes it past things like this internet message board, but that's just my opinion.  It's okay if we disagree.     I'll be extremely upset if Congress wastes my tax dollars, AGAIN, running down rabbit trails.  They need to focus on how they can keep us safe and allow me to keep more of my hard earned money.           

[Dos Equis]

BB,

If Bush and Co. did nothing wrong, why did they all get lawyers in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office?  It's not something Presidents and their staffs usually have to do- quickly hiring criminal defense firms individually.

Also, in your opinion, has Bush committed any crimes since in office, yes or no?

1.  I never said Bush "did nothing wrong."  I said I've seen no logical argument that he has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would warrant impeachment. 

2.  Forgive me for not believing you about Bush & Co. (whoever that is) getting lawyers in 2004.  I'm not addressing a straw man argument.

3.  We cannot have this discussion, because you don't like to deal with the facts.  A while back we were going to debate whether Bush has lied to the American people.  We couldn't get past the definition of "lie."  I wanted to use the dictionary definition (which most people use).  You wanted to make up your own.  But if you want discuss specific "crimes" you think Bush committed, give me a citation, I'll read it, and give you my opinion.   
 

[kh300]

BB,

If Bush and Co. did nothing wrong, why did they all get lawyers in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office?  It's not something Presidents and their staffs usually have to do- quickly hiring criminal defense firms individually.

Also, in your opinion, has Bush committed any crimes since in office, yes or no?

bush got those lawyers togather in '04 for the election. polling stations had lawyers to make sure everything went right. the same thing the demecrates did. kerry had more lawyers then bush did

[Dos Equis]

Place a wager.  I'll get you their names and firms for each admin member if it's worth the time

I'm not placing any wager.  What's your source?  Provide me with the source that Bush and his administration hired lawyers "in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office." 

[Straw Man]

My view on pre-war intelligence is there is no question Saddam had WMDs and was trying to acquire more before we invaded.  The issue is when he moved those items out of the country.  He may have done so long before we invaded.  But essentially the entire world believed he either had them or was trying to obtain them.  It wasn't just Bush and his administration making the claim.  Numerous members of Congress, including Democrats, made categorical statements that Saddam had WMDs before we invaded.  Did they solely rely on information provided to them by Bush?  I doubt it.  Then you have numerous resolutions supporting the war after it started, which most all Democrats supported.  I don't see a logical way for those same members of Congress to then target Bush, claiming he never should have gone to war.  Too late.

Yes this is all a matter of opinion.  I don't believe the impeachment talk makes it past things like this internet message board, but that's just my opinion.  It's okay if we disagree.     I'll be extremely upset if Congress wastes my tax dollars, AGAIN, running down rabbit trails.  They need to focus on how they can keep us safe and allow me to keep more of my hard earned money.           

There were numerous sources that contradicted the view that Saddam had weapons, starting with the actual inspectors on the ground right up through the CIA. 

The cost of investigation will most likely be a tiny fraction of the $'s that have already been lost through graft, corruption and negligience (i.e lack of oversight).  Why aren't you upset about the billions and billions that have already been lost.  Without some oversight that could just continue.   Does that bother you at all?? 

[Dos Equis]

There were numerous sources that contradicted the view that Saddam had weapons, starting with the actual inspectors on the ground right up through the CIA. 

The cost of investigation will most likely be a tiny fraction of the $'s that have already been lost through graft, corruption and negligience (i.e lack of oversight).  Why aren't you upset about the billions and billions that have already been lost.  Without some oversight that could just continue.   Does that bother you at all?? 

The money hasn't been lost.  It is part of the cost of going to war.  I support the decision to remove Saddam from power.  We've debated that issue a lot on this board.  I've gone back and forth with Ozmo about this.  More than once.    Our failure to find significant stashes of WMDs doesn't change my opinion that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

Whether we have managed the war properly is a different issue.  I have serious concerns about our overall post-invasion strategy.  But tactical errors don't amount to crimes either.