Vote to impeach Bush

[Wildcard Ky]

Yes, perjury. He lied to a question that should have never been asked. About a BLOWJOB.

So then it's okay for a sitting president to committ a felony if he doesn't like the question?

 

[Boota]

So then it's okay for a sitting president to committ a felony if he doesn't like the question?

A felony, such as lying about a personal issue that has no relevance to his job? A fucking blowjob for fuck's sake! Yes, that lie is absolutely acceptable to me, and the people who raised that question should have been laughed out of their political careers for such a stupid mismanagement of their power and the money it took to pursue it.

If we're talking lies, a lie that sends us into war killing our soldiers and innocent civilians certainly trumps a lie about a personal indiscretion.

 

[Boota]

Bush has subverted and continues to subvert the Constitution of the United States, which he swore to uphold. This is a crime. This is akin to treason. U.S. Attorneys are looking into ways to proceed in this action because it is a crime. It's no private blowjob in the Oval Office, but subverting the Constitution and lying to Congress are probably pretty bad things, too.

Some people keep saying that no crime has been committed. Subversion of the Constitution by the President of the United States is a crime. Lying to Congress, the members of the house being the ones who have launched the investigation into impeachment, is a crime. Every single article listed on that site is an impeachable offense.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Bush has subverted and continues to subvert the Constitution of the United States, which he swore to uphold. This is a crime. This is akin to treason. U.S. Attorneys are looking into ways to proceed in this action because it is a crime. It's no private blowjob in the Oval Office, but subverting the Constitution and lying to Congress are probably pretty bad things, too.

Some people keep saying that no crime has been committed. Subversion of the Constitution by the President of the United States is a crime. Lying to Congress, the members of the house being the ones who have launched the investigation into impeachment, is a crime. Every single article listed on that site is an impeachable offense.

You may not like it, but perjury is a felony regardless of whether you think the original question had merit or not. Clinton is/was a lawyer. He took the stand, took the oath and committed perjury. Perjury is a felony. There is no caveat in the writing of the laws to cover for questions you don't like. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If he didn't like the question, he could have taken the 5th. He chose to perjure himself.

If it makes you feel better to think the impeachment proceedings were about a blow job, run with it. The rest of us know it was about perjury.

 

[Boota]

Wow, you really DON'T get it, do you? The impeachment proceedings were about perjury due to a lie about a blowjob. That is a huge distinction. They went after him over the lie about the blowjob because in their witch hunt that lasted his entire term, they couldn't get anything else to sink him with.

Seeing as that he wasn't impeached, by a Republican dominated Congress no less, I think that maybe the "rest of you" who know so much might be a much smaller group than you think.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, perjury. He lied to a question that should have never been asked. About a BLOWJOB.

In a hearing regarding sexual harassment alleged to have occured while Clinton was gov or Ark., he was asked whether or not he had sex with a government employee. He said no. The question was a valid one under the circumstances and the reply was perjury. Whether it was a "High crime or misdemeanor" or not is another matter. Personally, I think it was not and I would have voted for acquittal.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow, you really DON'T get it, do you? The impeachment proceedings were about perjury due to a lie about a blowjob. That is a huge distinction. They went after him over the lie about the blowjob because in their witch hunt that lasted his entire term, they couldn't get anything else to sink him with.

Seeing as that he wasn't impeached, by a Republican dominated Congress no less, I think that maybe the "rest of you" who know so much might be a much smaller group than you think.

He WAS impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Bush has subverted and continues to subvert the Constitution of the United States, which he swore to uphold. This is a crime. This is akin to treason. U.S. Attorneys are looking into ways to proceed in this action because it is a crime. It's no private blowjob in the Oval Office, but subverting the Constitution and lying to Congress are probably pretty bad things, too.

Some people keep saying that no crime has been committed. Subversion of the Constitution by the President of the United States is a crime. Lying to Congress, the members of the house being the ones who have launched the investigation into impeachment, is a crime. Every single article listed on that site is an impeachable offense.

Subverted the Constitution just how? Would you like to provide some examples? Nothing done under patriot act can be left at his door, congress passed those. Likewise, any action he has taken has been careful to adhere to the letter of the law, while I admit ignoring the spirit. Gitmo? Sorry, but he is armed with a white house counsel brief, that puts him squarely within his rights as C-in-C. You can argue that brief is disingenuous, but you can't win a case against Bush with it, since he again has deniability.

