Political Punch

The democrates will stop short of anythng to win back the white house, bringing up the turkey masacure some one hundred years ago, was their ploy, since the could not defeat bush that away they will do anything to get their way back Shame shame on the democrates, this senator saying that this is being done to amuse Bush, HE NEEDS TO RESIGN NOW

Monicka and all the rest of libs where do you get your info? please let us know. Becasue you all wrong

The deficit is lowest its been 1.9%

The debt is lower then during clintons term

Why during Clintons term we were hit 9+ times under Pres Bush - NONE

NK is giving up Nukes
Libya gave up WMDs
50 million people freed

This is called Bush Derangment syndrome - ignore the facts and blame Pres Bush

Stark needs to resign NOW!

One more comment...tell George Will that this is not a "derangement of Bush hatred", it's very real sentiment of Dubya's administration.

I see nothing wrong with Stark's comments. If Bush can start an unnecessary war, divert us from the true terorist, get us into unprecedented national debt, why can't someone state in rather blatent terms the underlying truth about this horrible administration? If Democrats condemn his comments, they are once again shirking their responsibility to keep this radical administration in check.

Figures, the Dems can say anything to further their agenda, no matter how disgusting or denigrating to the values of the US. The terms of the first Gulf war mandated that Hussein comply with the weapons inspectors and give them free access...which he didn't do. Therefore, Clinton should have taken care of it...which he didn't do. Stark is an idiot, those that voted for him are also idiots. I'm wondering what the comments on the war would be like had John Kerry won in '04...or Al Gore in '00. They both would've had to deal with a post 9/11 world.

You guys continue to say that Bush picked the intelligence he wanted. I have said this before and I will say it again. Why aren't you as upset about President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry, former Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen John Rockefeller, Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and about 2 dozen other Democrats who said everything that President Bush said, and even more, about Iraq having WMDs -- three years BEFORE BUSH EVER BECAME PRESIDENT. You guys are cherry picking your own evidence to "prove" a lie, that was nothing more than faulty intelligence.

And for the third or fourth time, it doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein actually had or didn't have WMDs. The cease fire in 1991 was predicated on Saddam Hussein complying with every UN Security Council resolution. For years Saddam Hussein failed to comply with these resolutions. And just ONE of the items was to fully disclose all of his WMD programs; AND if he no longer had WMDs he had to PROVE that he destroyed the WMDs. Saddam Hussein NEVER PROVED that he had destroyed the WMDs. Therefore he was NOT complying.

President Bush had the same intelligence -- the very same intelligence -- that the Democrats had in which Congress authorized regime change in 1998. After 9/11 President Bush decided that we would no longer wait to react to a perceived threat. Since the intelligence said that Saddam Hussein still had WMDs and since Iraq had begun harboring al Qaeda by 2002 -- allowing them to have a training camp in northern Iraq, we were not going to wait until Saddam Hussein gave WMDs or any of his long range missiles to al Qaeda. So since the UN Security Council refused to follow through on its FINAL ULTIMATUM, President Bush gave his own ultimatum. Saddam Hussein wanted the entire world, and especially his neighbors, to believe he had WMDs so he could bully them around. France and Germany had convinced him that the United States would not follow through on its threat of invasion. So he chose NOT to comply with the UN resolutions and then he chose not to comply with President Bush's final ultimatum. THAT IS WHY WE WENT TO WAR.

Now then as to the incident in the Philippines, President Bush was NOT detained by government officials because they believed he was a war criminal. There was a mass protest by a throng of everyday citizens that were chanting and burning American flags. They protested because it was they who believed President Bush was a war criminal. The protest got out of hand and this delayed by at least an hour President Bush's trip to Batasan where he addressed a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives.

I am not aware of a single court of law anywhere that has ever convicted President Bush of being a war criminal. People, like yourself, may believe he is a war criminal, but just believing someone is a war criminal doesn't prove that he is. Interesting that your hatred for President Bush tosses out the "innocent until proven guilty" tenant that we Americans cherish so much.

Look, it's NOT legal to impose our constitution on other countries. The will of the people was "tainted" when he chose to pick and choose the information he made public, to start that War, By definition, that IS a high crime to lie to us about the Intelligence reports used to invade Iraq. Quit talking like you are an expert on other countrie's laws. This year Bush was held up at the Airport in the Phillipines, because, GWB was, by their definition a "War Criminal", and accordingly would be arrested legally by that country. Impeachment can be accomplished by many means, Lying during the State of the Union Address is one, it's a "High Crime" to lie to us. Furthermore, to streach the terms of the Constitution has never been addressed, I'm sure that falls under Impeachable Offenses. Sorry, but, all that goofy talk just assures me that you are defending that goofball, no matter what. By-the-way, you keep talking about the UN resolutions allowing the invasion, OK, where are those WMD's?

ididit4u wrote: "He (the President of the United States) IS required to do the will of those that elected him, penalty for not...IMPEACHMENT!"

