Oh, Really?!

So, I came across this story today, and it just made me laugh. After, the fiasco of Katrina, a light, offshore breeze would have given rise to a call to the National Guard!

I Won't Laugh This Hard Again Until... The Republican Convention

I know that I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but DAMN is our news media the furthest distance they can possibly be from honest, unbiased opinion. And after watching CNN and all the other major new outlets proclaiming Jesus Christ, sorry, Barack Obama as a shoe-in to be the next President (which he is), it is incredibly humorous to see persons within the Democratic Party feign whole-hearted endorsement so blatantly obvious that one of those kids Sally Struthers is always crying about would look at it and say, simply... fuck!




Hillary Clinton's speech was the biggest crock of shit that I have ever heard in my life. This is someone who thinks, for some unknown reason, that her family is the heir apparent in American Politics. The woman lost her party's endorsement for President long before she would concede. That was part arrogance. The rest was pretty much a middle finger from a woman who mistakenly believes that she is OWED her political life. She is the whitest repressed person I have ever seen. That's the dichotomy of the American two-party system. The Republicans don't give a shit about anybody but themselves, and the Democrats think that they are all owed something for nothing. It's Socialism in a very loose form.

So, anyway. Do people really want the best person for President? Or do they just want the person from their party, no matter what their belief system? It has to be the latter. And before all you liberals start crying foul, I am not saying Obama or McCain is the best person. I am just asking you how honest you are with yourself when it comes to choosing a candidate.

Hillary Clinton got up in front of the entire convention and proceeded to launch into a half hour of bullshit like I have never seen in my life. It was amusing. I kept trying to imagine what was going on in her head while she was giving the speech. Fly on the wall and all. Would've paid money for that.

Yes, the Democratic National Convention (and Hollywood, apparently) invaded Colorado. Sorry guys! Listen, I understand that people are passionate about their candidate. But, let's be honest, when a celebrity lends their name to a candidate, do they really know what they are advocating? Are they sure they know what policies and laws their guy (or girl) intends on putting into effect once in office? The answer is a resounding no. Wanna know why? Because none of these asshole candidates ever say anything of substance. I'll give you an example.

Moderator: Senator X, with the economy in the toilet, what would you do to right the economy and stop the government from hemorrhaging money the way that it has under the current administration?

Senator X: That is an excellent question. This country must reverse its trend of spending more than than it brings in. It is key that fiscal responsibility be maintained in a manner that benefits all sectors of society and spreads across every key financial demographic group. We are currently in an economic crisis and my administration will take positive, sweeping action to undo the damage on the the Bush Administration with regards to the nation's economy.

Fantastic, dude. Excellent grammar. The problem? He didn't say a damn thing.

We got that from Obama last night. He wants to "change" America. Fucking great. How?

He won't say. And before all the tree-hugging, ultra-liberals jump down my throat, McCain won't say at his party's convention either. They can't. It's the nature of politics. Candidates risk losing supporters in droves if they get too specific during the election process. How freakin' sad is that?

And, listen, I don't mean it's sad that McCain and Obama won't specifically outline policy protocols that their respective administration will undertake if elected (although it is). The more pathetic fact is that the American public is so utterly unyielding when it comes to their beliefs that it can't bear to hear opinions that differ from their own. For some reason, voters need their candidate to agree with everything that they believe. WHAT?!

I'll give you an example. There is a Presidential election at the end of the year.

Candidate A is a moderate Republican who supports the War in Iraq, tax shelters for corporations, and a woman's right to choose.

Candidate B is a moderate Democrat who supports the war in Iraq, would like to reinstate prayer in public school, and supports universal healthcare.

Who do you vote for if you are a conservative Republican? A liberal Democrat?

You see the problem?

Hell in a handbasket? You betcha. Think of all the things we are forced to accept in this society. The political correctness has gotten out of hand. Do I go on television claiming that someone is disrespecting my heritage because they call me "white" instead of "European American"? No! Do I call for the impeachment of the President, using an affair as some bullshit excuse to get him out of office simply because his politics are radically different than mine? No!

