Impeach Bush?

[WITHTEETH]

At a news conference in South Korea, Mr Bush was asked if he agreed with Mr Hagel that questioning the reasoning for war was patriotic - or with Mr Cheney.

 

He shot back "the vice-president".

 

I don't, even after reading the article, understand the significance of that blurb

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it was great that a republican was questioning the war. even further intresting is that The US President Thinks its unpatriotic to question war. I really liked the trickery that reporter used with the president. It was a lose lose question for him, but that was his own fault, Bush put himself in that position.

[kumquatq3]

Sure ok, but I meant that specific passage, why is it even in there

[SteveThaiBinh]

Actually, those people are held in Guantanamo specifically because doing it there isn't technically a crime. Or have I been misinformed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're correct. Sadly, Bush won't be impeached because of it (or anything else), unless Republicans seeking re-election decide it would win them votes. I don't see how that might be, but I suppose anything's possible.

[WITHTEETH]

UPDATE: Here are some reasons for the Phenomenon thats been going around.

 

Bush 'backed spying on Americans'

 

Analysis: US torture ban law

 

Office of Special Plans

 

Bush attacked Iraq against UN's decision.This is a violation of the United Nations Charter that the US signed to help stop unnecessary wars happening.

 

All of his assumptions are/were wrong:

There is no Link to Al Queda till we brought AlQueda to Iraq because they hate us.

Theres no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The War is not Paying for Itself.

Bush said this would take months,we are not out of Iraq yet, and we Killed 2000 of our men, plus 30,000 Iraqi's.

 

There is no way The United States Congress had all the Information Bush and Cheney had. They get CIA intelligence breifings daily, Congress got one summary thats been handed down many hands, checked and revised.

 

John Kerry said: "If we win back the House [in 2006], I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

This was said as a joke though.

[Darth_Schmarth]

This was said as a joke though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good thing you told us.

[WITHTEETH]

Yea, well with the Supreme Court in charge of Presidential Impeachment and Bush just electing his own chief Justice... Thats a big hurdle!

Edited December 20, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Judge Hades]

I hope they do impeach the preident and Bush forced to resign or something along those lines. Then again we would have Cheney in charge and I don't like that idea either.

[taks]

Yea, well with the Supreme Court in charge of Presidential Impeachment and Bush just electing his own chief Justice... Thats a big hurdle!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, the chief justice presides over the trial, but he is in no way "in charge" of any impeachment process. if congress wants to bring the articles and pass them to the senate (an impeachment), it will, regardless of what the chief thinks. also, bush had "his own" chief justice before he got to pick a new one anyway so it's not a real issue.

 

regardless of whether you like bush or not, there's no real grounds for any sort of impeachment. he's committed no real "high crimes and misdemeanors" that can be effectively put forth in articles of impeachment.

 

and remember, gripe all you want about the intelligence, but the guy in charge at the time was clinton's man (tenet was appointed during the clinton administration in 1997), a long time democrat. he was the one that personally assured the president of the information he was getting.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

Believe what you want. If Bush gets a blow job in the Oval Office THATS where I draw the line.............

 

 

Are you feeling my deep sarcasm everyone? Whether you believe in his impeachment or not, does a man have to get a blow job in the Oval office to get one? This standard is now ludicrous. <_<

Edited December 20, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Calax]

Believe what you want, you believe hes innocent because you voted for him and you obviously cant be wrong. If Bush gets a blow job in the Oval Office THATS where I draw the line.............

 

 

Are you feeling my deep sarcasm everyone? Whether you believe in his impeachment or not, does a man have to get a blow job in the Oval office to get one? This standard is now ludicrous.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow... I just realized that you could get away with near murder and not get impeached because of the mantra of "9/11 and terrorists did it!"

[Commissar]

Yea, well with the Supreme Court in charge of Presidential Impeachment and Bush just electing his own chief Justice... Thats a big hurdle!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, the chief justice presides over the trial, but he is in no way "in charge" of any impeachment process. if congress wants to bring the articles and pass them to the senate (an impeachment), it will, regardless of what the chief thinks. also, bush had "his own" chief justice before he got to pick a new one anyway so it's not a real issue.