Sorry, but that is NOT in the U. S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Not fulfilling the will of the people is NOT an impeachable offense. And that is because the will of the people changes. The Iraq war is an excellent case. At the time that we invaded Iraq it WAS the will of the people. You can't run a war or every day duties by holding an election to determine exactly what the will of the people is for every decision. Remember this is a Republic. And as such we elect our officials and give them the responsiblity of making the decisions. IF the will of the people is NOT followed, the people have the opportunity to vote the officials out of office should they run for re-election. Now some jurisdictions do have recall options. But federal officers are NOT subject to recall. Only impeachment.

ididit4u, the question on the table was impeachment. If the U. S. Constitution allows something yet international law does not allow it, it is NOT an impeachable offense. There is the current debate about national sovereignty as to whether the world court can actually supercede a dispute that is entirely within a sovereign nation or do they only have jurisdiction in disputes that involve two or more sovereign states. If the former is ever set in stone, then individual sovereignties will evaporate and we will be, at least in effect if not officially, one world order.

Now here is a further clarification on President Bush's use of force against Iraq according to the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Sec. 3 (a) states:
"AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

So Congress gave President Bush the authorization to enforce ALL of the relevant UN resolutions, not just for regime change because Iraq was perceived to have WMDs. And even though their numbers weren't all that great, TWENTY-ONE other countries formed the coalition. So international law would have a difficult time convicting President Bush of war crimes since he and the others were acting on behalf of the United Nations Security Council.

Here's something to consider, The President IS LIMITED to the Constitution of THIS country. Anything done to foreign citizens is open to intrpretation. If this war is illegal by OTHER intrpretations, we would need to reconsider the BOUNDARIES of our Constitution. Bush is BY ANY INTERPRETATION A WAR CRIMINAL, if not by our laws, then at the very least, by the laws of the countries we are opressing. Some of you are playing with words, like because OUR CONSTITUTION allows it, IT MUST BE LEGAL, WORLDWIDE, and it isn't.

James, you forgot number three, the Bush administration was merely carrying out what became the official U.S. policy under the Clinton administration...regime change in Iraq. The Dems demanded a second 'hearing'on Iraq before the invasion so they could each stand up and make their speach in favor of using force, politically hard to make the whole impeachment thing stick when you personally asked the administration to 'sick em', and then say 'I was a dumbass like everybody on the whole freakig planet including the former administration and we were all fooled by this Texas Governor into setting up this war so he could make it happen for his jollies once he beats Al Gore'.

James Danley, your last paragraph describes a "pseudo-dictatorship". He IS required to do the will of those that elected him, penalty for not...IMPEACHMENT!

Bob, there are two reasons that the House of Representatives has not drawn up articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. First, they realize that everything the President has done they (the Democrats) may one day want a Democratic president to be able to do. Besides, the only thing Bush has done is followed his oath to the U. S. Constitution in protecting and defending not only the Constitution but the people of the United States of America (more later). If you notice we have not had another attack. That is NOT a coincidence.

Secondly, is the political ramifications. The Democrats would never be able to simultaneously impeach both the President and Vice President. THAT would be interpreted as coup. And therefore, once one is impeached and convicted, he would be replaced. If the first was the president, the vice president would immediately become president; and he would nominate a replacement who would be subject to a Senate confirmation. Then when the new president is impeached and convicted, his newly confirmed vice president would immediately become president. Who would in turn nominate another replacement for vice president, subject to Senate confirmation. So you would then have a sitting Republican president and a sitting Republican vice president with one or both becoming the front runner(s) in next year's election. The Democrats really love the idea of not having to face a sitting Republican physically running against them (right now the Democrats can still run against the Bush & Cheney policies even if they are not in the race). That's because there are inbred advantages for incumbents. That doesn't mean they always work, because clearly they don't. BUT you have to fight even harder in order to overcome these advantages.

What offenses have Bush and Cheney committed that would be considered impeachable offenses? There are arguments that the Terrorist Surveillance Act is unconstitutional. But those arguments are unfounded and not supported by the constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against "unreasonable" searches and seizures without warrants. The founding fathers did not say "all" searches and seizures required warrants. Thus there are searches and seizures that ARE reasonable which do not require warrants. The question then becomes what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. I ask you, what could be more reasonable than during the time of war searching and seizing communications of the enemy? Yes even communications between the enemy and American citizens.

There are arguments that Bush lied about WMDs therefore the invasion of Iraq was illegal. I have said then numerous times, even several times in this blog. But I will repeat them again. President Clinton and the Democrats in 1998 used the same intelligence that President Bush used in 2002-2003. They all believed that Saddam Hussein still had his WMDs. You cannot say he never had WMDs, because Saddam Hussen used WMDs against the Iranians and against his own people. This is extensively documented by independent sources and the United Nations.

