MSNBC poll - 86% want impeachment

[conjur]

H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 12/18/2005) Cosponsors (27)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.

COSPONSORS(27), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/31/2006
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 12/22/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 2/7/2006
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/7/2006
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/8/2006
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 12/22/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 2/1/2006
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/7/2006
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/7/2006
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/31/2006
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] - 2/7/2006
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 2/14/2006
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/31/2006
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 2/1/2006
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 2/16/2006
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 1/31/2006
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/22/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 12/22/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 3/2/2006
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/31/2006
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/31/2006
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/16/2006
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/14/2006
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 12/22/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 12/22/2005


Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 12/22/2005(withdrawn - 1/31/2006)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Conyers is pushing for an investigation to then determine if they should look into impeachment.

It boils done to a grandstanding play.

If he ever gets enough momentum to make a serious dent on the poltical radar in Congress; the term will be well over.

One might wonder why the co-sponsor withdrew?

 

[conjur]

Zoe Lofgren
?During the December recess I was surprised to read in a newspaper article that I was listed as a cosponsor of House Resolutions 635, 636 and 637 since I had not cosponsored any of these measures. I discovered that due to administrative errors, my name was mistakenly added to these bills by the Judiciary Committee staff. I never was a cosponsor of any of them but the only way to correct the committee?s error under the rules of the House is to ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor even though I never asked to be added to these pieces of legislation. I could not correct these errors until the House reconvened, which is why I am taking this action today.

I have been involved in two impeachment proceedings against American Presidents. The first was in 1974 during the impeachment inquiry related to President Nixon when I served on the staff of a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Don Edwards. The second was in 1998 as a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Clinton.

Impeachment of a President is provided for in the Constitution only in cases of bribery, treason or ?high crimes and misdemeanors.? The latter phrase had a very specific meaning to the drafters of our Constitution and was meant to include misbehavior by a President that threatened the very nature of our government. President Nixon resigned before the Congress could vote on his impeachment, but the impeachment articles adopted by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee included behavior that was so lawless that it could threaten the very nature of the American government.

The partisan 1998 impeachment was based on personal misbehavior by the President and was, in my judgment, a misuse of the impeachment provisions in the Constitution. Use of impeachment for any reason that does not meet the standard set in the Constitution must be avoided by the Congress.

Serious questions have been raised about President Bush?s actions in approving warrantless wiretaps by the NSA, as well as questions about both the Vice President?s and the President?s information that was provided to the Congress as the basis for the decision to initiate war in Iraq. These important questions need to be answered, and Congress should then consider the answers in a careful, deliberate and thoughtful manner. It is important that this process be done in a dispassionate way that avoids partisanship. This thorough analysis should, in my judgment, be undertaken before anything such as these resolutions are considered.?

 

[JEDIYoda]

nothing biased about that poll.....
of course you will get more who want him impeached...thats loaded topic for a poll...too bad MSNBC had to stoo so low...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
Serious questions have been raised about President Bush?s actions in approving warrantless wiretaps by the NSA, as well as questions about both the Vice President?s and the President?s information that was provided to the Congress as the basis for the decision to initiate war in Iraq. These important questions need to be answered, and Congress should then consider the answers in a careful, deliberate and thoughtful manner. It is important that this process be done in a dispassionate way that avoids partisanship. This thorough analysis should, in my judgment, be undertaken before anything such as these resolutions are considered.?

Interesting that only his name was added; not anyone else.
I would wonder how many others are put in such situations by "mistakes"


This first section that I bolded will nto happen as long as there are people (in & out of politics) that are so anti-Bush taht they will distort the process.

The second bolded area tshows that he feels the Conyers is jumping the gun. This is his experience talking based on what else is in the press release.

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: novon
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

I'm not trying to get this thread locked, but what ever happened to adding a comment? Or are those-in-control more tolerent of some things over others?

 

[daniel49]

thier explanion from thier own poll site:

One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
To explain the vast gap in the numbers in this and other similar cases, it is necessary to look at the difference in the two kinds of surveys.

POLLS
Journalists use polls to gauge what the public is thinking. The most statistically accurate picture is captured by using a randomly selected sample of individuals within the group that is being targeted, typically adult Americans.

While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, studies have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people.

So, in the case of that NBC-WSJ poll, only 2,005 adults were surveyed by the polling organizations of Peter D. Hart and Robert M. Teeter. The poll was conducted by telephone and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. The confidence level means that if the same poll were conducted 100 times, each one randomly selecting the people polled, only five of the polls would be expected to yield results outside the margin of error.

Random selection of those polled is necessary to ensure a broad representation of the population at large. For example, a nationwide poll asking which NBA team is the best would likely yield a far different answer in Philadelphia than in Los Angeles. (And neither one would be a good sample of the population at large.)