The problem with our country right now is ego and self-involvement. The 1970's were not the "Me" decade. This one is. The typical American believes that his opinions, his beliefs, hell his very life is more important than everyone else's. Americans used to bend over backwards to accommodate others. Now, we expect everyone else to bend over backwards to accommodate us. We refuse to listen to points of view that are different from our own. We call anyone who dares to disagree with our political and religious views as close-minded and unyielding, yet we are the exact same way.

The result, we get a bunch of candidates who don't say a damn thing... because they can't. We don't allow them to. We want specifics until those specifics clash with our own beliefs, then we are appalled.

Every election is the lesser of two evils. You are never going to find a candidate who you agree with on 100% of his political views. You find the one you most closely align with and you vote for him, or that's the way it should work.

But, for the most part, it doesn't. People vote along party lines. Why? Because nobody knows, specifically, what his or her candidate believes. Too often, our response is, "Well, I'm a Democrat, and he's a Democrat. So, I'll vote for him". Well, that's all well and good until your candidate gets into office and you learn that his first act as Commander in Chief is to pass a Senate resolution that makes it mandatory to put baby's on pikes every other Saturday. Then you're like, "Oh, fuck. He didn't say he wanted to rack babies during the election." That's because he couldn't, you schmuck. You don't want to hear what he supports, what he believes in, what he is determined to face in his administration. You just want to hear that he agrees with you. That's damn sad.

Hiatal Hiatus

Due to a stunning lack of time, I will be forced to cut back the number of entries I write. From all of us here at Baked America, we are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause the three people who read this blog on a regular basis.

Don't forget to look for new entries at the rate of one about every two weeks.

Thank you... Aloha... Hare Krishna... As-Salamu Alaykum... Party On, Dude... Sumimasen... Xie Xie... And, finally, Go Fuck Yourselves!

The last one, of course, serving as the equivalent of "Aloha" for anyone residing in one of New York's five boroughs. But then, if you've been there, you know what I am saying.

(I can't begin to tell you how much I love this picture of Bush, er, the President.)

Impeach This!

I have to tell you; I am damn sick of ultra-liberals. I am sick of ultra-conservatives too, don't get me wrong, but I am really sick of ultra-liberals right now. While the Republican Party is a sinister, brooding, intolerant lot, concerned mainly with money and war, Democrats have become a hoard of bitchy whiners, crying like some wounded school girl when they don't get their way.





It's starting to become alarmingly annoying. Like Fran Drescher's voice annoying, or possibly that girl who played Janice on "Friends". She was an irritating sort. "We didn't get our way. WWWAAAAAHHHHHH! We're going to hold our breath and stomp our feet until you give in to what we want."












I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am both conservative (the economy, national defense) and liberal (personal liberties). Think of me as the love child of James Carville and Mary Matalin.










And as a political free-agent, I have to say, the Democratic approach to politics has just become embarrassing. They've got the American media in their hip-pocket yet still have the gall to complain, to whine, to moan (and not in the good way), and to bitch. When they don't get their way, they claim that everything is iniquitous, that the system is biased against them. You know who else says that? My five-year-old nephew, except that he doesn't use the word biased, although I am sure he would if he knew what it meant.






I don't like the fact that we spend an inordinate sum of money on defense, on the military. I wish we lived in a world where these expenditures were both superfluous and archaic, a world where we didn't have to watch twenty-year-olds travel half way around the globe in defense of world freedom, where we don’t have to watch them die on a daily basis. Alas, that is not our world.






Our world is one in which people fly planes into skyscrapers. One where struggling nations feel neglected and ignored. We live on a planet where third world countries believe prosperous nations are the sources of all their tribulations and consistently react violently against their falsely perceived oppressors. And if you think that if we disband our military and destroy our weapons the rest of the world will follow suit, you are profoundly mistaken.

