NationStates Jolt Archive

Frankly, I don't think it will happen. It would be great if it did. What do you think the chances are of Bush being impeached?

"The vast majority of Democrats, most Independents, and a majority overall are supportive of impeachment. A remarkable 85% of Democrats in Pennsylvania (the only state polled) want to vote for pro-impeachment congressional candidates. And people don't just support impeachment. They're passionate about it. Bush is the least liked president on record, excepting only Nixon, and Bush is on track to break Nixon's record this spring. Nothing will energize people to vote against Republicans like talk of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Few other issues can provide the dramatic motivation to turn out voters in an off-year election.

The Democrats have been dealt a winning hand, and they're afraid – thus far -- to sit down at the table. Instead they're on the defensive, hiding from Feingold and whining about how opposing Bush will energize Republicans. The corporate punditry meanwhile is on the offensive, pretending that impeachment is actually good for Republicans."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_060317_republicans_for_impe.htm

"Gore said recently that Bush’s “unlawful” eavesdropping was part of a larger pattern of “seeming indifference” to the American constitution, which could well be an impeachable offence.

John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, was overheard in an Irish bar on Capitol Hill talking about how satisfying it would be to impeach Bush if Congress went Democrat. He was just having a laugh, his spokeswoman rushed to explain: “Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld.”

But then she turned serious: “How are the same Republicans, who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair, going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2092455,00.html

Bush and Cheney both right? That brings in the Speaker of the House if I remember right. What do we know about this guy anyway?

http://speakersnews.house.gov/

Not that it will ever happen. Democrats can't get their act together and the Republicans have made their bargain with the devil and will continue to back him.

0.

Clinton was impeached because he was caught lying to a grand jury. That was perjury and obstruction of justice - the same thing that Scooter Libby has been charged with now. Those are crimes. What they arose from is immaterial to the legal issue at hand.

Bush was wrong about the WMDs, but he never made a statement under oath and penalty of perjury that there were WMDs. The War in Iraq was undertaken with the sanction of Congress, so he's got 535 folks to share the blame with. Even with the NSA data-mining, there would have to be a case built that he knowlingly and intentionally violated the law in order to hold him accountable there. The fact that he briefed Congress and the White House counsel and DOJ believed that he was within his authority erodes the case that the knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

Politically speaking, even if the Democrats won the House, they'll have such a tiny margin that it would be next to impossible for them to get Articles of Impeachment passed. If they do, it would almost certainly be political suicide for them to try it. And the Senate most definitely wouldn't remove him if he were impeached.

I wonder which Irish bar Kerry was drinking at on Capitol Hill. If it's the one I go to, I'm surprised he actually goes there. There really aren't that many, but who knows.

0.

Clinton was impeached because he was caught lying to a grand jury. That was perjury and obstruction of justice - the same thing that Scooter Libby has been charged with now. Those are crimes. What they arose from is immaterial to the legal issue at hand.

Bush was wrong about the WMDs, but he never made a statement under oath and penalty of perjury that there were WMDs. The War in Iraq was undertaken with the sanction of Congress, so he's got 535 folks to share the blame with. Even with the NSA data-mining, there would have to be a case built that he knowlingly and intentionally violated the law in order to hold him accountable there. The fact that he briefed Congress and the White House counsel and DOJ believed that he was within his authority erodes the case that the knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

Politically speaking, even if the Democrats won the House, they'll have such a tiny margin that it would be next to impossible for them to get Articles of Impeachment passed. If they do, it would almost certainly be political suicide for them to try it. And the Senate most definitely wouldn't remove him if he were impeached.

I wonder which Irish bar Kerry was drinking at on Capitol Hill. If it's the one I go to, I'm surprised he actually goes there. There really aren't that many, but who knows.
He got 535 folks to back him by misleading them.

He's not going to get impeached. One reason is republicans are in office, the second is he hasnt done anything to get impeached.

He's not going to get impeached. One reason is republicans are in office, the second is he hasnt done anything to get impeached.
Oh.

0.

