Impeach Bush?

[Walsingham]

WITHTEETH I was just about to apologise for being a bit stentorian there. Sorry to bite at you.

 

I think your instincts are fine. It's fine to get miffed if you think somebody is trying to cheat you or is taking your cash and laughing at you. Hell, like I say I get mad at GWB for being such a cretin in charge of the most important campaign of our generation. But if you plan to do anything about it, being mad isn't much use for anything more than punching someone on the nose.

[Guard Dog]

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.

No. It has been tried and shot down by the court every time. FDR was also admonished by the court for internment of Japanese Americans, and the federal government did pay reparations (granted FDR was dead by then). The Constitution clearly defines the responsibilities of the three branches in peace and war. Summed up, Congress authorizes and pays for war, the President fights it. Congressional oversight of war execution is something relatively new.

 

Lincoln also tried to imprison "enemy combatants" only then they were called sympathizers and saboteurs. That was also slapped down by the Court. Grant tried it against the Klan (that was a Congressionally passed law), that was also slapped down. Clinton signed a law called Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which did (among many other things) limit HC by limiting the number of appeals on a Federal death penalty and limited the role of federal court in state decisions. The first part of that has been struck down, the second part has stood and probably will.

 

The whole checks and balances thing really does work. If one branch of the government gets out of hand one of the others will reign it in.

[Sand]

I rather impeach Cheney.

[Guard Dog]

It is a little OT here but one of my favorite American statesmen and patriots was a man I'd bet none of you had ever heard of. Thomas Dewey. He ran against FDR in 1944. His campaign staff and running mate John Bricker begged him to separate himself from FDR by criticizing his management of the war. He flatly refused. He told them "I'd rather lose the election and win the war".

 

Can you imagine John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Obama, McCain, or any modern politician saying that?

 

Me neither.

[Walsingham]

Actually I can say I honestly had heard of Thomas Dewey. Wasn't there a TIME photo of him with a hole in his shoe?

[Guard Dog]

Clinton's impeachment was the revenge for Nixon and Reagan?

 

Marcy Colquitt, on of the lawyers for the congressional campaign I worked on told me that. I have heard it batted around elsewhere too, not the least of which was from Robert Wexler, US Rep from Florida district 19. He is a very nice guy, buy the way. Nice guy to have a drink with but his lack of knowledge of the Constitution and US History is both amazing, and more than a little disturbing. But he campaigns well, and I guess that is all it takes.

[Sand]

I have nothing wrong with the war of terrorism. We need to destroy and eliminate Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist organizations, but Iraqi insurgency and terrorist acts did not affect the US there till after we wrongly invaded the country on false pretenses.

[Calax]

The whole checks and balances thing really does work. If one branch of the government gets out of hand one of the others will reign it in.

unless you decide that you don't want to do what the checks say you have to and create you're own branch of the government that gets the benefits of being in two branches but with none of the checks on it except for someone who's like a puppydog eating out of your hand.

[Guard Dog]

Let me make one more point then bow out of this thread all together. I hope I have at least somewhat demonstrated this desire for impeachment is wrong headed, based purely on emotion, and will lead down a road you guys do NOT want to follow. Plus it requires an actual crime, and to date there has not been one.

 

It is easy to dislike or even despise GWB and convince yourselves he is the worst President ever. The truth is, you do not know that. In less than two years he will leave Washington DC and pass into American history. There is no way to know what place he will hold there until more time has passed and the ultimate outcome of events he set into motion are known. Right now the Iraq mess looks like a debacle. 10 years from now we may be saying that is was the right thing to do. When Reagan left office who would have believed the Soviet Union would collapse just a few years later because of him in large part. When Eisenhower left office he was regarded as one of our best Presidents ever. Now we know he was one of the worst and laid the foundations for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War. Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt were hated when they left office. Now the are ranked in the top 5 of our best Presidents. What I'm getting at here is you cannot really judge a political leader without a historical context. And for GWB, and Clinton before him it is still too soon to say if they were any good and where history will remember them. Right now, neither is looking good.

