NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Sure as hell would be nice to FINALLY see some justice being done.

Still, its hardly fair to pin the whole mess on just one or two, and 'impeachment' alone wouldn't be enough punishment as far as I'm concerned. Putting them behind bars, together with most of the Senate, for life sounds more like it.

If he flat out lied, then yeah, I suppose he should be impeached. However I dont think he lied. It was either bad intelligence, or the WMD's were shipped to Syria, or shipped to Lebanon through Syria. I think the truth will come out within a few years.

Hmm. Wasn't lying the reason they went after Clinton?

I don't know. I think he's a muppet as much as the next man, but isn't chastising a politician for lying like chastising a tiger for eating meat?

Hmm. Wasn't lying the reason they went after Clinton?

I don't know. I think he's a muppet as much as the next man, but isn't chastising a politician for lying like chastising a tiger for eating meat?

Not really. More like a cow for eating grass. However, the thing is, George's lies got people killed. And that's not ok.

If he flat out lied, then yeah, I suppose he should be impeached. However I dont think he lied. It was either bad intelligence, or the WMD's were shipped to Syria, or shipped to Lebanon through Syria. I think the truth will come out within a few years.

:rolleyes: Keep thinking that.

Oh and to change the subject, I can get you a really good deal on this bridge... five easy payments and it's yours.

:rolleyes: Keep thinking that.

Oh and to change the subject, I can get you a really good deal on this bridge... five easy payments and it's yours.
And if you act now, I'll be willing to sell the leaning tower in Piza to you as well. It's a great deal. Really.

Yet again Britian leads the world!

We had a corrupt judge to fudge the evidence years ago, I'm surprised Bush hasn't done it yet.;)

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007



Sure as hell would be nice to FINALLY see some justice being done.

Still, its hardly fair to pin the whole mess on just one or two, and 'impeachment' alone wouldn't be enough punishment as far as I'm concerned. Putting them behind bars, together with most of the Senate, for life sounds more like it.
A newer poll from Ipsos Public Affairs commissioned by afterdowningstreet.org reverses those numbers. (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/11/171040/56)Sorry about the source being Kos, but I'm short of time right now.

Republicans control Congress. Impeachment will never happen unless Bush does something REALLY stupid or illegal.

Sorry about going off topic, but what's wrong with using Kos as a source?

The Constitution is very specific about impeachable offenses: "The President, Vice-President ...shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Additionally, there is a report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, prepared for the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon. The interpretations reached in that report are the closest thing we have to a comprehensive precedent in this area.

Treason - nope.
Bribery - nope.
Engaging in war in Iraq was legal under US law, as Congress approved it - they would have to impeach themselves.
Can't prove he lied - he can always say the intel he was given was faulty. He can always say he made an honest decision based on bad information.

You can't impeach someone just because you want to.

One of the most prominent aspects of the Constitution in recent years is the section of the Constitution that allows the President to be impeached. The word impeach simply means charge (an official) with an offence whilst in public office. But it is a highly loaded word, both politically and emotionally. The Constitution actually says nothing specific about under what circumstances anyone can be impeached. It simply defines the final process - that of the trial and penalties.

Article 3, section 2.3 of the Constitution lays down that all crimes shall be tried by jury, except in cases of impeachment and Article 1, section 3.6 provides that only the Senate may try an impeachment. They must be under oath (or affirmation) to do so, and to be found guilty under this process there must be a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. In the event of the President being tried, 3.6 requires that the house be presided over by the Chief Justice, to avoid the conflict of having the Vice President, who would normally preside.

Should the trial be successful, section 3.7 defines the maximum penalties that the Senate can impose. These are limited basically removal from office, and disqualification from holding any official office, although it doesn't preclude a criminal trial.

Article 2, section 4, requires that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers, must be removed from office if they are impeached, and then convicted of, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

So what does all this mean in reality. Well, impeachment is simply the process by which the individual can be charged with an offence - they are innocent until proven guilty. And it also doesn't mean that they will be removed from office. It simply means that they will face a formal trial in the Senate.

Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offence - there is no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; these are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory - although, because the process is so cumbersome and time-consuming, it is rarely used and is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

The whole business of impeachment gave those writing the Constitution no end of headaches. There was a strong voice saying that it was unwise to allow the President to be impeached, because it would make him too dependent on the (partisan) legislature, particularly as, at that time, they were the people that elected him in the first place. But Benjamin Franklin disagreed, suggesting that impeachment was better than the alternative - assassination! His view prevailed, although they further struggled over the wording of the conditions for removal from office - in the first draft, it was "neglect of duty, bribery, maladministration and corruption".

Those words aren't in there - so you're out of luck there, too.

impeachment has almost nothing to do with right and wrong, with what should and shouldnt be done and everything to do with politics

bush wouldnt be impeached if he were found giving bin laden a blow job in the oval office.

**EDIT**

well OK, he would be impeached for that, but thats the ONLY thing he would be impeached for.

That's one of the reasons I like a Parliamentary system...vote of no confidence = PM pretty much removed. Stops him getting too carried away with his own power.

Not that votes of no confidence are likely to happen, but it's always nice to have it as an option if he does something nobody likes but isn't illegal.

Not really. More like a cow for eating grass. However, the thing is, George's lies got people killed. And that's not ok.
But remember, this is America - violence is a wholesome, a-ok pasttime; sex is an evil, amorale act of the devil.

But remember, this is America - violence is a wholesome, a-ok pasttime; sex is an evil, amorale act of the devil.

What I want to know of people who hate Bush:

Which is it?

1. He's a smart, devious, clever, manipulative liar who bamboozled the Congress into approving the Iraq War.

2. He's a bumbling idiot incapable of tying his own shoelaces without help, and the members of the Senate who voted to approve the Iraq War (Sen. Kerry included!) are even more stupid than Bush.

Sorry about going off topic, but what's wrong with using Kos as a source?
It's a blog, and further it's a blog with an axe to grind. It's not so much that Kos itself would make stuff up or anything like that, but more that it would report with favor towards one side of the story. Further, blogs have no editorial or peer review and are just any yayhoo with a computer's opinion, so unless the information can be varified from a blog it is suspect, even if it's from an established blog like Kos.

Kos being established at best means that at this point they're not likely to just make shit up and what they report should be easy to varify, just that it will only contain one read of the story. So it is better than Freshfrommyass.blogspace.com, but you don't want to use it as a primary source withuot being able to cooberate what you're saying-primarily because you run the risk of having to argue the source rather than the story and that becomes a frustrating waste of time.

Further, blogs have no editorial or peer review and are just any yayhoo with a computer's opinion, so unless the information can be varified from a blog it is suspect, even if it's from an established blog like Kos.

Oh, like the New York Times? How many times has Paul Krugman been caught making crap up and not being held accountable by the NYT management?

If you think that an official media outlet can be trusted not to make crap up, or alternatively, to cover a story, you're fooling yourself.

Why don't we ask the New York Times why they are NOT covering the Judith Miller story? Eh?

Oh, like the New York Times? How many times has Paul Krugman been caught making crap up and not being held accountable by the NYT management?

If you think that an official media outlet can be trusted not to make crap up, or alternatively, to cover a story, you're fooling yourself.

Why don't we ask the New York Times why they are NOT covering the Judith Miller story? Eh?
....and here we go...

....and here we go...
You're the one who said that the mainstream media is more trustworthy.

....and here we go...

By your analysis, we should never have trusted the blogosphere's analysis of the faked Guard memos that were the centerpiece of Dan Rather's story.

By your analysis, we should have taken old Dan on faith - because he belongs to a news organization with a long and respectable past.

Hey, CBS has fact checkers, right?

Evidently not.

You're the one who said that the mainstream media is more trustworthy.
I guess you missed the part where I said this:
argue the source rather than the story and that becomes a frustrating waste of time.
Have this party by yourself, dude. I don't care what you thought I was saying.

It's a blog, and further it's a blog with an axe to grind. It's not so much that Kos itself would make stuff up or anything like that, but more that it would report with favor towards one side of the story. Further, blogs have no editorial or peer review and are just any yayhoo with a computer's opinion, so unless the information can be varified from a blog it is suspect, even if it's from an established blog like Kos.