 

regardless of whether you like bush or not, there's no real grounds for any sort of impeachment. he's committed no real "high crimes and misdemeanors" that can be effectively put forth in articles of impeachment.

 

and remember, gripe all you want about the intelligence, but the guy in charge at the time was clinton's man (tenet was appointed during the clinton administration in 1997), a long time democrat. he was the one that personally assured the president of the information he was getting.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I notice you skipped right over the NSA bit. No thoughts on that, Taksy?

[Calax]

Yea, well with the Supreme Court in charge of Presidential Impeachment and Bush just electing his own chief Justice... Thats a big hurdle!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, the chief justice presides over the trial, but he is in no way "in charge" of any impeachment process. if congress wants to bring the articles and pass them to the senate (an impeachment), it will, regardless of what the chief thinks. also, bush had "his own" chief justice before he got to pick a new one anyway so it's not a real issue.

 

regardless of whether you like bush or not, there's no real grounds for any sort of impeachment. he's committed no real "high crimes and misdemeanors" that can be effectively put forth in articles of impeachment.

 

and remember, gripe all you want about the intelligence, but the guy in charge at the time was clinton's man (tenet was appointed during the clinton administration in 1997), a long time democrat. he was the one that personally assured the president of the information he was getting.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I notice you skipped right over the NSA bit. No thoughts on that, Taksy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps it's because our chief exeutive said it was legal... otherwise the jury is still out in the legal community (ie the lawyers are actually debating over it)

[Cantousent]

Trying to impeach Bush will be a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats. It's a losing proposition. If you're a Democrat, you should be glad that the President is falling on tough times. I presonally believe the President will actually come out better in the long run if the Democrats try to impeach him. No matter what folks think of the fickle nature of the American public, people are not in favor of impeaching Bush right now.

 

As far as arguing policy and whatnot... *shrug* I'm not wasting my breath just yet. I'll save that for when someone manages to get my goat.

[Judge Hades]

If they can impeach a president for lying about an affair with anintern then they should be able to impeach a president seeking to take away our rights.

[mkreku]

I don't like George W. Bush, and I think it's abhorrent that we have a leader who seems to lack the mental capacity to best a six year-old in a debate, but all the same, I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too.  Know why?  Because everyone else in the world did as well.

What was that about shutting the f up about things you don't understand and let the grown-ups talk?

 

Hans Blix, chief of UNMOVIC (UN weapons inspectors), and his team did thorough investigations of Iraq before the war and found nothing that would warrant a war, something which his report clearly stated. But the Bush administration was so war horny that they ridiculed Hans and UNMOVIC and started the war anyhow. The only thing "everyone else in the world" knows is that Bush & Co. was wrong. There were no WMD's and Blix was right.

 

You clearly only get your biased information from US news agencies. Stop watching FOX and search the net for some real news for once.

Edited December 20, 2005 by mkreku

[Meshugger]

I know that Bush has done things that are very unethical IMO. But what exactly has he done the break any U.S. law?

[Vashanti]

I don't think I will ever see any President impeached within my lifetime.

 

Just never gonna happen. It's all rhetoric; bark and no bite, when people bring up that term.

 

[Raphael]

This pathetic thread is still around

 

To all the democrats:

 

 

You wish....

[moreKOTORplz]

we won't get impeached till he gets the pipes work at the oval office by a little miss ****tail dress. besides don't presidents lie all the time? thought that was par for the course. and its only a little weapon of mass destruction not like its a big deal

[Craigboy2]

Democrats are pulling a fast one on Republicans in the Senate. I think its a big show that is necessary to get public attention. Im against the war so i personally am glad to see the Dems getting their balls back.