And there are arguments that President Bush refuses to listen to the American people and refuses to adhere to the will of the people. First of all, the President of the United States is our LEADER not follower. Our form of government is a Republic. It is not majority rules. The majority elects our public officials. But these elected officials are our representatives and rule and lead on our behalf. And therefore they are not subject to the will and whims of the majority.

So why did the Dem Congress not proceed with impeachment? If what you say is true the Congress is derelict and equally impeachable. I think to say that when Bush and Cheney are gone whats wrong with our Government will be cured is pretty niave. Whats wrong with the Federal Government is that it does thousands of things it is not athorized, while neglecting what is demanded by the Constitution of the United STATES.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals, plain and simple. Those are the words that should have been spoken and impeachment is the cure for what is wrong with our present government. To ignore this is the real Constitutional crisis.

Whatthe? Great comment!!

M, you misunderstand my comment. I will explain it differently. I am not against private medical health insurance for those who want it. Right now the claims are that 40 million out of 300+ million Americans do not have medical health insurance. The government wants to force these 40 million to have insurance (incidentally these numbers may be including illegal aliens). I certainly don't know the actual break down, but millions of these individuals do not want to have to pay $1,500 to $3,000 annually in premiums when the only visit a doctor once a year or maybe even once every 5 years. If the latter, that individual would pay between $7,500 and $15,000 in premiums in the five years while currently only paying about $150 every five years.

Right now you have the right to refuse medical care for whatever reason. But once the government steps in and becomes the sole HMO, it will be the government that decides whether you MUST have a procedure; or whether you even qualify for a particular procedure; when you can receive the procedure; and which doctor will perform it. Just look at the current proposals out there as part of the discussion on universal health care. Former Senator John Edwards (and others) propose to require mandatory annual physicals. Then you will have all 300+ million Americans trying to see their doctors. Now I know that the politicians are claiming that you will have plenty of choices, but that is only in the beginning. In due time, the government will begin placing limitations on those choices and eventually make one plan fit everyone.

Now then, many on the Left tout how well socialized "womb-to-tomb" universal health care is doing in Europe and Canada. That's because the individual goverments send out these great looking brochures and make it all look so great. But in reality, patients have to wait months for necessary surgery that is their government considers as "elective" surgery. Large numbers of Canadians are coming across the border and paying cash for procedures that Canada will not cover or for which they have to wait months if not years to schedule. The joke is already out there that if the United States goes to universal health care where will the Canadians get their health care?

As far as Stark, hes an idiot.
But I have a question about SCHIP. When did the Federal Governmet receive a mandate, or even Constitutional permission to force the health insurance they want on Americans? Why is money for a STATE insurance program taking the long road to D.C., eventually limping its way home, shrunken and emaciated, with enough Fedral strings attached to look like a mummy? Its your money people, if you want the children in your State covered it would be far more cost effective to administer the STATE program at the STATE level, no dollar ever escaped Washington un-scathed.

I was gone, and now I'm back. I see that you think that people wouldn't want health care. That's crazy, considering medical bills are the#1 reason for bankruptsy and high debt in the U.S. Think about how that affects the economy. Bankrupsy does more damage to businesses and the economy than providing health care for children. Get your priorities right.

Secondly, regarding your claim that back in 98 the Dems proclaimed Suddam a threat. Well that is true, but they also managed to air strike him, disabling any chance he had of becoming an actual threat to American soil. There was no need to go in and ground assault Iraq, spending billions to overthrow him and rebuild that country.

President Bush's amusment..its way out of line and wrong/but strong language has its day in court..I think Mr. Stark has chosen a time&place..his remarks are timely and this offer's a quick response//should none be in the making I quess Mr. Stark has wasted the people's time//usually Rush Limbaugh holds the platform on political "high dives"..if Mr. Stark was counting the seconds until the next wave broke on the cliffs--again--his posture awaits some comment..nothing from nothing..leaves--NOTHING.

My point in bringing up 1998 is that Democrats were adamant in their claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs back then. So when President Clinton briefed President Elect Bush, Bush received Clinton's intelligence reports. I didn't just create this out of thin air. Congress DID give President Clinton the authorization for regime change in Iraq and WMDs was a part of the perceived threat. Google it! I just wish all of you who claim Bush lied about WMDs would at least recognize that Clinton and all of the Democrats lied about WMDs.

Now as for the House rules, apparently there is a time limit and a particular procedure for asking for remarks to be censured that was not followed. But Rep. Pelosi did condemn Rep. Starks remarks this evening: "While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand -- providing health care for America's children."

There is no constitutional right to health care insurance. However, all states now provide emergency services to anyone regardless of whether they have insurance or the means to pay (even illegal aliens).