Democrats win in the U.S elections -Bush Trashed! (opinions thread)

flogen

fair point Moriarty; this result may be what saves the Republicans in 2008; they've had 12 years of House leadership or a clear Senate lead since 1992 and their electoral machine has been so polished in the past 6+ years that they probably felt unstoppable.
This election sends a clear message that something the reps are doing isn't sitting well with the public, so they'll need to moderate slightly to counteract... it could even influence their choice of Presidential candidate (John McCain looking more likely than ever now).
Had the Republican administration had no 2 year warning, and had they continued on the obviously unpopular path, they may have found out the hard way; by losing the top job.

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

What is there to impeach from an American point of view?

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

If the Dems take both houses, and if they have a bit of guts, they'll go after those sonsabitches with a Full Metal Jacket!

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

But Bush is asserting that it is legal; the Supreme Court will have to rule on it first.

metrovelvet

RedPlanet wrote:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

How soon we forget. http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/gore_statement_feb_94.html

RedPlanet wrote:

Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

No. He was impeached for lying under oath in front of a grand jury.

RedPlanet

metrovelvet wrote:

How soon we forget. http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/gore_statement_feb_94.html

What does encryption have to do with illegally wiretapping American citizens?
I don't see the relevance.

metrovelvet wrote:

No. He was impeached for lying under oath in front of a grand jury.

Yeah, about Monica Lewzinski.
I reckon wiretapping thousands (millions?) of communciations illegally is worse than lying under oath about an affair.
Even if Bush claims that he didn't know it was illegal.

metrovelvet

The clipper chip was proposed as a way for the govt to monitor computer/internet traffic of US private citizens and businesses.

In your world lying under oath may not be a big deal, but in the US perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

The legality/illegality of wiretapping is to be determined.

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

Even if Bush claims that he didn't know it was illegal.

It's not that he didn't know it was illegal, it's that he denies it was illegal; he's saying he has the perogative to permit warrentless wiretapping in the case of protecting the country and that by getting a warrent from a court they'd simply be giving the terrorists a heads up (which is, of course, ignorant of the fact that the Government can request closed sittings).

The practice cannot be deemed illegal until it is brought to the Supreme Court; if they do find it illegal then Bush will probably stop, but even then it'd be hard to impeach him.

RedPlanet

metrovelvet wrote:

perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

Goodshape

The point with the Clinton 'scandal', I've always thought, is that they put him on the spot and made a very public issue out of a private family matter. He absolutely should not have lied under oath, but the questions being asked had little relevance with regards to his ability to govern the country. imo.

I'd also be of the opinion that Bush and Co. lied about their reasons for invading Iraq - something a lot more serious than any 'sexual relations', and aren't the questions about the legality of wiretapping largely down to Bush and Co.'s efforts to change the existing law? Or have they already succeeded?

metrovelvet

RedPlanet wrote:

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

L'il Kim.

metrovelvet

Goodshape wrote:

The point with the Clinton 'scandal', I've always thought, is that they put him on the spot and made a very public issue out of a private family matter. He absolutely should not have lied under oath, but the questions being asked had little relevance with regards to his ability to govern the country. imo.

I'd also be of the opinion that Bush and Co. lied about their reasons for invading Iraq - something a lot more serious than any 'sexual relations', and aren't the questions about the legality of wiretapping largely down to Bush and Co.'s efforts to change the existing law? Or have they already succeeded?

It was "public" in so far as it happened in the White House and it happened with a White House intern, legally constituting sexual harrassment, though this I dont believe he was charged with this. His main crime was perjury, before a grand jury, and that is public, especially if you are commander in chief. He could have at least pulled a Reagan with a few "I dont remember" s.

Their defense for lying about Iraq is that they were lied to by the CIA. They are also pointing to the fact the the CIA and the NSA are still filled with Clinton appointees. [shrug] But - THEY DID NOT LIE UNDER OATH. And that is the big difference.

As far as I understand, the govt has always been practising wiretapping, and this is an avenue by which they can submit what they find via wiretapping [unauthorised by the courts] as evidence. Obviously, if its illegal, its inadmissable evidence.

My point is not to slam the democrats, because I quite liked them before Clinton and believe that he is soley responsible for ruining that party. But there is a certain amount of hypocricy when it comes to slamming Bush while cheerleading for Clinton.

Gandhi

This is from a very biased source, but if it is true, then Raj from The Apprentice wins the "dirty tricks" award for this campaign:

Edit: click the new URL and it is the third entry down "The 'Dude that is f***ed up award'...". Bad word in the direct URL got filtered out.

http://www.philebrity.com/2006/11/07/

Oh, and in case anyone cares Raj got absolutely thrashed in the actual election.

RedPlanet

i get: Error 404 - Not Found

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

Happens plenty of times, just isn't particularly nationally newsworthy.

NTM

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

The clipper chip was proposed as a way for the govt to monitor computer/internet traffic of US private citizens and businesses.

Not entirely.

It was meant to make it easier to obtain the information once due process had been followed to allow the information to be legally obtained.

The scandal was that the safeguards weren't considered strong enough, and that the temptation would exist to abuse the system and ultimately be given in to.

The distinction you're failing to make is that in the light of the "scandal" (which was effectively a sustained outcry against the project), Clipper was dropped. Bush, on the other hand, ignored the legally required due process, then sought to retrofit the law (arguably in an unconstitutional manner) to make his actions legal and to allow them to continue and didn't abandon the project in the light of the sustained outcry against it.

In your world lying under oath may not be a big deal, but in the US perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

I agree. Clinton should never have been brought upon front of a jury on the issue, but once he was, he had no excuse for lying.