I'm not as confrontational as Dran, but he is essentially correct. You are advocationg use of the impeachment caluse to put his world view and policy decisions on trial. That is not what it was written for, and as radical republicans found out when they tried it with Andrew Johnson, having bad opinions is not actionable. Even when you have a majority in both houses.

Until Bush abuses his power, whch seems unlikely, since he has a fairly pliable congress to work with, or breaks a law, which seems even more unlikely considering how carefully his handlers control him, there are simply no grounds for impachment.

To Wok: A president's private life has most often been off limits. Jfk was a major philanderer, but it was kept hush hush. Clinton's case is different, because the person he chose to hook up with was an employee. That takes a situation, where the action is esentialy an immoral one and adds to it a question of being unethical as well and possibly illegal, given new laws on sex in the workplace. For whatever reason, it did come up and Clinton chose to lie under oath, rather than taking the fifth. When he did so, he commited a felony and armed with that, the GOP was within the scope and range of the impeachment criteria. Right, wrong or indifferent, the question was asked and allowed and he chose to commit a felony, thus handing his opponents exactly what they did not have, and would not have had, if he had just invoked the fifth, a crime in the turest sense of the word.

To Rob: From all I have seen they were guilty of lying, perhaps even more of lying to themselves, which wouldn't be the first time a president saw what he wanted in intelligence to move his policy along. If lying to the public were reason for impeachment, it seems a fair bet we couldn't keep a president in office, even Honest Abe told a whopper or two, here and there.

 

[Boota]

Colleen, have you read the articles of impeachment on that site? They spell it out very plainly. Those are crimes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Personally, I think William Henry Harrison told fewer lies than any other president while in office. The reason: He was only there for little over a month.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, have you read the articles of impeachment on that site? They spell it out very plainly. Those are crimes.

Well:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting
in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

As I noted before, this dosen't apply. You can not impeach him because congress approved. He followed all internal proccedure for mounting an attack. He did not abuse the war powers act. Nor can you impeach him for not adhereing to the U.N charter. He isn't charged to and in cases where U.S. security is threatened, he isn't bound to.



2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.


This is no crime. If it were FDR, Wodrow Wilson, Polk, Taft, etc.etc. would have been charged. In fact the only president who did notmislead people about causes for a war is probably Madison ( the brits did kinda invade us) and Lincoln (although he used the smoke screen of the slavery issue to develope groundswell support)

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and
locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

Not aplicable. Think Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. When military targets are located in civilian centers, it is the fault of the power locating them there not the power that attacks them. No proof has ever surfaced that the U.S. military, let alone the C-in-C directly or deliberately targeted civilains. Accepting the inevitability of collateral damage in war time operations is NOT a crime.


4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its
government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

Not aplicable. We went to war with Iraq under the guidelines laid down by congress. As long as the administration continues to use the good offices of a pliant congress to approve wars, there is no culpability in the personage of the president under u.s. law. A question can be raised in the Hauge, of applicability of international law, but that isn't defined under u.s. law and until the Hague undertakes such review and brands the president war criminal, there is no actionability attached here.


4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret
and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of
prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and
individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents
elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Again, he is armed with a brief from now Attorney General Gonzolaes. this provides him with plausible deniability, if a court DOES find the detentions at Gitmo are illegal. If he continued after such a finding, you might have a case. As to the other so called crimes, you need some kind of proof he authorized the particular action. None has been forth coming. None shall be, unless I miss my guess. Turning a blind eye to actions taken by the DOD is not actionable as long as you can't prove he knew in specific.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign
governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media
and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to
U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

Sorry. Propaganda isn't actionable, nor has it ever been. It's the stock intrade of governments, has been forever. Manipulating th media, likewise.


6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a
part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an
attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United
Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting
treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the
exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

Sorry. Our adherence to international law and specifically the U.N. charter, is bounded by an escape clause that allows us to act in defense of ourselves. As long as congress agrees someone is a threat, we may act in whatever way we see fit to protect our national security interests.


7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering
indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without
opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the
discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

As long as the courts uphold such detentions, there is no case against the President. As long as the courts are allowed to review and the executive follows the dictates of the courts, there is no crime here. At no point has the Bush administration directly defied the courts in suhch cases. While they can and are stinging out the appeals process, they are doing so within the letter of the law.