In the NBC-WSJ survey, pollsters first randomly selected a number of geographic areas and then telephone numbers were generated in a way that allowed all numbers in those areas (both listed and unlisted) an equal chance to be called. Only one adult in each household was then selected to answer the poll.

While variation can occur depending on what questions are asked and how they are asked, similar questions tend to yield similar answers. One way to account for variation, however, is to ask the same question over a period of time.

ONLINE SURVEYS
In contrast, MSNBC's online surveys (Live Votes) may reflect the views of far more individuals, but they are not necessarily representative of the general population.

To begin with, the people who respond choose to do so ? they are not randomly selected and asked to participate, but instead make the choice to read a story about a certain topic and then vote on a related question. There is thus no guarantee that the votes would reflect anything close to a statistical sample, even of MSNBC.com users: The participants in a Sports Live Vote and a Politics Live Vote may overlap, but each group is likely to be dominated by people with an interest in each particular area. In addition, while MSNBC.com?s Live Votes are designed to allow only one vote per user, someone who wants to vote more than once could simply use another computer or another Internet account.

According to Nielsen//NetRatings, nearly 75 percent or 204.3 million Americans had access to the Internet from home in early 2004. In contrast, more than 90 percent of Americans live in homes with a telephone.

This does not mean that Internet polling cannot be scientific. Harris Interactive, for example, has set up a system with checks and balances that allow it to use the Internet to obtain survey results comparable with more traditional methods.

But MSNBC?s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users. Let us know what you think.



the accuracy speaks for itself in the fine print

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla

Originally posted by: novon
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

I'm not trying to get this thread locked, but what ever happened to adding a comment? Or are those-in-control more tolerent of some things over others?

It may have to do with the fact that the thread took off without a flaming before it came to the attention of the Mods.

Noticed the date it was posted.

 

[conjur]

32 Congressman on board for impeachment
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Repor...ressmen_call_for_impeachment_0316.html

3 Senators on board for censure and a Republican Senator (Chafee) not ruling it out
http://www.turnto10.com/politics/8060958/detail.html

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: conjur
32 Congressman on board for impeachment
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Repor...ressmen_call_for_impeachment_0316.html

3 Senators on board for censure and a Republican Senator (Chafee) not ruling it out
http://www.turnto10.com/politics/8060958/detail.html

Keep it coming, I just saw Chafee's comments and he said he currently doesn't support the proposal.

Report: Chafee Does Not Rule Out Presidential Censure Vote

I say Frist brings it to a vote each and everyday until they have a vote. Let's have this vote.

 

[conjur]

How about this?

Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_...icans_slightly_favor_plan_to_0316.html

A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.

A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.

Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur
How about this?

Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_...icans_slightly_favor_plan_to_0316.html

A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.

A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.

Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.

Sounds like a push poll to me.

 

[venk]

I can't believe 8% believe he did NOTHING wrong. Even the president is still human and prone to mistakes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: venk
I can't believe 8% believe he did NOTHING wrong. Even the president is still human and prone to mistakes.

Look to the poster above you for the typical mindset of people that would make up that 8%.

 

[johnnobts]

online poll, not an accurate gauge. look at the MSNBC online polls they do every day. They're always tilted left. When the real polls come in (Gallup, Fox, Barna, whatever), I highly doubt that many Americans want Bush impeached. What you have are little liberals sitting at their computers all day, voting repeatedly (should bush be impeached? Click yes, refresh page, click yes, repeat ad nauseum). not putting any stock in this garbage. won't bother to respond to this thread again after this post.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: kogase
MSNBC open online poll...

Online polls are pretty much meaningless (I don't mean poll results shown online, I mean polls that are "taken" online).

It is possible to make them meaningful though. Gotta make some assumptions though, and it would be nice if you knew your assumptions were valid. This goes for ALL surveys that use parametric statistics. Are they assuming a gaussian, gamma, t, F, etc prior? If your process is gaussian and you assume its F your results are just as meaningless.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: xeemzor
The only problem with impeaching Bush is that Cheney becomes the President.

That's my fear too. I bet we could tie some of these charges to him, since he prolly gave the orders in the first place.

Yeah, but he'll shoot your ass.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: venk
I can't believe 8% believe he did NOTHING wrong. Even the president is still human and prone to mistakes.

Look to the poster above you for the typical mindset of people that would make up that 8%.

I have never claimed or even thought Bush has done nothing wrong. Sorry to disappoint you fringe types but this Conservative doesn't worship Bush and doesn't think he's made all the right decisions.

Your poll oversampled/overweighted Democrats and also used a misleading question. That constitutes a pushpoll because it floats a claim and a potential result out there to stir things up.