Kos being established at best means that at this point they're not likely to just make shit up and what they report should be easy to varify, just that it will only contain one read of the story. So it is better than Freshfrommyass.blogspace.com, but you don't want to use it as a primary source withuot being able to cooberate what you're saying-primarily because you run the risk of having to argue the source rather than the story and that becomes a frustrating waste of time.

You're the one who argued the source.

What I want to know of people who hate Bush:

Which is it?

1. He's a smart, devious, clever, manipulative liar who bamboozled the Congress into approving the Iraq War.

2. He's a bumbling idiot incapable of tying his own shoelaces without help, and the members of the Senate who voted to approve the Iraq War (Sen. Kerry included!) are even more stupid than Bush.

The latter.

Democrats should have been bold and exposed the faulty intelligence before the war. (All of them knew that the Administration was lying, but nobody wanted to bell the cat).

You're the one who argued the source.
I answered a question.

Yet again Britian leads the world!

We had a corrupt judge to fudge the evidence years ago, I'm surprised Bush hasn't done it yet.;)
He just appointed one, and another on the way.

He just appointed one, and another on the way.

For a corrupt judge, Roberts looks pretty squeaky clean. So what do you base your allegation on? Link please.

It's a blog, and further it's a blog with an axe to grind. It's not so much that Kos itself would make stuff up or anything like that, but more that it would report with favor towards one side of the story. Further, blogs have no editorial or peer review and are just any yayhoo with a computer's opinion, so unless the information can be varified from a blog it is suspect, even if it's from an established blog like Kos.

Kos being established at best means that at this point they're not likely to just make shit up and what they report should be easy to varify, just that it will only contain one read of the story. So it is better than Freshfrommyass.blogspace.com, but you don't want to use it as a primary source withuot being able to cooberate what you're saying-primarily because you run the risk of having to argue the source rather than the story and that becomes a frustrating waste of time.
Yea. Thanks for inadvertedly demonstrating your explanation. I didn't quite expect people to be that bloodyminded about things around here.

Normally I'd say Kos is fairly reliable, and as such a perfectly valid source of information for a quiet little debate... But I'm not sure of the wisdom in saying that after watching what happened :p

The latter.

Democrats should have been bold and exposed the faulty intelligence before the war. (All of them knew that the Administration was lying, but nobody wanted to bell the cat).
then they are still guity for failing to uphold the public trust. If they knew that the administration was lying and allowed it to go on, then they are as guilty, if not more for allowing it as well as supporting it, as the Republicans. thus still showing that they are no better than the Republicans.

and they can't even use the exscuse of "faulty intelligence" because according to you, they "knew"

Hmm. Wasn't lying the reason they went after Clinton?

I don't know. I think he's a muppet as much as the next man, but isn't chastising a politician for lying like chastising a tiger for eating meat?
They got him for perjury, which is a different case entirely from the simple act of lying.

Also, are we talking subjective or objective lying here?

If he flat out lied, then yeah, I suppose he should be impeached. However I dont think he lied. It was either bad intelligence, or the WMD's were shipped to Syria, or shipped to Lebanon through Syria. I think the truth will come out within a few years.

The bolded section represents one of the most illogical explanations for the absence of WMDs in Iraq that could possibly be dreamed up, I'm frankly amazed it's persisted so long.

We are presented with a power-hungry damn near clinically paranoid dictator...

And the hypothesis someone comes up with is he took all of his most powerful weaponry on the eve of having the most powerful military force on the planet come into his country looking to remove him and gave it all away to his neighbours???

Because... we think that he thought the US would just put him back in office and leave him be if they didn't immediately find them and then his good friends in Syria would just give them back because they're generous like that? I mean really, what is the reasoning going on when someone puts forward a hypothesis like this?


But remember, this is America - violence is a wholesome, a-ok pasttime; sex is an evil, amorale act of the devil.


What I want to know of people who hate Bush:

Which is it?

1. He's a smart, devious, clever, manipulative liar who bamboozled the Congress into approving the Iraq War.

2. He's a bumbling idiot incapable of tying his own shoelaces without help, and the members of the Senate who voted to approve the Iraq War (Sen. Kerry included!) are even more stupid than Bush.

You do realize your post had no relation to the comment you were replying to, don't you? Copy and paste the wrong entry from the "Stock Answers to give Liberals" list?