We might destroy some perfunctory number of missiles or dismantle a nuclear reactor or two, but every nation will always have some form of a military structure. If you don’t believe that, you are naive beyond measure. Countries have hated each other and gone to war with one another long before The United States of America was even an idea, and unfortunately, will continue to do so long after it has collapsed on itself like a flan in a cupboard.

When Bush is gone, we will get another Democratic President. And in four to eight years, when we are sick of the touchy feely party line, another callous, detached, manipulative prick of a Republican will get elected to come in and shore up all those areas that his predecessor ignored. It is a vile pattern that shows how fickle our citizens are, how we flip-flop from one side of the fence to the other, and the stunning lack of time it takes us to turn from one ideology to another.

Only three times in the last century has an incoming, elected President been a member of the same political party as his predecessor (Taft and Roosevelt, Coolidge and Hoover, and Reagan and Bush - all Republicans). What does this show? It unmistakably indicates that the American people, even in the throws of indecision, comprehend that there are certain periods when someone needs to be brought into office who will run this country like a business. 

What the Democratic Party has always failed to realize is that strong economic and fiscal goals as well as a strong military presence, coupled with an extremely pervasive foreign policy are essential to the preservation of the economy, the nation, and ultimately, its citizens. It also shows that we cannot stomach, for more than a term or two, a President who ignores social issues.

Having said that, all this crap about the impeachment of Bush is a joke. Since George Washington first took office until the present day, we have only impeached two Presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And if you look at the crimes they were convicted of, I'd say you would have to impeach them. But then, by that logic, probably every President could be impeached for one reason or another. Hell, Nixon wasn’t even impeached. Granted he resigned first.

Further, what always amuses me about people clamoring for impeachment is the fact that they have no clue what impeachment actually is. Most people who bring it up believe that it is the removal of President from office. To these people I say, you are all morons. You have no business entering into a political discussion. Return to your couches. Continue to obtain your political beliefs from Oprah and The Drudge Report. There is no room for you here in the intellectual and technological age of the 21st century.

So, for these idiots, I must now explain what impeachment actually entails. If you had paid attention in Government class in high school, this wouldn't be necessary.

Impeachment is merely a Constitutionally authorized process to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. That's it. End of story. There is no more to it.

Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official. After the articles of impeachment are drawn up, they are presented to the House, which then votes on the articles. In essence, the House serves the same function as a grand jury because it weighs all of the evidence presented and determines whether a sufficient amount of evidence exists to justify the articles of impeachment. The House votes on each of the articles separately, with a simple majority needed for each charge to impeach the official. Therefore, if twelve articles are presented to the House, and only one receives a majority vote, the official has been impeached on that one charge only, but impeached none-the-less.

That article is then presented to the Senate which holds a trial. If the accused is found guilty, that person may be removed from office. A guilty vote is composed of a two-thirds majority in the Senate. And in the event the official being tried is the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides.

So, in the case of Bill Clinton, he was impeached by the House of Representatives on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote), both stemming from the Monica Lewinsky case. However, two other articles of impeachment failed: a second count of perjury in the Paula Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote).

At that point, Clinton was impeached, yet he was still in office. The two articles were then sent to the Senate, where he was acquitted of the charges, thus allowing him to remain in office. In fact, out of the three President's who were (Johnson and Clinton), or would've been (Nixon), impeached, none was ever removed from office through the trial process after impeachment.

So, lately, everyone in the Democratic Party and their brother, and their brother's friend, and his sister-in-law, and her lover, and his nanny has been crying out for the impeachment of President Beer Bong. And while I certainly agree he is an absolute moron, we have had Presidents who couldn't find a coherent sentence with a flashlight and an English primer.

What's going on now is retribution, plain and simple, and anyone who supports Bush's impeachment who says differently is an absolute, unequivocal liar.