 

One of the best things about American politics is the impermanence of it. Former Secretary of State James Baker once said, "Someone asked me what was the most important thing I had learned since being in Washington. I replied that it was the fact that temporal power is fleeting." Baker went on to observe that once driving through the White House gates he saw a man walking alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and recognized him as having been Secretary of State in a previous administration. "There he was alone - no reporters, no security, no adoring public, no trappings of power. Just one solitary man alone with his thoughts. And that mental picture continually serves to remind me of the impermanence of power and the impermanence of place."

[Laozi]

When Reagan left office who would have believed the Soviet Union would collapse just a few years later because of him in large part.

 

 

 

Please elaborate.

[Pop]

Leave it alone, dude. Reagan's been beatified. He was the great say-things-gooder, after all. Reading his memoirs it's readily apparent that he was far too simple a man to have engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unless Bush was right all along and faith really is a formidable Presidential asset. If Carter had been reelected the difference would have been a year or two, if that. Dissolution was in the cards for the soviets for awhile. I suspect that the position of Reagan on a pedestal has a lot to do with reserving a spot in the "greatest presidents of the 20th century" list for a Republican. Which is convenient, because whoever writes that list probably never felt the bad effects of Reagan's supply-side economy.

[Laozi]

Yeah, you gotta have faith.

[Cantousent]

It's true. It had to happen the way it did because it happened. There was no other outcome, I'm sure. Talk about a sort of distorted faith.

[Walsingham]

Pop, I don't know if this is sufficient support, but there are three things I'd say about Reagan.

 

1. He was a president with a strong faith, but also able to let his departments get on with things without being micromanaged. To the best of my knowledge. That's actually an immensely rare combination. Possibly arose because he was a bit of a dunce, but rare nonetheless.

 

2. The Star Wars initiative really did have an immense draining impact on Russia. I've heard this from ex-KGB officers in their cups, not just western books. You should also note that the Chinese aren't falling for the same trick. Suggesting Soviet behaviour really caused problems.

 

3. He backed the mujaheddin in Afghanistan with arms (chinese arms if you must know). Afghanistan, more than anything else lead to the fall of old style communism. It broke the faith of the people.

 

Carter might have done 1 and 2, but he would not have done 3.

[taks]

unless you decide that you don't want to do what the checks say you have to and create you're own branch of the government that gets the benefits of being in two branches but with none of the checks on it except for someone who's like a puppydog eating out of your hand.

you're missing the entire point, and function, of the concept of checks and balances. the way it is set up, no one branch _can_ do other than what they are allowed. congress can't "reign in" bush because that is not their mandate, they can attempt to pass laws that do so, and the "check and balance" bush has is veto, and, barring that, the "check and balance" of the supreme court can void the law if it is deemed unconstitutional. likewise, bush cannot dictate law, nor affect the supreme court's decisions on law, nor dictate the machinations of congress.

 

you seem to think that just because various factions of government, be they SCOTUS, the president or congress, are doing things that disagree with your ideology, they must be wrong. that's simply not the case. that's also why i repeat my challenge to you to actually educate yourself on the matters. the only thing worse than a leader that doesn't understand the constitution is a regular citizen that doesn't. if the latter never happened, we'd never have the former.

 

taks

Edited July 17, 2007 by taks

[Calax]

unless you decide that you don't want to do what the checks say you have to and create you're own branch of the government that gets the benefits of being in two branches but with none of the checks on it except for someone who's like a puppydog eating out of your hand.

you're missing the entire point, and function, of the concept of checks and balances. the way it is set up, no one branch _can_ do other than what they are allowed. congress can't "reign in" bush because that is not their mandate, they can attempt to pass laws that do so, and the "check and balance" bush has is veto, and, barring that, the "check and balance" of the supreme court can void the law if it is deemed unconstitutional. likewise, bush cannot dictate law, nor affect the supreme court's decisions on law, nor dictate the machinations of congress.