8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without
charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

Again, this falls within the bounds of his power as C-in-C according to a white house counsel brief. Until such brief is tested in the courts and found to be erroneous, he is acting within his bounds.


9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of
detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a
detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

As long as appeallate rights exist for the government, i.e., unless the USSC makes a ruling for which there is no appeal, the DOJ and INS are within their rights to continue to hold such prisoners, until the case has wroked it's way all the way though the courts. The orders of local, municipal, and even state judges are often ignored, if the case is facing appeal to a federal court.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens
who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official,
prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

Military tribunals are legal. Sorry, they didn't just make this up. And no foerign national has the implicit right to trail by U.S. courts. Nuremberg was a military tribunal in all but name. And the trying and executions of Japanese class B war criminals, both military and Civilain were upheld by the U.S. courts on review.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have
been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in
response to Congressional inquiry.

There is no law that demands public disclosure of any matter that relates to national security. None at all. If you want disclosure, you have to take them to court and prove national security interests are not involved. AS long as they claim that, it's up to the person seeking such disclosure to prove they are wrong.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right
to public trials.

As long as those arrested fall into the category of combatants, their rights are not yet settled in the courts. Until the process is complete, using the existing laws & defintions is NOT a crime. Nor is it a crime to use the definitions provided by your counsel, until they are proven to be erroneous.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the
government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not
been charged with a crime.

If, a law was broken here, then such monitoring would be declared inadmissible. This is not a "crime" you can lay at the president's feet, even if it should be found to be a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to
hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary
designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

If you get pulled over for DUI, the city of New York can seize your car. Thefact that you are supposed innocent until proven guilty has no bearing and thus far, all attempts to contravene the law have failed in the state courts. Like wise, those accused of dealing drugs can have their property seized, prior to trial. GW didn't pass either or these laws, I don't see how you can atept to hold him liable for their enforcement. Until such time as the courts contravene the seizures, he is acting within in the law.

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by
federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and
political activity.

You have to prove this. And you can't. Domestic spying is allowed, has been forever. Labor unions, Communist groups, etc. have alwaysbeen the target of the FBI. You may not agree with the idea that most terrorists are of a particular religion, but in fact, they are, and monitoring those religious insitituions which seem to be less than above board for whatever reason is no crime.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional
right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

Prove this. Executive priveledge has been invoked. those asking now have the right to progress through the courts and have it denied, as with nixxons tapes. Just because you can't get the courts to se it your way, does not indicate a crime has been commited.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of
the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without
consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the
United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome
which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

The president is authorized to abrogate treaties. Just because you happen to think the treaties were good ideas dosen't make abbrogating them a crime.


This whole list is bunk. Not crimes, just policy actions the author diagrees with. Everyone has recourse to the courts and the fact that the courts have not expediciously returned the verdicts the author seeks does not indicate the president is commiting a crime. This list has no more validity than any other op/ed piece on what a schmuck the president is.

The impeachment articles are not there to allow you to remove a president because you don't like his policy, that's what elections are for. they are there, to allow removal of an official who is commiting crimes, abusing his power or using his position to get away with criminal acts. This list seeks to try his policy, not the man. The trial of his policy was already held, and he was aquitted by the electorate.

I'm not saying he isn't a schmuck. I'm not saying I agree with his white house counsel or with his actions or policy. But in the abscence of a high crime or midomenaor in the old sense, i.e. a moral lapse OR the preponderance of proof a crime has been commited by him, impeachment isn't justified.

I might add, tht if this movement was to succeed, you and all like you would regret it, because the next Democrat to occupy the white house would face a huge majority of legislaters who would disagree with HIS policy and impeachment would become the MO for dealing with politicians who support much of what you believe.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Looks like I need to fire up the ignore list again . . .
Canadia is north. Get the fuck out.
I'm done with the lot of you.

Check!


And not JUST because my Canadian boyfriend wanted me here!

 

[AngeloMichael]

Do I think the President could be impeached? I don't know, as Colleen has pointed out, Bush seems to have taken all the right steps to do what he wanted without commiting a crime by definition of U.S. law. But I am not a legal scholar so I leave it to those more legally minded to make that determination. Would I like him to be impeached? Definitely, but I am not gonna hold my breath and I won't sign that petition either, like others have stated, I'm not too keen on giving out so much information about myself over the internet to people I really know nothing about.