The framers of the Constitution, at least in the eyes of the authors of the Federalist Papers, the majority of which were written by Alexander Hamilton, did not intend impeachment to merely serve as a method by which one party could cast an official from another party out of office. Unfortunately, the power was utterly abused by the Republican Party in their impeachment of Slick Willie.

And any Republican who says differently is an absolute, unequivocal liar as well.

Certainly, we would like a President to have more character than having an affair and lying to cover it up, but using it to try to get him out of office because you don't happen to like the man or his politics is an abuse of power that simply cannot be tolerated.

On the other hand, it is infinitesimally more childish on the part of the Democratic Party to now try to impeach Bush as some feeble attempt at retribution for the impeachment of Clinton. "Wah, you impeached our President. We're going to do the same to yours, you stupid head, poop face".

It's shit like this that keeps me from affiliating with either party.

In fact, the serious nature of impeachment is reflected in the fact that the House of Representatives has only moved to impeach eighteen officials since the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years ago, with only seven of those being convicted by the Senate at trial. Think about that for a minute. How many officials have we had in 200 years that would qualify for the impeachment process? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? And seven have been removed from office. We impeached the last President and people want to impeach the current one. In the two centuries preceeding Clinton's assumption of the Presidency, we impeached ONE. Now we are trying to impeach two, in consecutive terms. What’s wrong with this picture?

I’ll tell you what it is. We live in a shock value society. Shock me, shock me, shock me. That’s where we are now. We are pandering to the worst of human nature. Eat cow shit, a whale’s vagina, and get hit in the balls three or four hundred times, win $50,000. Who wants to screw my sister? We’ll give you $250,000 and pay for the wedding. A man blows his head off at a news conference today… film at eleven.

We want to impeach the President. Why? Because he lied to the American people? Because he authorized the torture of POWs? No. Because it’s great TV. What a pathetic way to live and a clear marker that our society is in rapid decline.

Most of the clamoring for Bush's impeachment comes from his entering the United States in a war against Iraq. Those doing that talking piss and moan about "weapons of mass destruction" and lying to the American people. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee REJECTED articles of impeachment against Nixon for his secret bombing of Cambodia, saying that his choice to do so was within his executive prerogative as Commander-In-Chief.

And after finding out what Pol Pot was doing in Cambodia, I bet you would be hard-pressed to find anyone, save some old hippie, who now doesn't believe that an attempt to aid the Cambodians from the oppressive rule of the Khmer Rouge was justified.

Look, you don't like Bush. I don't like Bush. Is he a moron? Yes. Is he a bad President? Certainly. Did he make a huge mistake by pulling half of our troops out of Afghanistan and putting them in Iraq? Hell, yes! But, I am sorry vengeful Democratic Party people; that was his prerogative as the Commander-in-Chief and simply not an impeachable offense.

The baby whining contention of the Democratic Party is trying to claim that Bush is a murder and a felon and all other sorts of bullshit that they are flinging against a wall to see what will stick, hoping in desperation to bring articles of impeachment against him.

By that logic, every President that has entered our country into war would have been impeachable. If you think that Presidents haven't lied to the American people in an attempt to keep certain aspects of war secret, you're as dumb as W. It's a war! It's not supposed to be common knowledge. We're trying to win it. It has to be covert. If you don't understand that, how do you not fall down more?

Many Presidents, throughout the entire history of our glorious nation, have stuck troops where they were not wanted or needed, with horrendous results, and we didn't impeach them. Presidents have also put troops where they were wanted and needed, with horrendous results, and we didn't impeach them either.

You see, the American public, of which I am a proud member, has the attention span of a two-year-old.

After September 11, 2001, everyone in America was screaming for a war. We wanted it; We asked for it; We pleaded for it; We begged for it: "Let's go kill those terrorist bastards. Wipe 'em, all out and turn the Middle East into a fucking parking lot!"