-snip-

Bush was wrong about the WMDs, but he never made a statement under oath and penalty of perjury that there were WMDs. The War in Iraq was undertaken with the sanction of Congress, so he's got 535 folks to share the blame with. Even with the NSA data-mining, there would have to be a case built that he knowlingly and intentionally violated the law in order to hold him accountable there. The fact that he briefed Congress and the White House counsel and DOJ believed that he was within his authority erodes the case that the knowingly and intentionally violated the law.
-snip-


Not true. One can be ignorant of the law and still be held accountable to it.

I don't think it will happen because the Democrats are cowards and the Republicans have chosen to support the policies that should get him impeached. Plus, both parties are so corrupt, they are scared shitless of the idea of actually accusing a president of crimes, because if it's not too extreme to make such charges against a president, then why would any prosecutor hesitate to come after Congress next?

There is a very very slight chance this might change if the Republican party decides the Bush policies are hurting the party too much politically and turn on him, and if that were to happen, I'd get merrily drunk on the most expensive champagne I could get. But I think the corruption angle is too big a hurdle to get over.

I don't think it will happen because the Democrats are cowards and the Republicans have chosen to support the policies that should get him impeached. Plus, both parties are so corrupt, they are scared shitless of the idea of actually accusing a president of crimes, because if it's not too extreme to make such charges against a president, then why would any prosecutor hesitate to come after Congress next?

There is a very very slight chance this might change if the Republican party decides the Bush policies are hurting the party too much politically and turn on him, and if that were to happen, I'd get merrily drunk on the most expensive champagne I could get. But I think the corruption angle is too big a hurdle to get over.
That makes a lot of sense. I think it could definitely happen if Bush makes another big issue mistake.

First, I want to smack anyone who voted "I'll defect to Canada."

Second, as much as I'd like to see it, I too don't think it is all that likely. Even if Democrats were to win a majority in Congress, in both the House and Senate--which is what they'd need to stand a chance of this--they're just too cowardly. Plus, consider how it would reflect on the United States to have two Presidents IN A ROW impeached! Sure doesn't speak well for our ability to chose our leaders.

By the way, gang, if it were to happen, the current House Leader wouldn't be the one next in line. It would probably be the current minority leader of the House, who would, if the Dems get a majority, become Speaker of the House.

Finally, I don't want to see Dems get a majority anyway. I want to see Republicans hold on. But that's just party loyalty speaking here. I would, of course, prefer it if these Republicans were to act intelligently, quit supporting Bush's bullshit policies, and all that good junk. But, that would probably be too much to ask of politicians.

He's not going to get impeached. One reason is republicans are in office, the second is he hasnt done anything to get impeached.
Whose puppet are you again? I remember reading somewhere that you're worth missing due your levity.
I think i'm starting to see why. :)

Whose puppet are you again? I remember reading somewhere that you're worth missing due your levity.
I think i'm starting to see why. :)
Haven't you checked out Ban Public Schools?

That makes a lot of sense. I think it could definitely happen if Bush makes another big issue mistake.
Now's the time, while more people are actually paying attention and not being so fellatively sycophantic.

you're worth missing due your levity.
I think i'm starting to see why. :)
What does that mean "worth missing due your levity"?

Haven't you checked out Ban Public Schools?
Not yet, i've been arguing with Brians Room on Sumamba Buwhan's Republican Rap-sheet thread, and watching Discovery Channel and Max-Ex. Is it worth it?

Now's the time, while more people are actually paying attention and not being so fellatively sycophantic.
...

I pride myself on my incredibly vast vocabulary. But I'm afraid I must say, "not being so what?"

What does that mean "worth missing due your levity"?
As in, people will miss you because you're funny enough to have made a lasting impression. IIRC, at least.

Part I of my post.

Well if President Bush is impeached out of office, we get President Cheney who gets to name a Vice President, then if Cheney resigns for health reasons, the Vice President becomes President and names a Vice President, they have time to prove themselves in office and win in 2008.

There are many such possible senarios like that.

Not yet, i've been arguing with Brians Room on Sumamba Buwhan's Republican Rap-sheet thread, and watching Discovery Channel and Max-Ex. Is it worth it?
Define "worth it."

...

I pride myself on my incredibly vast vocabulary. But I'm afraid I must say, "not being so what?"
So c*ck-suckingly servantile for iffy hope of advancement and power gain.

Perhaps i should edit that a smidge. Done and done.

As in, people will miss you because you're funny enough to have made a lasting impression. IIRC, at least.
oh, I dont really try to be funny, I just tell people what I think.