It is interesting to note, however, the different stances taken with respect to whether or not Bush should be investigated, and if so, why and how. Its especially interesting to compare with how the same people argued regarding bringing Clinton under investigation, why it was necessary and how it should have been done.

jc

FatherTed

RedPlanet wrote:

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

There wont be any impeachment hearings.

metrovelvet

bonkey wrote:

The distinction you're failing to make is that in the light of the "scandal" (which was effectively a sustained outcry against the project), Clipper was dropped. Bush, on the other hand, ignored the legally required due process, then sought to retrofit the law (arguably in an unconstitutional manner) to make his actions legal and to allow them to continue and didn't abandon the project in the light of the sustained outcry against it.

Good point.

bonkey wrote:

It is interesting to note, however, the different stances taken with respect to whether or not Bush should be investigated, and if so, why and how. Its especially interesting to compare with how the same people argued regarding bringing Clinton under investigation, why it was necessary and how it should have been done.

Yes that is interesting. IMO it has to do with two very different cultural climates. The country was in a different mindset than it is now.

cooker3

Democrats have just taken Montana senate seat so if they take Virginia they will have control of senate, it is going to a re-count though but democrat candinate is ahead by few thousand votes so it's looking like they may take both houses.

Hobbes

According to AP its pretty much a done deal with them taking the senate. Going to be a real kick in the nuts for Bush.

Btw, does anyone know how this will effect Bushes ability to dick with bills he does sign into law (Signing statements). I was looking at a list of bills he signed and his comments to a lot of them was "This doesn't count if I have a different opinion".

Yeah I notice Fox news is concentrating more and more on domestic news...they don't want to know

I see Nancy pelosi has called Bush "dangerous",an emperor with no clothes on, and dumb amongst other things...

And she's going to the Oval office next week to see what Bush wants.

Don't you just love it

sovtek

metrovelvet wrote:

Good point.



Yes that is interesting. IMO it has to do with two very different cultural climates. The country was in a different mindset than it is now.

I guess hypocrisy is the prevailing cultural climate now.
Then there's the little matter of wars of aggression and all war crimes that possibly followed.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

According to AP its pretty much a done deal with them taking the senate. Going to be a real kick in the nuts for Bush.

Btw, does anyone know how this will effect Bushes ability to dick with bills he does sign into law (Signing statements). I was looking at a list of bills he signed and his comments to a lot of them was "This doesn't count if I have a different opinion".

I think this might be an area where the Dems take a stand (a rare thing). Some republicans are uneasy about this. I think Bush might 86 this himself as things aren't looking so good at the moment and the Dems might decide to start doing it should Billary get in.

RedPlanet

Does anybody know when the last time both Houses were taken back by the opposition, during Midterms?

flogen

So what would a Senate win mean for the Dems? I know they'd be able to block conservative judges going to the Supreme Court, but what else can they do that the House cannot (I mean, they obviously can carry the House's legislation through, like the Seanad can with the Dáil, but what else?)

RedPlanet

From the Telegraph:

After snatching the House with the closest thing to a crushing mandate ever likely in a system biased in favour of the incumbents, the Democrats now have their hands on the investigative machinery of Capitol Hill.

They can hire lawyers and detectives; they can subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath; they can mount show trials - or indeed real trials - subjecting their enemies to torment under the glaring klieg lights of the world media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/08/uambrose108.xml

I really hope they go after Bush and co.
If America would ever be resuscitated, it needs to be done.

J.S. Pill

Its really sad to see such bitter divisions across the water. I mean why can't there people just see past differences and reach across the party divide? There is so much at stake here. Tragic :rolleyes:

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

From the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/08/uambrose108.xml

I really hope they go after Bush and co.
If America would ever be resuscitated, it needs to be done.

Thanks for that.

I'd imagine they wouldn't dare go for Bush unless something really negative happens that could be pinned on him from this day forward... they can't be seen to be going on a vendetta against the President in a "time of war"

cooker3

RedPlanet wrote:

Does anybody know when the last time both Houses were taken back by the opposition, during Midterms?

I believe the republicans did it in 94 when Newt Gingrich had the contract with America and all that went with that.

I think it should be pointed out while lot of people here would love Bush to get impeached and those "evil" republicans to get their commupance, you have to remember a good few democrats and not exactly liberal (especially by european standard) support gun control, supported the war etc, so not automatic pass that Bush will be de-railed, politicians in states have no issue voting against their party if they want to, it is nowhere as tightly controlled like in uk or over here. So don't go expecting miracles.

Milktrolley

Tristrame wrote:

I see Nancy pelosi has called Bush "dangerous",an emperor with no clothes on, and dumb amongst other things...

And she's going to the Oval office next week to see what Bush wants.

Don't you just love it

Yep! I also loved it yesterday when Bush got asked about it. It was one of the few questions he didn't interrupt. A lot of rookie reporters admit being nervous asking Bush a question - you have to wonder does he interrupt and make fun of them just to throw them off so they'll be less likely to spot the bull he comes out with.

Glad to see Rumsfeld will almost certainly be going soon, but Robert Gates (who I don't know a lot about, other than that his recommendation was probably Bush 41's idea according to MSNBC yesterday) may very well be just as bad.

From November 6th: Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Manic Moran

Gates is pretty much a professional spy. He served a couple of years as an intelligence officer in the US Air Force, and stayed with the intelligence agencies when he got out of uniform.

He was implicated in the Iran-Contra deal, but nothing ever came of it.

BBC is saying that he has a more consensual management style than Rummy had.

NTM