The only thing I can hope for is that somebody, ANYBODY was aware of this plant, and her moves were being monitored for our own intel.

It's wishful thinking, but it keeps me sane.

HELL YEA!!!!...What he said...

I live in Dearbornistan, Michigan (all my life) and I can tell you from first-hand experience with muslims and Islam: They hold deep allegiance to the "stateless" state of Islam. Remember, Islam mixes with religion with politics (and every other aspect of life), there is no separation between church(mosque) and state.

As for Dearbornistan, Hezbollah is here and in numbers. It's the immigration, stupid!!

YK? or YC?

It's long past time to purge a huge hunk of the established structure that is running our government right down the toilet.
Jay Tea

So impeachment is back on the table?

So impeachment is back on the table?

Hereby nominated for stupidest statement of the day.

Here's a hint, sean nyc/aa, she joined the FBI in 1999.

From the context, it seems clear that the "established structure that is running our government" Jay Tea refers to isn't so much elected officials in general, but the middle management bureaucrats infesting most federal offices.

John Irving said : :...Jay Tea refers to isn't so much elected officials in general, but the middle management bureaucrats infesting most federal offices.

Joe Wilson and Val Plame come imediately to mind.

Let's take it a step further, hold accountable
those who got these cretins appointed/hired to
their bureaucratic positions.

From the context, it seems clear that the "established structure that is running our government" Jay Tea refers to isn't so much elected officials in general, but the middle management bureaucrats infesting most federal offices.
John Irving

Wrong.

And this one will take some work, but I have come to the conclusion that if we simply kicked 75% of the members out of Congress -- chosen at random, or weighted by seniority -- we'd end up with a vastly better legislature.
Jay Tea

sean nyc/aa,

What, your first comment wasn't stupid enough, so you try to top it?

John Irving is correct. You...not so much.

JT made several statements about clearing out entrenched bureaucrats. Then he concluded the thought by saying we should also throw out 75% of Congress.

Reading comprehension: you should try it some time.

I gotta disagree with you on that one Sheik.
It's pretty obvious from seanyc/aa's selective quoting, he knew exactly what Jay had written.

Sheik Yur Booty and Veeshir,

I will concede I was overly curt in my 1:35 post and John was not entirely wrong in his 1:08 post.

What I was trying to say was Jay does not limit it to only "clearing out entrenched bureaucrats", but then goes on to include members of Congress, as Sheik rightly notes.

So what I'm asking is: why stop there? If we can all agree that "running our government right down the toilet" is a bad thing, which I hope we can, then why not consider all those parties which might be contributing to that?

BTW, this is not meant to be focused on just impeachment. What about the groupthink DC media, the corporate and special interest lobbyists, the "activist judges"? If we're going to truly overhaul the place, we can't just pick and choose (excepting elections obviously) otherwise the other entrenced entities will corrupt and corrode the new system we put in place.

Basically, what's required is another revolution, but I don't think that's what Jay Tea had in mind (but I'm not a psychic).

Good answer.
On Topic
A lot of times lately I will add a comment to emails among my friends.
The comment being, "If some fiction writer had written this (whatever I'm writing about V) in the 80s, I would have been angry at him for insulting my intelligence."

Actually, Sean, we can't throw out the Congresscritters until next November, which is the same time as we'll be choosing the Bush administration's successors. So why the hell bother impeaching someone who's gonna be out of office in less than a year, anyway?

The only pluses I can see is that 1) it'll keep Congress out of real mischief while they're engaging in this public masturbation, and 2) the leaders of the impeachment movement will most likely make themselves look like the partisan hack idiots they are, and will increase the odds of them being kicked out of office.

But I have too much respect for the Constitution to want to see impeachment used as such a flagrantly partisan power play.

On the other hand, I kinda like the sound of "President Cheney," even for just a few months or a year...

J.

YKMTSU

You kan't?

My personal opinion: fire 90% of State Department, and about 70% of CIA, and start all over.

Love the President Cheney idea. Great idea, J.

Then liberal heads will literally explode. Since there's not much in those heads, not so much to clean up, so that's a plus.

"If we can all agree that "running our government right down the toilet" is a bad thing, which I hope we can, then why not consider all those parties which might be contributing to that?"

Um....Jay did.

Jay:

we can't throw out the Congresscritters until next November,

Well, you weren't that specific in your post. You said, "if we simply kicked 75% of the members out of Congress -- chosen at random, or weighted by seniority". I took that to me we got rid of them through processes other than elections because you're talking about "choosing them at random", in which case how would you convince either the Congressmen to not run or their electorate to not vote for them if their name were chosen out of a hat?

next November, which is the same time as we'll be choosing the Bush administration's successors. So why the hell bother impeaching someone who's gonna be out of office in less than a year, anyway?

I didn't say I favor impeachment, I just asked if it was back on the table. After all, we've been told by conservatives that we can't take anything off the table when it comes military strikes on Iran, right? So why limit our options with respect to impeachment? But as to why bother, maybe so we can get some straight answers on the issues of torture policy, wiretapping, politicization of the justice dept, the millions of "lost" emails, the signing statements, and what's in Cheney's man-size safe (sarc). As you said, "We are the owners of this government, and our employees are not only failing to do their jobs, they're willfully doing whatever the hell they like -- and doing it TO us. That has GOT to end."

1) it'll keep Congress out of real mischief while they're engaging in this public masturbation,

Agreed, but that's politics, neither party is innocent of this. If you don't like it, do your best to ignore it, otherwise you'll just give yourself an ulcer.

2) the leaders of the impeachment movement will most likely make themselves look like the partisan hack idiots they are, and will increase the odds of them being kicked out of office. But I have too much respect for the Constitution to want to see impeachment used as such a flagrantly partisan power play.

I'd glad you recapped the arguments against the 1998 impeachment. Not that it would be much different now, but there are a host of issues (listed above) which rightfully deserve more scrutiny than Clinton's indiscretions, whether you believe them to be partisan or not.

On the other hand, I kinda like the sound of "President Cheney," even for just a few months or a year...

I have a feeling if impeachment hearings did take place, Cheney would quickly be tied up in everything being investigated.

JHN KRR s chrlnt frd nd lr h trd t plct hntrs nd gn wnrs b psng t blz rng bt hs rcrs s fvrng th gn cntrl wcks KRR S FRD