BTW, who is this American Research Group? They don't seem to be a very widely regarded/recognized group.

 

[jlmadyson]

Dayton assails Feingold's call for censuring Bush

WASHINGTON - Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton Thursday strongly criticized fellow Democrat Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over a warrantless surveillance program.

"It's an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country," Dayton said of Feingold, a Wisconsin senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate.

"I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions, without any consultations from his colleagues. I think it was irresponsible."

Although Feingold has gotten a tepid response from Democrats, none has publicly blasted the proposal the way Dayton did on Thursday. The assault was even more striking given that Dayton is one of Bush's harshest Senate critics.

In a statement issued to The Associated Press, Feingold said, "I agree with what Sen. Dayton said in January when he called the president's illegal wiretapping program an 'abuse of power.' Now it is up to senators to decide how to respond to that abuse of power.

"The Senate has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law by condemning the president's decision to break the law and I hope my colleagues will listen to what their constituents think during the upcoming congressional recess."

But Dayton said Thursday that although he disagrees with the White House assertion that
Bush was authorized to sanction the warrantless surveillance program under his powers as commander in chief, the White House has at least made a "plausible case" that it was constitutional.

Dayton said he and his Democratic colleagues were "blindsided" by Feingold's proposal, made on ABC News on Sunday.

Now, that is what I call unity, let's have that vote.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Dayton assails Feingold's call for censuring Bush

WASHINGTON - Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton Thursday strongly criticized fellow Democrat Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over a warrantless surveillance program.

"It's an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country," Dayton said of Feingold, a Wisconsin senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate.

"I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions, without any consultations from his colleagues. I think it was irresponsible."

Although Feingold has gotten a tepid response from Democrats, none has publicly blasted the proposal the way Dayton did on Thursday. The assault was even more striking given that Dayton is one of Bush's harshest Senate critics.

In a statement issued to The Associated Press, Feingold said, "I agree with what Sen. Dayton said in January when he called the president's illegal wiretapping program an 'abuse of power.' Now it is up to senators to decide how to respond to that abuse of power.

"The Senate has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law by condemning the president's decision to break the law and I hope my colleagues will listen to what their constituents think during the upcoming congressional recess."

But Dayton said Thursday that although he disagrees with the White House assertion that
Bush was authorized to sanction the warrantless surveillance program under his powers as commander in chief, the White House has at least made a "plausible case" that it was constitutional.

Dayton said he and his Democratic colleagues were "blindsided" by Feingold's proposal, made on ABC News on Sunday.

Now, that is what I call unity, let's have that vote.

Seems the dems are all hat and no cattle. :laugh:

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Dayton assails Feingold's call for censuring Bush

WASHINGTON - Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton Thursday strongly criticized fellow Democrat Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over a warrantless surveillance program.

"It's an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country," Dayton said of Feingold, a Wisconsin senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate.

"I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions, without any consultations from his colleagues. I think it was irresponsible."

Although Feingold has gotten a tepid response from Democrats, none has publicly blasted the proposal the way Dayton did on Thursday. The assault was even more striking given that Dayton is one of Bush's harshest Senate critics.

In a statement issued to The Associated Press, Feingold said, "I agree with what Sen. Dayton said in January when he called the president's illegal wiretapping program an 'abuse of power.' Now it is up to senators to decide how to respond to that abuse of power.

"The Senate has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law by condemning the president's decision to break the law and I hope my colleagues will listen to what their constituents think during the upcoming congressional recess."

But Dayton said Thursday that although he disagrees with the White House assertion that
Bush was authorized to sanction the warrantless surveillance program under his powers as commander in chief, the White House has at least made a "plausible case" that it was constitutional.

Dayton said he and his Democratic colleagues were "blindsided" by Feingold's proposal, made on ABC News on Sunday.

Now, that is what I call unity, let's have that vote.

Seems the dems are all hat and no cattle. :laugh:

Of course, Harkin puts it best;

Democrats distancing themselves from Feingold's censure motion

WASHINGTON - President Bush's approval ratings have hit a new low, the war in Iraq has more skeptics than at any other point during its three-year run and voters have begun questioning the Republicans' credentials on national security.

So as political fortunes appear to be rising for Democrats, it might seem that a motion to censure Bush for his domestic spying program would be an ideal way to galvanize the Democratic Party and throw Republicans on the defensive eight months before the midterm elections.

Yet Democrats are hurriedly distancing themselves from a call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to censure Bush for allegedly breaking the law regarding domestic surveillance. As

Feingold has tried to build support for what would be the first formal rebuke of a president since the 19th century, Democrats intent on seizing control of Congress seem to wish the proposal would simply go away.

