Impeach Bush?

[WITHTEETH]

Keep dreaming. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The turd that just wont flush.

[Calax]

impeachment is just the investigation... not the actual removal.

[Lucius]

Keep dreaming. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The turd that just wont flush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen

[WITHTEETH]

...

 

Impeach bush.

 

The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office :

Clicky!!!!

It's time for the American people and Congress to act. With so much at stake, we have a president whose administration stands out in its criminality and disdain for the rule of law. The Case for Impeachment explains the legal history and grounds for impeaching George W. Bush and brings forth more than a half dozen articles of impeachment the likes of:*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war.*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.

 

We can't trust Bush and Cheney, We don't need a revolution to get rid of a bad leader. Bush administration cares nothing for our constitution, they've repeatedly proved this. Impeachment is the cure not the disease. Shouldn't we protect our constitution?

 

Clicky!!!

Congress must put impeachment on the table because if they do nothing to stop Bush and Cheney now, we will see future presidents follow in their footsteps which would be a disaster for our country.

Edited July 14, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Walsingham]

I'd like to clarify these points. Unless you have solid answers for each of them then an impeachment will be a collossal waste of time and money.

 

You said:

 

It's time for the American people and Congress to act. With so much at stake, we have a president whose administration stands out in its criminality and disdain for the rule of law. The Case for Impeachment explains the legal history and grounds for impeaching George W. Bush and brings forth more than a half dozen articles of impeachment the likes of:

 

 

*Lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war.

 

- I ask you flatly, in what way is any piece of military/clandestine intelligence a lie? You can't impeach every president who gets told what he wants to hear. I would guarantee that EVERY president has done this.

 

*Allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq.

 

- Possibly. Although based on my experioence investigating a corruption case on a land deal in the US at state level I'd say you'd be in for a hard time.

 

*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.

 

- The Geneva convention only applies to signatories. We've discussed this before. In any event, enemy combatants captured out of uniform are to be shot under the Geneva convention. It's not an international fluffiness pact.

 

*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.

 

- Guard Dog already answered this.

 

*Failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders.

 

- In what way exactly? There hasn't been a single orchestrated assault on US soil since September 11th. Personally I don't cerdit this to George but to the immense hard work and new resources of the various Federal Agencies.

[WITHTEETH]

- I ask you flatly, in what way is any piece of military/clandestine intelligence a lie? You can't impeach every president who gets told what he wants to hear. I would guarantee that EVERY president has done this.

Military intelligence is not a lie, its just information. Hell Clinton got impeached for you know what. Its Bush, Chaney, and Rumsfelds "IRREFUTABLE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER scare tactic to get the American public to think there was actually a "Smoking gun" that was found. But there was never a smoking gun found. There was never a link of Al Queda to Iraq until after we invaded. Zarqowie was only there to go to the hospital, that was made clear. Even after this was all grounded in reason they still clung to their false lies. The war is obviously a sham. The president sold it to us, and we bought the lies of Iraq and are paying the price everyday, and years to come... The president and Vice president do not deserve to run this country after creating a tragedy. What else could go wrong right??? his approval ratings collectively are @##$ I wouldn't trust them to take a poop in my toilet, they'd flood it! Why should we continue to trust them with the peoples goverment after all these tragedies that have happened while they have been in office?!

 

*Authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists--a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law.

 

- The Geneva convention only applies to signatories. We've discussed this before. In any event, enemy combatants captured out of uniform are to be shot under the Geneva convention. It's not an international fluffiness pact.

This one is a great tragedy... Have you ever read General Taguba's Report (Edit: fired for doing his job correctly)Barely anyone there was from Al Queda, only a few, some were just common petty criminals caught from the street brought there. Not all issues are black and white.

 

 

*Stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights--holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers.

 

- Guard Dog already answered this.

Bush stripped Habeas Corpus making this country a Dictatorship. It might have changed since then but the fact remains he treated out constitution as toilet paper for his own petty war. These prisons still exist. He lied to us about wire tapping invading our privacy. He even wanted to check our libraries, 1984 style.

 

Bush and Chaney still believe this war is a good thing. That we Stopped Saddam Hussein, blah blah blah... ignoring the acid that being spilled the shiites, with the sunni shiite conflict, the civil war. The bombings their are daily, soldiers and civilians are dying left and right. And I'm suppose to keep the leader in charge who led us into that mess? It can get worse, the american people deserve better.

 

I don't need an answer to all of this. but the disaster would not be impeaching Bush and Chaney, it would be the CURE! Flatly, do you believe we should keep Bush and Chaney in office after everything that has happened while they have been in office?