But, when we've been out of one for a while, we forget what a war looks and sounds like; It's brutal; It's ugly. People die. Our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters, our moms, our dads, our husbands, and our wives, they die. What the hell did we think was going to happen? Compound that with President No-Brain's horrendous decision to try to kill two birds with one stone by invading Iraq, and people started to cry, "Our kids are dying."

At that time, the impeachment buzz began. But, let's face it, sending our country to war and being less than 100% honest about why the war was being fought is not an impeachable offense. On the contrary, it seems to a Presidential imperative.

So, according to the Constitution's high crimes and misdemeanors clause (misdemeanor in this sense is not the same as that found in criminal law), what other President's would have qualified for impeachment? Let's see:
________________________________________________________________________________________

James Madison

Jimmy was responsible for getting us into the War of 1812. And for those of you who didn't pay attention in History class (probably the same morons who think impeachment is removing someone from office), the War of 1812 was fought between the English and America... in 1812. Well, and 1813-14.

Believe it or not, this fiasco started with the American invasion of Canada. Yes, Canada. No, I understand it's amusing. Can we move on, please?

The British were in a war with the French led by some short guy named Bonaparte. The fledgling democracy in America had the gall to think it could trade with whoever it chose, namely France. Cheeky bastards! Of course, the mother country, and whatever frumpy Queen was leading her, decided that was unacceptable and her Royal Navy kept American supplies from reaching French shores.

President Madison saw Canada as his way out. The idea of conquering the nation, at least in his mind, would serve as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. Essentially, Madison wanted Canada for economic coercion, cutting off supplies to the British West Indies, and forcing England to terms with America.

So, Madison invaded Canada to get England to talk to us. Hmmm. Of course, he also thought it would be an easy American victory. He was wrong. The American toll? 2,300 dead, 4,500 wounded.

________________________________________________________________________________________

James K. Polk

After Mexico gained independence from the Spanish Empire at the end of its War of Independence in 1821, it inherited the province of Texas from Spain. The United States made inquiries to the Mexican government in regards to the purchase of Texas. Mexico let it be known that it was vehemently against the sale of Texas.

In 1936, Texas rebelled against Mexican rule, after which it declared its independence from Mexico, which, in turn, responded with an invasion of Texas. On April 21, 1836, Santa Anna's forces were defeated at the Battle of San Jacinto. Santa Anna was taken captive by Texas militia and released after signing the Treaties of Velasco in which he promised to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Texas and acknowledged the Rio Grande as the boundary between Texas and Mexico.

However, the Mexican government refused to recognize the validity of the treaties, claiming Santa Anna was not a representative of Mexico, that he had no authority to negotiate on behalf of Mexico, and that he signed away Texas under duress. As a result, Mexico never ratified the Treaties of Velasco.

Texas established diplomatic relationships with Spain and France as part of its efforts to establish itself as an independent republic. Under U.S. President John Tyler, Texas was offered admission to the Union as a slave state. The bill was signed into law on March 1, 1845. It was ratified by Texas on July 4 of the same year. Texas officially became the 28th state on December 29, 1845. The law signed by President James K. Polk.

Polk was born in North Carolina and lived most of his life in Tennessee. He was pro-slavery and envisioned spreading slavery across the entire North American continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He was a strong supporter of Manifest Destiny. For those of you unfamiliar, it was an idea that was grounded in the belief that God had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy throughout North America. In other words, Manifest Destiny gave us a means by which we could assuage any emotional conflicts we might have in regards to killing Indians and Mexicans, stealing their land, and making that land part of the United States. After all, how could we be wrong if it is what God wanted us to do? Brilliant piece of propaganda.

Well, Mexico had warned that the attempt to make Texas a part of the United States would be an act of war. So, essentially, Polk had gotten us into the Mexican-American War because he wanted to expand slavery, and most historians list him between eight and twelve on the list of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

So, lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction, invade a country notorious for genocide and numerous civil rights abuses, worry about impeachment. Invade a territory of your neighbor, claim it for yourself, and litter it with slaves... one of the greatest presidents ever, hmmm.