 

you seem to think that just because various factions of government, be they SCOTUS, the president or congress, are doing things that disagree with your ideology, they must be wrong. that's simply not the case. that's also why i repeat my challenge to you to actually educate yourself on the matters. the only thing worse than a leader that doesn't understand the constitution is a regular citizen that doesn't. if the latter never happened, we'd never have the former.

 

taks

Except that nobody seems to understand the constitution. Isn't it one of the jobs of the supreme court to translate the document and how it should apply to current situations? (which is kinda like asking Don Juan for which toy to buy at an adult store)

[taks]

Except that nobody seems to understand the constitution. Isn't it one of the jobs of the supreme court to translate the document and how it should apply to current situations? (which is kinda like asking Don Juan for which toy to buy at an adult store)

plenty of people understand the constitution, though i would not number you in that lot based on nearly every post you've made on such topics.

 

the supreme court cannot hear _anything_ unless suit is brought. don't you get it? even then, its power is limited to adjudicating laws that are passed, not simple functions of daily government. if the executive branch does something that is otherwise unconstitutional, perhaps by stepping on an existing law (or some facet of the constitution), then it is up to somebody to appeal that to the supreme court. SCOTUS may or may not choose to review such a case, and it is within their power to decide which cases are within their domain.

 

taks

[Sand]

So, is falsifying and modifying intelligence reports so it would appear that it would be a good thing to invade another country illegal? If not, it should be.

[taks]

proof, please. even with it, a rather immaterial point. you're suffering from calax syndrome, sand.

 

taks

[Sand]

Proof?

 

It was the husband of Plame, the exposed CIA agent, who called the president on this and had one of his underlings expose her to discredit her and him. Then we got this huge mess with Libby who was conveniently given a get out of jail pass for his part in the affair.

 

Don't you actually take a good look at the news, Taks? Connect the dots.

[Guard Dog]

Proof?

 

It was the husband of Plame, the exposed CIA agent, who called the president on this and had one of his underlings expose her to discredit her and him. Then we got this huge mess with Libby who was conveniently given a get out of jail pass for his part in the affair.

 

Don't you actually take a good look at the news, Taks? Connect the dots.

Oh for Gods sweet sake. The only thing that Wilson was reporting was the Iraq did not buy uranium from Nigeria. And Libby's "part" in the affair was that he either lied or misremembered some phone conversations in an investigation that was utterly pointless because the DOJ knew all along who dropped the hint of Wilsons connection Plame and the CIA.

 

Maybe Taks in not the one who should be paying closer attention to the news.

[Sand]

Yep, and thusly attacked the president's claim on Iraq having WMDs which was the whole justification of our invasion, making that country even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than it was before.

[Guard Dog]

Yep, and thusly attacked the president's claim on Iraq having WMDs which was the whole justification of our invasion, making that country even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than it was before.

He did that on Meet the Press more than once. I saw it myself. He spouted a lot of things he was not in a position to know given who he was and where he had been. Kinda makes you wonder what classified info his wife was passing on to him, who had no need to know.

 

As to the second part of your post, I can see how you would feel that way. I mean with all of the terrorist attacks on US soil since the Iraq invasion what other conclusion could we draw?

[Sand]

Yet Al Qaeda is at its strongest since 9/11 which means Bushie and his crew is not getting the job done at all in all this Iraq business.

[Guard Dog]

Yet Al Qaeda is at its strongest since 9/11 which means Bushie and his crew is not getting the job done at all in all this Iraq business.

No argument there. I'd have handled the whole war on terror much differently had I been in the White House. But GHB and Clinton bear a big part of the blame for everything that has happened vis-a-vis the war on terror. When Reagan left office the CIA was strong, capable, and well funded. Bush then Clinton utterly destroyed it and left a pathetic joke behind right when we needed it the most. This is exactly the kind of fight an organization like the CIA should be dealing with. Armies battle countries, not invididuals or ideologies. To quote a movie "The military is a broadsword, not a scalpel." The invasion of Afghanistan was necassary beacause there the country was run by terroists. After that an capable intelligence service making use of Special Forces should have taken over. Too bad we did not have one.