 

Should we let politicians run amok like this? I believe not.

Edited July 15, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Arkan]

In my day, they would have already been drawn, quarterd, or beheaded by now.

[Dark_Raven]

In my day, they would have already been drawn, quarterd, or beheaded by now.

The good old days when fear ruled the land.

[Jorian Drake]

why does this thread need necromancy once per year?

Edited July 15, 2007 by Jorian Drake

[Calax]

why does this thread need necromancy once per year?

... Because it's better than starting a new one?

 

And Same debate, new lip gloss?

[Guard Dog]

I have avoided this thread because it has been 26 pages of otherwise smart people posting some rather dumb things. It is an argument based on emotion, not reason, and political hyperbole, not fact. It is impossible to counter an irrational argument with a rational one if both parties cannot come to equal terms with a few simple truths. So I could state (backed up by hard facts) that the Bush administration has not created a dictatorship, has not burned the constitution, has not broken any laws, but what would be the point? He has because you guys THINK he has. And he deserves impeachment because you don't LIKE him. So, whatever. Believe what you like. Arguing this point is like digging in sand and I don't feel like getting dirty.

[Guard Dog]

It is more than passing ironic that in the 231 year history of the US we have had a number of highly corrupt Presidents none of whom were ever impeached. And I do not mean GWB. Warren Harding accepted bribes (allegedly) from Sinclair Oil. Grover Clevland abused his wife. James Garfield accepted bribes from Union Pacific. Ulysses Grant looked the other way as tax revenues were diverted to a conglomeration of whiskey distillers that his own attorney general had an ownership interest in (which by itself was a crime). Then he interefered in the investigation that followed. Jimmy Carter's own brother was a paid agent for Lybia, and his OMB manager Bert Lance was stealing money from the White House and Carter attempted to cover both of these things up. Anyone remember Iran-Contra? Bill Clinton accepted a 4 million dollar "donation" from China then refused to investigate suspected chinese espionage at Los Palamos. None of these Presidents were impeached for these flagrant offenses. The only two US Presidents who were impeached (Johnson and Clinton) it was done for such a minor and insignificant violation that their prosecution could only be called political.

 

One last thing to consider. Tit for tat is considered fair play in American politics, like it or not. A Democratic congress went after Nixon and Reagan, a Republican one went after Clinton. If they go after GWB now, what do you think will happen when the tables are reversed and we have a democrat in the White House and a Republican congress? And as we have seen with Johnson and Clinton, you do not need a reason. Sound like something you guys would like?

[WITHTEETH]

I have avoided this thread because it has been 26 pages of otherwise smart people posting some rather dumb things. It is an argument based on emotion, not reason, and political hyperbole, not fact. It is impossible to counter an irrational argument with a rational one if both parties cannot come to equal terms with a few simple truths. So I could state (backed up by hard facts) that the Bush administration has not created a dictatorship, has not burned the constitution, has not broken any laws, but what would be the point? He has because you guys THINK he has. And he deserves impeachment because you don't LIKE him. So, whatever. Believe what you like. Arguing this point is like digging in sand and I don't feel like getting dirty.

He took habeas Corpus out, that in effect made this country a dictatorship, if I am wrong can you explain? Whats the point, though because Bush is the law. Chaney is his own goverment and the white house administration doesn't have to answer to anyone. They don't have to answer to subpoenas, they get their own out of Jail, they can veto what they want, and hide, burn shred, erase emails and documents all they want.

 

And why the heck haven't the democrats ended the war yet? Do they want it to go on also?!

 

None the less there, are lies we've caught them on tape during interviews talking about "irrefutable evidence of WMD's", "the smoking gun", "Bullet Proof Evidence" Links to Al Queda, etc... Were these not hard facts? Did they say their was evidence for these, Yes they did - we have the administration on tapes. Why can't we get them on these lies? They got Clinton telling lies about his P#%1S, why can't they get bush On selling a sham that cost lives to the American, and Iraqis? You can make anything you want out of Information ([as Bush Administration did] ie: Joe Wilson). They even stated Zarqowi was in Iraq plotting terror. To start a "pre-emptive war" without evidence though... come on. Shame on Bush and his administration.

Edited July 15, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

He took habeas Corpus out, that in effect made this country a dictatorship, if I am wrong can you explain? Whats the point, though because Bush is the law. Chaney is his own goverment and the white house administration doesn't have to answer to anyone. They don't have to answer to subpoenas, they get their own out of Jail, they can veto what they want, and hide, burn shred, erase emails and documents all they want.