IMHO Bush has commited crimes against humanity, but on a list of world leaders that I believe have commited crimes against humanity, Bush would be very near the bottom, but he's still on that list. I think his actions are influenced by his inner circle of advisors that are only inerested in their own gains, but I also believe part of him really believes he is working in the country's best interest, and he believes in the basic principles this country was founded on. However, I also think he is persuading himself as much as he is the American people that the actions he has taken are for the benefit of the country and the world, when in actuality they are destructive.

Right now I'm in the middle of reading the book Midnight Tides by Steven Erikson. It's a fantasy novel set in a fantasy world, but there are politics in this world just as there are in the real world, and while I may not totally agree with what this one character is saying, I found this excerpt very interesting and reread it a few times:

‘You leave me without hope,’ Brys said.

‘I am sorry for that. Do not seek to find hope among your leaders. They are the repositories of poison. Their interest in you extends only so far as their ability to control you. From you they seek duty and obedience and they ply you with the language of stirring faith. They seek followers and woe to those who question or voice challenge.

‘Civilization after civilization it is the same. The world falls to tyranny with a whisper. The frightened are ever keen to bow to a perceived necessity, in the belief that necessity forces conformity, and conformity a certain stability. In a world shaped into conformity, dissidents stand out, are easily branded and dealt with. There is no multitude of perspectives, no dialogue. The victim assumes the faith of the tyrant, self-righteous and intransigent, and wars breed like vermin. And people die.’

Brys studied the firestorm engulfing what was once a city of great beauty. He did not know its name or the civilization that birthed it, and, it now struck him, it did not matter.

‘In your world,’ the figure said, ‘the prophecy approaches its azimuth. An emperor shall arise. You are from a civilization that sees war as an extension of economics. Stacked bones become the foundation for your roads of commerce and you see nothing untoward in that—’

‘Some of us do.’

‘Irrelevant, your legacy of crushed cultures speaks its own truth. You intend to conquer the Tiste Edur. You claim that each circumstance is different, unique, but it is neither different nor unique. It is all the same. Your military might proves the virtue of your cause. But I tell you this Brys Beddict, there is no such thing as destiny. Victory is not inevitable. Your enemy lies in waiting, in your midst. Your enemy hides without need for disguise, when belligerence and implied threat are sufficient to cause your gaze to shy away. It speaks your language, takes your words and uses them against you. It mocks your belief in truths, for it has made itself the arbiter of those truths.’

‘Lether is not a tyranny—’

‘You assume the spirit of your civilization is personified in your benign king. It is not. Your king exists because it is deemed permissible that he exist. You are ruled by greed, a monstrous tyrant lit gold with glory. It cannot be defeated, only annihilated.’ Another gesture towards the fiery chaos below. ‘That is your only hope of salvation, Brys Beddict. For greed kills itself when there is nothing left to hoard, when the countless legions of labourers are naught but bones, when the grisly face of starvation reveals itself in the mirror.

‘The God is fallen. He crouches now, seeding devastation. Rise and fall, rise and fall, and with each renewal the guiding spirit is less, weaker, more tightly chained to a vision bereft of hope.’

‘Why does this god do this to us?’

‘Because he knows naught but pain and yearns only to share it, to visit it upon all that lives, all that exists.’

‘Why have you shown me this?’

‘I make you witness, Brys Beddict, to the symbol of your demise.’

‘Why?’

The figure was silent a moment then said, ‘I advised you to not look for hope from your leaders, for they shall feed you naught but lies. Yet hope exists. Seek for it, Brys Beddict, in the one that stands at your side, from the stranger upon the other side of the street. Be brave enough to endeavor to cross that street. Look neither skyward nor upon the ground. Hope persists, and its voice is compassion, and honest doubt.’

 

[Boxlicker101]

I was curious about what this was about so I clicked on the URL in the first post. I have seen this kind of thing before. Basically, somebody has a website and is asking peopole to send him or them money so they can alert people of impending doom or whatever. After they think they have collected enough, they will close the site and walk away, having no need to account to anybody.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I think it is strictly a scam.