Polk was responsible for the second largest land expansion in U.S. History.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 ended the war and not only gave America all land in Texas north of the Rio Grande river, but also ceded to the U.S. the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

Would people want to impeach Bush if he had ratified Iraq as the 51st state?


________________________________________________________________________________________

Abraham Lincoln



In his inaugural address, Lincoln said he that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void". He also stated that he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property.








However, he later broke that promise sending troops into the Confederate States and pretty much burning down everything in the army's path, displacing entire families, raping women, and forcing newly freed slaves into service for the Union Army.





What is utterly ironic about the entire thing is that Mexico didn't recognize Texas' secession from Mexico and we applauded Texans for their brash, independent spirit. Then the southern states secede from the United States, the EXACT same thing, and the government refused to recognize the Confederacy's independence. I guess the Southern states were neither brash nor independent of spirit. How many t's are there in hypocrite?

Repression of states that don't follow the party line? That sounds very familiar. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, Chiang Kai Shek, and now Abraham Lincoln. Interesting.


________________________________________________________________________________________

William McKinley
By the beginning of the 20th century, America had already begun to throw its political weight around in regards to international politics. In 1898, the U.S. demanded that Spain resolve the Cuban struggle for independence. Cuba had been under Spanish rule since Christopher Columbus claimed it during his first voyage to the New World.

Of course, Spain told us to mind our own goddamned business. There was a feeling that the interest in Cuba was far less for the independence of the small island nation than the possibility of American expansion, and when Spanish loyalists began to revolt in Havana, McKinley sent in the troops. Voila! (Yes, I know that's French. I don't know the Spanish equivalent. Sue Me). We entered into the Spanish American War.


109 days later, the Treaty of Paris was signed, and the U.S ended up gaining Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam from Spain. Not a bad haul for three months work and considering nobody asked us to get involved in the first place. See it, want it, take it. Tis the American way, after all; or, at the very least, McKinley's way.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Woodrow Wilson

Wilson got us into WWI, or what he called "The War to End All Wars". In all fairness, he tried his damndest to keep us out it, but by 1917 had come to the conclusion that we had to enter the war to "make the world safe for democracy".

I don't have a problem with him entering the war. In fact, I don't have a problem with any of the Presidents highlighted thus far. Remember, the purpose of this post is to show those calling for President Shithead's impeachment that almost every President in our history could have been impeached if we so chose. Further, impeachment was never intended to be used as a political weapon and has never been used as such for the entirety of the history of our country until very recently.

Where I run into problems with Wilson is the fact that shortly after entering the Great War, Wilson pushed through Congress the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which served to suppress anti-British, pro-German, or anti-war opinions. Over 170,000 US citizens were arrested during this period, in some cases for private comments expressing displeasure with Wilson.

Further, his administration sanctioned the American Protective League. APL members carried government-issued badges and freely conducted warrantless searches and interrogations. The Justice Department authorized the APL to spy on Americans in search of anti-government and/or anti-war behavior. The APL checked up on people who failed to buy Liberty Bonds and spoke out against the government’s policies. Think of a pre-WWII privatized version of the Gestapo, with less dead bodies.

The APL had no actual legal authority to do anything. APL members acted as vigilantes, violating the civil liberties of American citizens. The APL illegally detained citizens associated with progressive, labor, and pacifist movements. The APL also harassed anti-war advocates. These activities were clearly illegal, yet supported by the Wilson administration.

Is there such a thing as a Democratic SS?
________________________________________________________________________________________

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FDR was one of the country's most beloved presidents. He is the only one who served more than two terms, serving four total. He also had the unenviable task of pulling America from the clutches of the Great Depression.

On December 7, 1941 the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, effectively thrusting the United States into the middle of World War II. Less than three months later, on February 19, 1942, he signed Executive Order 9066. This directive allowed FDR to exercise war powers to send ethnic groups to internment camps. These groups were composed of people containing "foreign enemy ancestry", predominantly Japanese, Italians, and Germans.