 

I can't believe I'm doing this again. I'll give it one more try. Teeth, what to Bill Clinton, GWB, Ulysses Grant. and Abraham Lincoln all have in common? They ALL suspended or weakened Habeas Corpus on the pretext of a "National Emergency". And every time it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It is not illegal to pass a law, no matter how wrong it is. It IS illegal to enforce a law the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional and struck down. To date no President, this one included has done that.

 

Dictatorship??? Are you even familiar with the definition of that word? You are a smart guy Teeth. You know better than that. That is what I was talking about when I said emotion over reason.

 

 

And why the heck haven't the democrats ended the war yet? Do they want it to go on also?

 

Yes. If the US pulls out now every death there will have been for nothing and every dollar spent would have been wasted. Iran will take over the country and we will have another war to fight 10 years from now. Exactly what we all said when we were packing up to leave Kuwait in 1991. The Dems know this, they are NOT stupid. If Kerry had been elected in 2004 very little would be different. You would just be complaining about him. I agree with you, it was a foolhardy thing to do (invading Iraq). But whats done cannot be undone, and it MUST be seen through to the finish. Most Americans already believe (as I do) that the Democrats are weak and spineless in foreign policy. If they order a retreat and Iraq falls (it would) history would blame them for the result even though they did not start it. As I said, they are not stupid. They will say all the right things to capitalize on the political momentum generated by the anti war types, but in the end they will do what they must.

 

 

None the less there, are lies we've caught them on tape during interviews talking about "irrafutable evidence of WMD's", "the smoking gun", "Bullet Proof Evidence" Links to Al Queda, etc... Were these not hard facts? Did they say their was evidence for these, Yes they did - we have the administration on tapes. Why can't we get them on these lies? They got Clinton telling lies about his P#%1S, why can't they get bush On selling a sham that cost lives to the American, and Iraqis? You can make anything you want out of Information ([as he did] ie: Joe Wilson). They even stated Zarqowe was in plotting terror in Iraq. To start a "pre-emptive war" without evidence though... come on. Shame on Bush and his administration.

 

It is not illegal to lie in a speech, or policy meeting, etc. It IS illegal to lie under oath. See the difference? There IS a difference. Also Being proven wrong about something does not mean they lied about it to begin with. Like I told Sand, suppose you truly believed I was hiding space aliens in my house, because intelligent people you trusted presented evidence to you that I was. And suppose I fueled your suspicions by not letting you look. If you kicked down my door and found no aliens does that mean you were lying or just wrong?

[WITHTEETH]

How about we impeach the president for waiting 7 minutes while our country was under attack. Bush Administration also threatened to attack Iran, violation of the US charter, charters are treaties, and artical 6 of our constitution says treaties are the supreme law of our land. its illegal to threaten them. Iran has no ability to attack us, and they have no intention to attack the US. Wire tapping Americans without warrants.

 

btw, your argument on Bush not being under oath is reasonable. Although to speculate on the future of Iraq is on shaky grounds I believe. So I can't stand by that reasoning.

 

As for bush being a dictator for seizing the peoples rights to defend themselves.

dictator

dic

Edited July 15, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[SteveThaiBinh]

Sadly we will never get to see either Tony Bliar or George Bush thrown out of office by an enraged electorate, which is what I really wanted to see. An impeachment would be a poor substitute. A war crimes trial at the Hague might be nice, but George wouldn't show.

[Arkan]

. The only two US Presidents who were impeached (Johnson and Clinton) it was done for such a minor and insignificant violation that their prosecution could only be called political.

 

Not to be as stickler, but wasn't it Andrew Jackson that was impeached? Of course, I could be wrong, and it's really not significant to the discussion.

 

Anyway, as for the rest. Say Bush has done nothing illegal. Few in this thread are arguing whether or not his actions have been ethical. And how much of the nation has to disapprove of its leader's running of the country does it take to have us throw him out of office? Of course, this is a democracy, where all change requires substantial time to take place.

[Cantousent]

No, it was Andrew Johnson. Those wacky radical republicans impeached him, but he was not removed from office.

 

Arkan's right. If enough of the people exerted their will to have him removed, Bush would be. If enough of the people exerted their will, we wouldn't have a president anymore.

 

This exercise is pointless. Moving forward with impeachment won't help the Democrats and so they won't do it. As much as the more fringe elements of their constituency would applaud the move, Democrats want to win the next presidential election. Impeaching Bush would make them look bad and the trial would fail. Even if they could remove him from office, he's far more useful to Democrats as President come election time.