Define "worth it."
Moddamn if i'm not doing that a lot tonight ... ;)

Worth it, in brevity: Their puppeteer is named.

oh, I dont really try to be funny, I just tell people what I think.
How come you don't see humour in that? C'mon, join the crowd! It's lonely up there!

Moddamn if i'm not doing that a lot tonight ... ;)

Worth it, in brevity: Their puppeteer is named.
Oh, yeah. That happens. Only it's more like two puppets with nobody holding the strings.

So c*ck-suckingly servantile for iffy hope of advancement and power gain.

Perhaps i should edit that a smidge. Done and done.
Ah. I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, yeah. That happens. Only it's more like two puppets with nobody holding the strings.
So if that's the case, whose buttons did Drunk Commies Deleted/JesusSaves push?

How come you don't see humour in that? C'mon, join the crowd! It's lonely up there!
See the humor in what, my opinion?

So if that's the case, whose buttons did Drunk Commies Deleted/JesusSaves push?
I think I might be losing the thread on this one... I'm falling asleep. Are you saying there is a mastermind behind all of this nonsense?

Ah. I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Hey, no problem!

I think I might be losing the thread on this one... I'm falling asleep. Are you saying there is a mastermind behind all of this nonsense?
Of course there is. And that mastermind...is me.

...

OHNOIREVEALEDMYMASTERPLANS!~ :(

See the humor in what, my opinion?
Perhaps you should ask them that - they felt you changed their life enough to have merited them missing you. You must be doing something right.
As for me, i'm just trying to fit in.

Of course there is. And that mastermind...is me.

...

OHNOIREVEALEDMYMASTERPLANS!~ :(
It's ok. I'm much too tired to do much about it. Good night and... whatever.

I think I might be losing the thread on this one... I'm falling asleep. Are you saying there is a mastermind behind all of this nonsense?
On the puppet issue, yeah. Otherwise i don't trust anyone.
Seriously, i mix my own water.
Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen.
Stirred, not shaken.

On the puppet issue, yeah. Otherwise i don't trust anyone.
Seriously, i mix my own water.
Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen.
Stirred, not shaken.
That is paranoid...

As several have said, the odds are zero. It would take a major congressional turnover, but then there would be only two years left. It's kind of like Reagan's failing mind. He committed treason but since everyone knew his mind was going and there was only a couple years left, it just wasn't worth it.

Clinton was impeached as revenge for Nixon. I think they all surely learned something from that fiasco.

I doubt if the Speaker would ever become Pres. Surely Bush and Chaney wouldn't be impeached at exactly the same time. Whoever was left would appoint a VP, then when the other was impeached the new VP would become Pres. That's the way Ford got in.

He got 535 folks to back him by misleading them.

Oddly enough, that's not illegal.

Not true. One can be ignorant of the law and still be held accountable to it.

Generally, yes. But if the elements of the crime require intent, then you can't break that law unless you did so intentionally.

is this what the unites states will be on for till the end of the world, they tried to impeach clinton, so now the other side tries to impeach bush, and now they try to impeach the other sides guy, and then the other side tries to impeach the next guy?

its damn insane if you ask me, people need to stop bitching so much

is this what the unites states will be on for till the end of the world, they tried to impeach clinton, so now the other side tries to impeach bush, and now they try to impeach the other sides guy, and then the other side tries to impeach the next guy?


I think it would be hilarious to watch, say, the next 10 Presidents get impeached for whatever reason. I've always hoped politics would degenerate into determining the Presidency by a WWE style cage match.

As a Brit I think the Democrats would be suicidal to try and impeach Bush. The guys presidency is falling apart all by itself and should the democrats make any attempt at impeaching him (which would fail due to the fact that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses and Bush enjoys the support of the majority of the public on this issue) for this unauthorised phone-tapping would achieve two things:

1) It would revive Bush's flagging presidency, revitalise their conservative base and give the guy another chance to boost his polls by demonstrating his credentials as a "strong leader" and the only man that has the balls to save the US from terrorism.

2) It would make the Democrats look weak, partly because they would lose, but mainly because after the last 4 years of desperate attempts to cast themselves as party that are strong enough to defend the US from external threats and stay the course in Iraq the last thing they need to do is appear weak on an issue of national security (which is how it would play with the general public).