 

[rgraham666]

For greed kills itself when there is nothing left to hoard, when the countless legions of labourers are naught but bones, when the grisly face of starvation reveals itself in the mirror.

Gonna remember that one for a long time. Brrr.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Wow, you really DON'T get it, do you? The impeachment proceedings were about perjury due to a lie about a blowjob. That is a huge distinction. They went after him over the lie about the blowjob because in their witch hunt that lasted his entire term, they couldn't get anything else to sink him with.

Seeing as that he wasn't impeached, by a Republican dominated Congress no less, I think that maybe the "rest of you" who know so much might be a much smaller group than you think.

No, it's you that don't get it. I'll try one more time. Clinton committed perjury. It doesn't matter what the perjury was about. He was sworn in and perjured himself. It really is that simple. There is NO distinction. He either lied under oath or he didn't. He had the option of not answering questions, answering truthfully, or perjuring himself. He chose perjury. It really is that simple.

The law doesn't care if you or anyone else thinks the question was irrelevant. All the law cares about is truth. So while you may not like the question, that doesn't change the FACT that Clinton perjured himself.

Clinton was impeached, but not removed. He also was found guilty of obstruction of Justice and paid a $90k fine. He also voluntarily surrendered his law license for 4 years. Those are facts as well.

 

[Boota]

The site is exactly that, a way to make money selling t-shirts, etc. The articles of impeachment are real and they were drawn up by a meeting of U.S. attorneys at the request of Rep. Bill Conyers.

I don't have to prove anything. The U.S. attorneys will have that task if it makes it that far. An impeachment would NEVER succeed even if Bush enacted the right of Prima Nocta because the Republicans control the House and Senate. Lord Bush can do no wrong.

"I might add, tht if this movement was to succeed, you and all like you would regret it, because the next Democrat to occupy the white house would face a huge majority of legislaters who would disagree with HIS policy and impeachment would become the MO for dealing with politicians who support much of what you believe."

This already happened.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The site is exactly that, a way to make money selling t-shirts, etc. The articles of impeachment are real and they were drawn up by a meeting of U.S. attorneys at the request of Rep. Bill Conyers.

I don't have to prove anything. The U.S. attorneys will have that task if it makes it that far. An impeachment would NEVER succeed even if Bush enacted the right of Prima Nocta because the Republicans control the House and Senate. Lord Bush can do no wrong.

"I might add, tht if this movement was to succeed, you and all like you would regret it, because the next Democrat to occupy the white house would face a huge majority of legislaters who would disagree with HIS policy and impeachment would become the MO for dealing with politicians who support much of what you believe."

This already happened.

So far, two presidents have been impeached, Clinton and Andrew Johnson. In both cases, there were some grounds but they were overblown and dirty politics (a redundancy) was behind the movements. Both men were acquitted in the senate. There was a movement to impeach Nixon and it might or might not have happened. That one was also politically motivated through disagreement with his policies. If he had been impeached, he probably also would have been acquitted by the Senate. A two thirds majority, 67 senators, is hard to achieve. Whatever you or the Senate thought of Nixon, I don't believe 67 senators would have voted that he was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The movement against Bush has no chance whatsoever of succeeding, first for reasons Colly enumerated, lack of grounds, and also for lack of support. I still think it's just a scam. The fact that lawyers are conducting it makes me think so even more. They are well aware that they have no chance so, rather than wasting their time and effort, they have other motivation. I have a VERY low opinion of the integrity of lawyers, especially when they are also politicians.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The site is exactly that, a way to make money selling t-shirts, etc. The articles of impeachment are real and they were drawn up by a meeting of U.S. attorneys at the request of Rep. Bill Conyers.

I don't have to prove anything. The U.S. attorneys will have that task if it makes it that far. An impeachment would NEVER succeed even if Bush enacted the right of Prima Nocta because the Republicans control the House and Senate. Lord Bush can do no wrong.

"I might add, tht if this movement was to succeed, you and all like you would regret it, because the next Democrat to occupy the white house would face a huge majority of legislaters who would disagree with HIS policy and impeachment would become the MO for dealing with politicians who support much of what you believe."

This already happened.

I would love to know when. So far only two presidents have faced impeachment. Neither was removed from office. Andrew Johnson was the first target, and his crimes were simply not agreeing with the harsh punative measures the radicals wished to impose on a defeated south.