 

It looks like the Democrats are going to try to impeach President Bush. They might be able to do that. Impeaching will be difficult since the white house has so many "buffers". Not to mention, once they do impeach him, then what? Anyone who can count can see republicans are the majority so they can't fire him. Am i wrong? whats everyones opinion?

 

Below are a couple news sources.

 

 

NPR Listen Closed Session

A partisan dispute over pre-war intelligence on Iraq led to an unusual closed session Tuesday. Democrats demanded answers from majority Republicans about reasoning for the war and the indictment of Vice President **** Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

 

 

BBC: News on Closed session

He said the indictment of Mr Libby showed how the administration of President George W Bush had manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to justify the 2003 invasion.

 

Mr Libby has been charged with obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements to a federal grand jury, in a case stemming from the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent, which has also touched on the Iraq war.

 

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame, the CIA official, was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa.

 

The claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The dems don't make up the majority of the senate, so I doubt it'll happen. (Stupid democrates) What percent of the senate must vote for the president to get impeached? Is it 40% or 70%?

[WITHTEETH]

This pathetic thread is still around

 

To all the democrats:

 

 

You wish....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me know when you have anything of value to contribute to support your side Ralph. Please don't fill this thread with your worthless banter. Thanks

 

The dems don't make up the majority of the senate, so I doubt it'll happen. (Stupid democrates) What percent of the senate must vote for the president to get impeached? Is it 40% or 70%?

The majority of 2/3 of the senate is needed to impeach anyone I believe. You are right, the republicans are the mojority for now, 2006 i believe is another chance for the democrats to ship up. we'll just have to wait and see if they are successful.

[taks]

I notice you skipped right over the NSA bit.  No thoughts on that, Taksy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what NSA bit? you mean the NSA spying on international calls? i didn't mention it because i was replying mostly to the chief justice bit but for your sake...

 

definite grey area. but i'm not impressed that this be called a crime. bush is certainly not the first president to do this, either (rumor has it clinton did the same). you make international calls to known terrorists and you've automatically provided probable cause... even in search and seizure laws probable cause is enough to allow entrance to private property without a warrant.

 

i do think, however, that there should be some sort of judicial notification given that it seems the reason for such actions are entirely due to the current system (FISA?) being pretty slow. an after the fact ruling could then be used to shut down any gross violation. were they doing it INSIDE the US, i'd have a problem with that no matter what (barring a warrant, of course).

 

taks

[taks]

If they can impeach a president for lying about an affair with anintern then they should be able to impeach a president seeking to take away our rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, you trivialized a FELONY action. he lied under oath, which is perjury.

 

and the statement "seeking to take away our rights" is really, really ill-informed. but that's you...

 

taks

[taks]

What was that about shutting the f up about things you don't understand and let the grown-ups talk?

and based on this statement, you are obviously the one to determine what "adult" means.

 

Hans Blix, chief of UNMOVIC (UN weapons inspectors), and his team did thorough investigations of Iraq before the war and found nothing that would warrant a war, something which his report clearly stated.

yeah, and if you had actually read the reports that came out, most of the inspectors always commented on how it seemed "they were waiting for us as we arrived, almost as if they knew we were coming." pretty easy to hide something when you know where everyone is looking.

 

The only thing "everyone else in the world" knows is that Bush & Co. was wrong. There were no WMD's and Blix was right.

no, blix was an idiot. there were wmds, and it looks pretty likely they were moved out before we went in. "everyone else in the world" knows for a fact that saddam had documented nerve agents and the ability to disperse them, yet somehow they managed to disappear right before his report was due. he claimed they were destroyed, yet offered no proof of the claim.

 

You clearly only get your biased information from US news agencies. Stop watching FOX and search the net for some real news for once.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, and you're quoting hans blix as real information? whoa, unbelievable. and i'm the narrowminded one.

 

taks

[taks]

I don't think I will ever see any President impeached within my lifetime.

 

Just never gonna happen.  It's all rhetoric; bark and no bite, when people bring up that term.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, you mean no more, right? you do remember that clinton was indeed impeached... ???

 

taks