Issues like terrorism and national security are ones that Bush polls well on and probably were the biggest factors in his 2004 victory, now that they are declining in electoral importance the Democrats would be idiotic to try to resurrect them.

Use your heads and not your hearts guys.

He's not going to get impeached. One reason is republicans are in office, the second is he hasnt done anything to get impeached.

hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaha

As a Brit I think the Democrats would be suicidal to try and impeach Bush. The guys presidency is falling apart all by itself and should the democrats make any attempt at impeaching him (which would fail due to the fact that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses and Bush enjoys the support of the majority of the public on this issue). Any attempt at impeachment for his unauthorised phone-tapping would achieve two things

1) It would revive Bush's flagging presidency, revitalise their conservative base and give the guy another chance to boost his polls by demonstrating his credentials as a "strong leader" and the only man that has the balls to save the US from terrorism.

2) It would make the Democrats look weak, partly because they would lose, but mainly because after the last 4 years of desperate attempts to cast themselves as party that are strong enough to defend the US from external threats and stay the course in Iraq the last thing they need to do is appear weak on an issue of national security (which is how it would play with the general public).

Issues like terrorism and national security are ones that Bush polls well on and probably were the biggest factors in his 2004 victory, now that they are declining in electoral importance the Democrats would be idiotic to try to resurrect them.

Use your heads and not your hearts guys.

That's what the articles were about though... it looks like the American public would be behind an impeachment. Though I do agree that the Democrats could very easily, and probably would, muck it up beyond words. Which is what would suck about it. If there were some honest people involved in politics with half a brain... Now look what you've made me do. You've made a grown man cry.

hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaha
What would we do without our Abassador??

What would we do without our Abassador??
You would probably buy into liberal lies.

You would probably buy into liberal lies.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Not that!!!

You would probably buy into liberal lies.

This guys answers always follow the lines of
- your wrong
- you don't understand
- its the liberals / media / foreigners / the muppets:)

Get a new line mate :headbang:

You would probably buy into liberal lies.
Yeah... I know... like education.

Yeah... I know... like education.
exactly, damn liberals

You would probably buy into liberal lies.

Are you saying that lying is wrong? Isn't that a tad hypocritical given your track record?

exactly, damn liberals
You are now officially joking. Good show.

Are you saying that lying is wrong? Isn't that a tad hypocritical given your track record?
what track record?

You are now officially joking. Good show.
I dont joke, especially about these matters.

what track record?

Your track record of lying in these forums.

Impeachment ... maybe 30-40 percent

Conviction Maybe 5

Though if criminal stupidity were an impeachable offense...

You would probably buy into liberal lies.
As opposed to conservative lies? I suppose you have to pick your poison

I dont joke, especially about these matters.
No, you're mistaken. I'm still trying to decide whether it's intentional or not, though.

As a Brit I think the Democrats would be suicidal to try and impeach Bush. The guys presidency is falling apart all by itself and should the democrats make any attempt at impeaching him (which would fail due to the fact that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses and Bush enjoys the support of the majority of the public on this issue) for this unauthorised phone-tapping would achieve two things:

1) It would revive Bush's flagging presidency, revitalise their conservative base and give the guy another chance to boost his polls by demonstrating his credentials as a "strong leader" and the only man that has the balls to save the US from terrorism.

2) It would make the Democrats look weak, partly because they would lose, but mainly because after the last 4 years of desperate attempts to cast themselves as party that are strong enough to defend the US from external threats and stay the course in Iraq the last thing they need to do is appear weak on an issue of national security (which is how it would play with the general public).

Issues like terrorism and national security are ones that Bush polls well on and probably were the biggest factors in his 2004 victory, now that they are declining in electoral importance the Democrats would be idiotic to try to resurrect them.

Use your heads and not your hearts guys.

I think we have a winner! You have to remember that after the Clinton impeachment drive was under way people rallied around him. I'd imagine that Bush would experience a similar rallying effect.

That's what the articles were about though... it looks like the American public would be behind an impeachment. Though I do agree that the Democrats could very easily, and probably would, muck it up beyond words. Which is what would suck about it. If there were some honest people involved in politics with half a brain... Now look what you've made me do. You've made a grown man cry.