Clinton was impeached for a crime. He perjured himself. Like it or not, defend it with the absolutely facetous they shouldn't have asked the question defense, it's immaterial. He did commit the crime and he is liable for the consequences of that crime under the scope of the impeachment articles.

No other president has had his policies tried in this manner. Neither FDR's new deal, which was massively unpopular, nor LBJ's civil right's stance, which was universally unpopular south of the mason dixion line, nor Ford's pardoning of Nixxon, etc. etc. ad infintum.

As to the articles. I maintain they are bunk. Rediculously politically motivated bunk, without even the semblance of a rationale that would hold up to scrutiny. As a historian, I can tell you the one about military tribunals is without any precedent nor case law. From as recently as WWII, tibunals were used to expedite the trail and sentencing of foerign nationals. The class B war crimes tribunals conducted by McArther in the phillipenes are a good example. If lawyers actually drew them up, I can only say I wouldn't want any of them representing me. Incompetence is so unimpressive to potential clients.

The list is a litney of things I don't like about GWB. Using legalistic jargon to couch my gripes.

You have every right to want to see him impeached. If you can't vote him out, find another way to get rid of him. It's an age old refrain. If he were convicted on anyting in this list however, you would be opening pandora's box. If hil wins in 08 she would be impeached. And right after her the Vp she chose. And after that, however many more were needed, until the Dems offered up a stooge, so afraid of pissing off the now, all powerful congress that he would just do as he was bidden. You would make impeachment a congressional means of removing a president at their pleasure. I don't believe that would help anyone out or do anything to improve the political landscape.

 

[minsue]

You have every right to want to see him impeached. If you can't vote him out, find another way to get rid of him. It's an age old refrain. If he were convicted on anyting in this list however, you would be opening pandora's box. If hil wins in 08 she would be impeached. And right after her the Vp she chose. And after that, however many more were needed, until the Dems offered up a stooge, so afraid of pissing off the now, all powerful congress that he would just do as he was bidden. You would make impeachment a congressional means of removing a president at their pleasure. I don't believe that would help anyone out or do anything to improve the political landscape.

Beautifully stated.

 

[rgraham666]

Yep, no one quite like our Colleen.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colleen Thomas
You have every right to want to see him impeached. If you can't vote him out, find another way to get rid of him. It's an age old refrain. If he were convicted on anyting in this list however, you would be opening pandora's box. If hil wins in 08 she would be impeached. And right after her the Vp she chose. And after that, however many more were needed, until the Dems offered up a stooge, so afraid of pissing off the now, all powerful congress that he would just do as he was bidden. You would make impeachment a congressional means of removing a president at their pleasure. I don't believe that would help anyone out or do anything to improve the political landscape.


Unless something happens before then, he will leave office on Jan. 20, 2009 when his successor is sworn in. Impeachment, death or resignation is the only way he might leave office because he was not voted out in November.

I have to agree with other posters here who think the precedent of using imnpeachment as a political weapon would be worse than keeping Bush until 2009.

 

[Boota]

I realize there is no hope of impeaching Bush for anything. He could murder a room full of babies with a hammer and people would excuse him for it.

Personally, I don't want to see him impeached anyway. It takes too long. I'd rather see him choke on an even bigger pretzel. And soon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I realize there is no hope of impeaching Bush for anything. He could murder a room full of babies with a hammer and people would excuse him for it.

Personally, I don't want to see him impeached anyway. It takes too long. I'd rather see him choke on an even bigger pretzel. And soon.

I don't blame you. I spent a lot of time wishing an anvil would fall on Clinton's head, like in the cartoons. Silly wishes, but they did ease the pain a tad ocasionally.

 

[minsue]

I realize there is no hope of impeaching Bush for anything. He could murder a room full of babies with a hammer and people would excuse him for it.

Personally, I don't want to see him impeached anyway. It takes too long. I'd rather see him choke on an even bigger pretzel. And soon.

I've got to disagree with you there. First off, as much as I abhor that man, all that he has done to this country and this world and all that he is likely to do in the future, I simply cannot wish death on him. Secondly, I sure as hell don't want to see him made into a martyr. I shudder to think at what it would do to the political landscape if he were to die and the neo-cons had public sympathy to play on.