[Walsingham]

GD has a very good point that there is a strong emphasis on emotion here. I may point out that I have never ever said I like GWB on this or any other forum. I think his administration is corrupt and poorly setup to make good decisions. But that does not make him impeachable. Simply disliking a president is no grounds for impeachment.

 

WITHTEETH, I apologise but I'm unclear whether you have accepted that the presentation of military intelligence to Congress is not an impeachable offence. I think you have, but it's a bit of a shift so I don't want to presume too much. Your objection now seems to be that this was immoral. Immorality is of course quite a difficult thing to define, and often depends upon your perspective. I, for example, have always acknowledged that the primary motivation _in the White House_ (not the State Dept or Pentagon) for the war was self-interested. The Bush administration is founded on two platforms - the big business and christian fundamentalist parts of the Republican party. Both these groups supported intervention in Iraq for reasons you probably already know. I don't consider this immoral, because if i did I would find it impossible to deal with politics in any way shape or form. I am concerned not with motivations but with results. Results which have been very poor in the post-war period due largely to Bush, but also to Congress constantly nitpicking and chaffing.

 

I should thank you for the link to the New Yorker report. I knew the details, but it puts it together very well. However the guilty party there is Rumsfeld, not GWB. He has of course already left, so there's not much you can do about it. I woudl add that not only was Rumsfeld behind the whole warfighting lite doctrine which left the Army undermanned to provide security post-saddam, but since he left ther have been significant improvements in the higher echelons. US operational behaviour in Iraq has improved, as has a tendency to devolve power lower down.

 

The removal of habeus corpus certainly would be serious trial by our peers is essential to the principle of democratic law. On the other hand GD has already addressed this at some length in this thread. I suggest you re-read his comments. However, I would ask to what extent several other governments have done this without being accused of the same. That dear sweet duffer Roosevelt locked up the Japanese Americans without a by your leave.

[Calax]

doesn't the president have the ability to go outside his constitutional bounds in a time of war? (I'm not saying he SHOULD but, previous leaders have certainly shown that you can if in a declared time of war)

If so, that would explain why FDR and his predecessors were able to have so much control. I feel it should be pointed out that the bush administration is not operating in a time of war.

[WITHTEETH]

It just shocks me that when a goverment worker is doing a poor job the people can't fire him. I'm 25 and haven't paid much attention until right before Clinton left office, so politically I'm inexperienced and have a thing or two to learn for sure. I don't think its my emotions that are showing from my posts, i think its actually my ignorance of politics, and how backwards the system is.

 

Every week I find something completely new to me to explore in politics which leads to new ideas, and then i have to relate the ideas to what reality, and then to pop politics. tit for tat... thats new to me! Clinton's impeachment was the revenge for Nixon and Reagan? You can lie to the American people but you can't lie to congress/under oath. Hell 8 years ago i didn't know how to distinguish liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans.

 

Gotta love the information age though! So many resources and people to talk to on the net, you can find a whole lot of anything here on the internets! I really do love talking to you guys about politics religion and philosophy, i appreciate the dialog we share, if not by learning new facts then by learning new points of view that we all exchange with each other.

Edited July 16, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[taks]

doesn't the president have the ability to go outside his constitutional bounds in a time of war? (I'm not saying he SHOULD but, previous leaders have certainly shown that you can if in a declared time of war)

If so, that would explain why FDR and his predecessors were able to have so much control. I feel it should be pointed out that the bush administration is not operating in a time of war.

in the theater of the war, yes, but domestically, that line becomes very blurry. also, the president can never technically "go outside his constitutional bounds," as such cases are otherwise bounded by the constitution. finally, iraq is not technically a war as congress made no formal declaration (though they did approve unlimited military response simply by approving funding for such a thing). realistically, the whole mess is a blur of various powers, and will probably be analyzed to the point we all scream in the coming decades.

 

taks

[taks]

Gotta love the information age though! So many resources and people to talk to on the net, you can find a whole lot of anything here on the internets! I really do love talking to you guys about politics religion and philosophy, i appreciate the dialog we share, if not by learning new facts then by learning new points of view that we all exchange with each other.

unfortunately, the information age can also be dubbed the "mis-information age" in the same stroke of the pen. many uneducated, biased, and otherwise agenda driven opinions are out there, and they only serve to confuse the issues (just 'cause <insert favorite blog name here> said it don't make it true!).

 

taks

[Pop]

[WITHTEETH]

nice Metaphor!

 

I actually have a Peaches CD The Teaches of Peaches. Haha shes a freak, kinds fugly too, but her illicit lyrics rock.