Honestly, the American public wouldn't be behind an impeachment. After the Clinton fiasco, people recognize that trying that sort of thing again only damages the country, and to do it during wartime is unheard of. The fact that Feingold only proposed a censure resolution (granted, he's in the Senate so he can't propose Articles of Impeachment, that's a House right) and didn't talk about impeachment recognizes that fact.

As I said before, there is zero chance of Bush being impeached, even if the Democrats win control of the house in 2006.

Honestly, the American public wouldn't be behind an impeachment. After the Clinton fiasco, people recognize that trying that sort of thing again only damages the country, and to do it during wartime is unheard of. The fact that Feingold only proposed a censure resolution (granted, he's in the Senate so he can't propose Articles of Impeachment, that's a House right) and didn't talk about impeachment recognizes that fact.

As I said before, there is zero chance of Bush being impeached, even if the Democrats win control of the house in 2006.
Sorry. Didn't know you were a Soothsayer.

Your track record of lying in these forums.
I havent lied

I havent lied
You were proven to have a puppet that you then lied about. OH GOD... I'm turning off my computer.

I havent lied

You did just there. Or did you forget this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593860&postcount=30

What does that mean "worth missing due your levity"?
You would think that with your superior "private school" education, that you would be able to figure what he meant by the above statement. :rolleyes:

You did just there. Or did you forget this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593860&postcount=30
venezcuba, isn't my puppet, nor my nation. It is my friends nation. But I dont feel like harping on the past.

Impeach Bush and I'll defect to Canada
I wouldn't count on that.

You would think that with your superior "private school" education, that you would be able to figure what he meant by the above statement. :rolleyes:
We don't need your snide remarks

We don't need your snide marks
But we do need his witty remarks, though. More so than ludicrous spelling errors, even...

venezcuba, isn't my puppet, nor my nation. It is my friends nation. But I dont feel like harping on the past.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10523763&postcount=523

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10523763&postcount=523
yeah, I did it so my friend could run it. Your taking the whole thing out of context.

yeah, I did it so my friend could run it. Your taking the whole thing out of context.
Well then have your friend log on so we can see the two of you online simultaneously.

It's a small matter.

Well then have your friend log on so we can see the two of you online simultaneously.

It's a small matter.
ok

Sorry. Didn't know you were a Soothsayer.

You don't need to be a prognosticator to understand the dynamics of the American political psyche. The Clinton impeachment left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths, and I no one wants to start down that primrose path again except the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd.

there see we are both on

see, hes not my puppet

UN/Venez: Okay boys now post simultaneously: UN, the alphabet in all caps, with ' single apostrophes in between each letter. Like this: A'B'C'D etc. 'til you get to Z.Venezcuba, post the numbers 26 down to 0 with _underscores in between each number in sequence, like so: 26_25_24_23 etc.

Co-ordinate by phone, messenger, whatever to co-ordinate your posts as closely as humanly possible. Then hit "Submit Reply".

UN/Venez: Okay boys now post simultaneously: UN, the alphabet in all caps, with ' single apostrophes in between each letter. Like this: A'B'C'D etc. 'til you get to Z.Venezcuba, post the numbers 26 down to 0 with _underscores in between each number in sequence, like so: 26_25_24_23 etc.

Co-ordinate by phone, messenger, whatever to co-ordinate your posts as closely as humanly possible. Then hit "Submit Reply".

That's not even necessary. The speed at which his puppet responded is all you really need. He just dug his hole a lot deeper. Give it up, abassadorship - you're toast.

You don't need to be a prognosticator to understand the dynamics of the American political psyche. The Clinton impeachment left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths, and I no one wants to start down that primrose path again except the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd.

Yeah, unfortunately, America is full of the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd.

*CanuckHeaven brings popcorn. :D

I note with no small amount of amusement that as of 8:49 PM EST, one of the puppets has been viewing this thread since 8:32 PM EST. One wonders why he hassn't leapt to his, or to his friend's defense.

But then wonderment is a fleeting thing.

*Edit: like Venezcuba, who has now left the building.