"It's not impeachment, but it's not something you apply lightly," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "And whether we want to start applying censure motions or impeachment when there are questions about a president's authority in national security is something that you have to be judicious about."

Four days after Feingold announced the resolution on the Senate floor, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was the lone Democrat to lend his name to the proposal. In a news conference Thursday, Feingold conceded: "You know, many in my caucus don't want to talk about this.

"Of course I want to minimize any problems that this would cause for the Democrats," he added. "But in the long run, I am convinced this will be part of a broader message that an administration that is incompetent, dishonest and doesn't respect the law basically means that we should have a different kind of administration in the future."

Democrats, who have benefited politically from Bush's troubles in Iraq and have started to make inroads on Bush's signature issue of national security, fear that Feingold's measure goes too far and could alienate centrist voters. Criticizing Bush is one thing, they worry, but a move to humiliate the commander in chief could make them look mean, out of touch and perhaps irresponsible, not to mention energizing the Republican base.

"Democrats have to focus on average voters and their needs and not get diverted by other things," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "That's where we'll find success."

When asked about the censure resolution, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, paused for several seconds before wrinkling his face and trying to change the subject. He and others believe the censure discussion is a distraction.

"If you were going to do a censure, which doesn't exist in the Constitution, I would censure for not having a minimum wage increase. I'd have a censure for not having a health care policy," he said. "That's my view. I'd like to have Congress do its job."

Censure, a formal condemnation by the Senate, has been employed successfully only against one president. It was March 1834 and Andrew Jackson was entangled in a furor over the Bank of the United States. He ultimately ignored the rebuke, though, and it was expunged three years later.

The White House has strongly defended the wiretapping program, in which the National Security Agency, without court oversight, has monitored some international communications involving people inside the United States. The administration says that key members of Congress were briefed and that Bush was authorized to order the wiretapping under the congressional resolution after the Sept. 11 attacks. A spokesman dismissed the censure call as "partisan politics."

When asked about the censure resolution, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered a glimpse Thursday into the criticism some Democrats fear if the issue is pursued. He delivered a stinging criticism of Feingold, saying: "Sometimes you begin to wonder if he's more interested in the safety and security of the terrorists as opposed to the American people."

Feingold made no apologies. He said Bush should be censured for adopting an "illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil."

While Feingold conceded Thursday that chances of passing the resolution are slim, he said he wanted "people to be talking about ways to bring accountability whether censure succeeds or not." He said he had no intention of dropping the matter and suggested Democrats were misguided in their attempts to quash it.

"Why would people cower at a time when the president's numbers are so low?" Feingold said, adding that Democrats have repeatedly allowed themselves to be intimidated by Republicans in the war on terrorism.

"That just shows us to be weak rather than a party that's ready to govern the country," said Feingold, who is considering a presidential bid in 2008. "We need to show that we're strong and this is a way to do it."

Other Democrats disagreed. They said the censure call was not warranted until the Senate Intelligence Committee completed its investigation of the eavesdropping program.

"The determination needs to be made as to whether or not the law was broken or how close the White House has come to breaking the law," said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. "The facts have to be known. And we don't know what the facts are."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Intelligence Committee, said it was premature to call for censure. "Until you know what the issue is," she said, "I don't know how you can make any kind of decision at all."

When asked whether she believed the discussion could be politically damaging to Democrats, she concluded a brief interview with a smile.
"Oh," she said, "I'm not going to get into that."

The gift that keeps on giving....

 

[Zebo]

I voted no. Honestly we could be doing a lot worse than Bush.. The war party is firmly entrenched in washington on both sides...Hillary is calling for outright invasion of Iran.. McCian never saw a war he did'nt just love even breaking ranks with Clintons unconsititutional and unlawful invasion of Serbia when senate actually voted against it! And Cheny is nuts!

Bush is a peacemaker compared to alternatives I've seen.


It's the biggest "wag the dog" government I've seen in my lifetime.. where instead of the people telling thier governemnt what to do the government officials are dictating to us what she should be doing and even lie to make thier case.

 

[will889]

Bush is a peacemaker compared to alternatives I've seen.

 

[zanieladie]

Who knows...I watch FOX News.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I voted no. Honestly we could be doing a lot worse than Bush.. The war party is firmly entrenched in washington on both sides...Hillary is calling for outright invasion of Iran.. McCian never saw a war he did'nt just love even breaking ranks with Clintons unconsititutional and unlawful invasion of Serbia when senate actually voted against it! And Cheny is nuts!

Bush is a peacemaker compared to alternatives I've seen.


It's the biggest "wag the dog" government I've seen in my lifetime.. where instead of the people telling thier governemnt what to do the government officials are dictating to us what she should be doing and even lie to make thier case.

Maybe Dick could arrange a hunting trip with the president of Iran