Bill Maher is completely correct on these issue and I seriously doubt Scarborough is really a Libertarian even though he claims he is in this video... his views are much more to the far right.

To me Scarborough sounded a lot more reasonable. I think Maher sounded a bit petty and dodgy. It's a speakers trick to actually talk slower with an air of "listen to what your saying!". It gives you time to think up what to say, although it didn't help Maher much here.

There are many better things to impeach Bush for than sitting around for 7 minutes during 9/11. Impeachment, as far as I understand it, is for a President doing something illegal, not for incompetence.

As a liberal, I've always been troubled by Bill Maher. He uses the same tactics of half-truths, word twisting, and condescenion that we criticize the current adminstration for.

Take his first interview with Ron Paul on Real Time (and I am a Ron Paul opponent). He basically twists Paul's words into "The Civil War was a bad thing," which was not what Paul was saying at all. A few weeks, later he has Paul on again and basically admits he wasn't listening to anything Paul was saying. I'll give him credit for apologizing, though.

Constipational_Tutriot wrote: "Scarborough is really a Libertarian even though he claims he is in this video... his views are much more to the far right."

Which "far right" would that be? Are you suggesting the talking head is a Nazi? Or rather that he is far to the right in the economic sense, ie. a right-wing libertarian no-state free marketer?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

It is absolutely pathetic that some folks will go on who sounds more 'dodgy' or 'petty' rather than actually bother trying to understand what they are saying.

You can sound petty and be completely truthful. You can sound dodgy and be completely truthful.

Some of us learn this at, oh, nine years old.

Billy Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, Bush illegally invades an entire country for oil and all people do is argue over who is more 'liberal' or more 'right wing'.

Anyone who is defending Bush can be considered right wing by pure common sense. If you need to visit a website to quantify somebody's political views then you are clearly and obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

Upvote for Bill Maher having the BALLS to call it like it is.

Move along, now. Nothing to see here.

"... It's a speakers trick to actually talk slower with an air of "listen to what your saying!". It gives you time to think up what to say...."

And we all know how much republicans hate to think.

"It is absolutely pathetic that some folks will go on who sounds more 'dodgy' or 'petty' rather than actually bother trying to understand what they are saying."

Welcome to America. (glad you're here, Irish)

*****

We must also remember, in context, that in the spring of 2003 Democrats relied on intelligence primarily given to them by the Office of Special Plans.

Much of this was verified by Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski.

We must also remember that in 2004, the election year, almost every Democrat was painted as a pro-terrorist.

This is old-school conservative: wrap yourself in the flag and accuse your political rivals of hating your country.

2008 will be very very ugly if Bush's ass isn't in a sling.

preemptive war without declaration. lying about intelligence. illegal. unconstitutional. should be the end of the story.

I do appreciate this conversation from both sides.

zoinnk: Negligence can rise to the level of a criminal offense, e.g. negligent manslaughter charges for a mother who accidentally left her baby to bake in a hot car during the summer.

Forget "rise to the level of".... Bush is a war criminal by all definitions. Bush had his staff send false intelligence to Secretary of State to try to get the UN to pass a war resolution. Bush's signing statements are unConstitutional. Bush's domestic spying program and non-compliance with FISA is both directly explicitly illegal and un-Constitutional.

Bush's directions to the Justice Dept to allow torture is a crime. That's how Geneva works, if you (as head of state or military or both) set policies or orders which result in violations of Geneva, you get a war tribunal. Period.

How about straight up money crimes? Bush's brother is getting how much from DHS and Dept Education? Jeb's in-law is co-owner of Blackwater. Enron, oil companies, energy policy, losts $billions of $$ on palettes in Iraq.

Imagine you were a mayor or a CEO of a company, WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET IMPEACHED? Has Bush so overshot that mark that people just can't comprehend his criminality? I mean this country was willing to Impeach over lying under oath about sex. What about lying about violating the Consitution, or lying to bankrupt your country, or lying that resulted in hundreds of thousands of corpses and enough wounded soldiers to fill up half of the state of Vermont?!

^i guess if you wanna do a war crime, do a big one, wrapped in a Flag.

Zoinnk wrote: "There are many better things to impeach Bush for than sitting around for 7 minutes during 9/11. Impeachment, as far as I understand it, is for a President doing something illegal, not for incompetence."

Sorry I'm late to the game, but I just wanted to comment. I do think there are better reasons to impeach Bush than sitting around for 7 minutes on 9/11. When you boil it down to such a specific, sterile perspective, it seems to lose its point or, at the least, its validity. Sure, there are also other reasons one could use to push for an impeachment that tend to sway more towards him breaking the law, such as invading a country under false pretenses, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Though, I think Maher's point was this: This is the Commander in Chief of our country, our president, the guy we hired into office to make the decisions to protect us in times of crisis from enemies domestic and abroad. He was told our nation was under attack. He wasn't told the severity of the attack, just that we were under attack. And because his response to hearing that we were under attack was to remain seated in this photo-op for an additional 7 minutes, Maher was saying that shows inaction, or rather an inability to run this nation, and therefore should be considered an impeachable offense. I have to agree.

I'm gonna quote myself here since I'm feeling quite lazy. This is part of my comment on this sift: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kucinich-brings-articles-of-impeachment-against-Cheney

Even if he is impeached, by the time the trial is concluded, his term will be nearly over. Besides, all an impeachment trial can do is remove someone from office. I'd rather see charges brought that will effect more than BushDick's political career. I don't think they quite qualify for Crimes Against Humanity, but violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict are an easy match.

I agree that the 7 minutes of sitting around doing nothing on the morning of 9/11 was not even close to Bush's worst mistake, but it was a mistake. Lying to start a war is about a million times worse than lying about a blow job.