Talk about racial profiling. Every Japanese person in California and southern Arizona were relocated to the camps, a total of 120,000 people. Of those, 62% were second or third generation Americans.

Imprisoning your own citizens during war for no other reason than their genetic extraction? Wow. And everybody loved this guy.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Harry S. Truman



After Japan refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference and stated Japan would face "prompt and utter destruction" if the Declaration was not agreed to, Truman authorized the use of two atomic bombs, one over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, the other over Nagasaki three days later.

























Any questions?

________________________________________________________________________________________

John F. Kennedy

Where do I start? He fucked every woman he ever came into contact with, then passed 'em on to his brothers; he got us into the Vietnam War; and he was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

He may have been good-looking, had a gift for oratory and a really hot wife (thank you, Larry Flynt), but he was a cowardly, waffling, little weasel who not only got a lot of our own boys killed in Southeast Asia, he managed to get 1,200 Cubans killed or captured by hanging them out to dry.

Yeah, he was a wonderful President.



________________________________________________________________________________________

Lyndon B. Johnson

Well, if you believe Oliver Stone, Johnson is responsible for the assassination of JFK. But, considering Stone lies more than American Tobacco, The NRA, The Clintons, Union Carbide and that guy who was Saddam's Information Minister... combined; let's stick with something more tangible.

For LBJ, I think I will use the Gulf of Tonkin incidents. While usually referred to singularly, there were actually two events. On August 2, 1964, two U.S. destroyers reported that they had been fired upon by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. One of the torpedo boats was sunk. The second confrontation occurred on August 4, 1964. The North Vietnamese insisted that they had not attacked the U.S. ships. These two events were the impetus for the first large-scale American presence in Vietnam. While Kennedy first got us into Vietnam, it was truly Johnson's war.

As a result, Johnson pushed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution through Congress. The resolution gave Johnson the power to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by communist aggression. Essentially, the resolution gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. The Johnson administration subsequently cited the resolution as legal authority for its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

Here's the thing, the first event was overblown and the second, well the second never happened. It was all a lie, and Johnson knew it.

A president lying to get us into a war? I know I've heard that somewhere before. Give me a second; it'll come to me.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Richard M. Nixon




Do I really have to say anything here?





________________________________________________________________________________________


That's quite a list, and I haven't even mentioned all the Presidents who waged war on numerous American Indian tribes. For those keeping score, that would be every President from 1817 to 1893. The scorecard? I have it. I'm not sure if you want it, but I have it.



































































































________________________________________________________________________________________

So, President Beer Bong pulls half the troops out of Afghanistan and puts them into Iraq, a war we were winning, by the by, you presidential putz! He justifies doing so by referencing "weapons of mass destruction". Is that impeachable? In and of itself, is lying to the American people about the rationale for going to war and then about events that occur within a war impeachable? According to the House of Representatives in 1974, no. According to human honesty and decency? I don't know. But, if you want to impeach Bush for lying to the American public about the reasoning for going to war, as well as the events which occur during the war, you would have to impeach nearly every President in the history of our wonderful country.

Get over it. Bush won twice. He's almost out of office. Look forward. Grow up. Deal. Move on.

Oh, and a final word to Ted Kennedy, who, over the past several years has stated that he would not be opposed to pursuing an impeachment plan against Bush.

Dude, Chappaquiddick. Bush lied to the American people and authorized some instances of torture during interrogation, the information from which has been used to save American lives. You got drunk, wrecked your car, and because you were too chicken shit to get a DUI, which in 1969, was about the equivalent of a speeding ticket, or of your wife finding out that you were screwing a young campaign worker, she died. But, we both know why you did it Teddy. You didn't want to lose your Presidential nomination. How did that work out for your? You didn't get it in '72 or '80. She died for nothing, you dick.

You were in office then as you are now. Should we impeach you too, you callous, two-faced, self-involved, dishonest, skirt-chasing drunk?!