buzzdainer -- All Comments -- In These Times

All 6 comments by...

buzzdainer

- 09 Jul 06
- 9:31 pm
I agree that election results cannot be trusted until the issues with Diebold and the voting machines are corrected. There is ample evidence that the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections were corrupted, and nothing has been done. Until this is dealt with, we won't have democracy.

Posted to Do you think the Democrats will win back control of Congress this fall?
- 21 Apr 06
- 7:27 pm
In response to Wolf: 1. Who decides what an "enemy combatant" is? Are you comfortable allowing Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to make that determination? How many innocent people are you willing to allow to "rot" in Guantanamo Bay in order to make sure that we've got the bad guys? Five? 20? 100? 2. It's interesting that when people try to defend Bush's lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they always try to bring the actions of ex-presidents into the discussion--presumably in an effort to divert the discussion. Bush lied about Iraq's efforts to get uranium from Africa. He said …

Posted to Congenital Liars and Hypocrites
- 22 Apr 06
- 11:17 am
whattheheck , You present us with a false dichotomy: either we "bellyache about our predicament," or we try to get better candidates. I don't consider calls for Bush to be held accountable for his actions to be "bellyaching about our predicament." I consider it part of ethical and respectable governance. I doubt that the Republican-controlled Congress will do anything, but that doesn't mean that I should abdicate my own responsibility to demand that they do their jobs. And I don't consiser calling for Bush to be held accountable and calling for honest, ethical candidates to be mutually exclusive projects. Indeed, I …

Posted to Congenital Liars and Hypocrites
- 22 Apr 06
- 7:23 pm
Wolf: Thanks. whattheheck: Perhaps you misunderstand my intent. It is not my intention to "rub [Bush's] nose in the dirt." But I believe strongly that people should be held accountable for their actions. If a president lies the country into war, illegally wiretaps American citizens, outs a CIA operative in order to intimidate a whistleblower, and authorizes torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions, that to me rises to the level of impeachability. I think it's reasonable to expect the U.S. president to uphold the law (since that is one of the primary functions of the executive branch). That's not even …

Posted to Congenital Liars and Hypocrites
- 23 Apr 06
- 11:01 am
Whattheheck, I agree that several of these points have not been investigated thoroughly enough--and they won't be, unless Congress insists upon it. I also submit that my use of the word "if" was intentional. I certainly think that Bush has been incompetent, but I don't have sufficient evidence to prove that his behavior warrants his removal from office. It appears that way, though, based on the evidence that has been made public. If the president refuses to cooperate with Congress, the only remaining viable option is impeachment. Congress must maintain its oversight responsibilities. I disagree with your claim that when deciding …

Posted to Congenital Liars and Hypocrites
- 19 Apr 06
- 4:40 pm
What a poorly formulated series of possible responses. The most likely answer, in my opinion, is that yes, we will go to war against Iran. It will happen for essentially the same reason we went to war against Iraq: an effort by the Bush administration to galvanize Bush's floundering, directionless presidency. It will give Bush and his cohorts the opportunity, once again, to smear as unpatriotic, anyone who disagrees.

Posted to Do you think the U.S. will go to war with Iran?