That is paranoid...
Better safe than sorry. Besides i went through *a lot* learning that the hard way. It's better to make a routine of something that was a painful lesson, so i don't easily get distracted from ... hey, did i just sound conservative? :eek:

see, hes not my puppet
Did i mention my heckling of Jeff Dunham and his puppet, Peanut?
The guy could keep the act going as he drank water. Pretty cool.
When he made the mistake of picking me from the audience for questions, i asked him, "If i melt dry ice, can i take a swim without getting wet?"
(i actually do know the answer regardless of his response)
and he just shakes his/Peanut's head and says ... "3 billion sperm and ...."

Strangely enough i forget what he finished it off with. Perhaps The UN Venezcubaship can fill in for me?

You cant impeach a President for not agreeing with him!

You cant impeach a President for not agreeing with him!
I can honestly say that you are right and that I cannot impeach the president.

You cant impeach a President for not agreeing with him!

It's been done before...

You don't need to be a prognosticator to understand the dynamics of the American political psyche. The Clinton impeachment left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths, and I no one wants to start down that primrose path again except the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd.
We can all see the sour taste in the Democrats mouth, I agree with you that much. It could be seen when the call for a censure happened. But the articles in the first post talk of the American people wanting the impeachment.

You cant impeach a President for not agreeing with him!
Perhaps someone should offer to fellate him in the oval office. Oh sweet victory :rolleyes:

Perhaps someone should offer to fellate him in the oval office. Oh sweet victory :rolleyes:

Pat Robertson beat ya to it.

Pat Robertson beat ya to it.
Sweet victory, indeed!! :D

Perhaps someone should offer to fellate him in the oval office. Oh sweet victory :rolleyes:
I would do it. It would be a honor to do it for such a great President.

Better safe than sorry. Besides i went through *a lot* learning that the hard way. It's better to make a routine of something that was a painful lesson, so i don't easily get distracted from ... hey, did i just sound conservative? :eek:
They got to you, man. Pull the blinds, lock the door and turn on the white noise machine. STAT!

I would do it. It would be a honor to do it for such a great President.
You had such a great run of jokes for so long, i'm not sure why you'd pop a dud like this one. :(
Verily, you wound me.

They got to you, man. Pull the blinds, lock the door and turn on the white noise machine. STAT!
Latte! I need culture!
I need NPR!
I need thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed articles!
I need self-respect!
I need to know that my decisions aren't going to f*ck the living sh*t out of future generations!

I need reassurance!

Do i need a fluffle .... or an AR-15? :eek:

You had such a great run of jokes for so long, i'm not sure why you'd pop a dud like this one. :(
Verily, you wound me.
Sorry, but I was being serious

Latte! I need culture!
I need NPR!
I need thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed articles!
I need self-respect!
I need to know that my decisions aren't going to f*ck the living sh*t out of future generations!

I need reassurance!

Do i need a fluffle .... or an AR-15? :eek:
Fluffle! ... I think. But get it from someone else.

Sorry, but I was being serious
Are you a 27 year old girl again?

Are you a 27 year old girl again?
Does s/he have that kinda $?
Not only a sense of humour ... SJS hmmms ..... :eek:

Fluffle! ... I think. But get it from someone else.
You know, plants aren't for *everything* ... just ask "Puck" Verdigroth :eek:

You know, plants aren't for *everything* ... just ask "Puck" Verdigroth :eek:
Why don't you try humming to yourself quietly, instead?

Why are people discussing impeaching the president when he hasn't done a thing that deserves it under the Constitution?

Sorry. Didn't know you were a Soothsayer.

what is a soothsayer?

*CanuckHeaven brings popcorn. :D

*munches on CH's Popcorn*

Why are people discussing impeaching the president when he hasn't done a thing that deserves it under the Constitution?
Google Bush. Read.

what is a soothsayer?
forecaster, predictor, prognosticator, soothsayer

someone who makes predictions of the future (usually on the basis of special knowledge)

Google Bush. Read.

Your acting like my baby sister.

Why are we discussing the impeachment of Bush when he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment?

forecaster, predictor, prognosticator, soothsayer

someone who makes predictions of the future (usually on the basis of special knowledge)

Thanks :)

Your acting like my baby sister.

Why are we discussing the impeachment of Bush when he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment?
He knowlingly misled America into a war with Iraq.

Maybe I am your baby sister, Doofus.

Thanks :)
No problem.

He knowlingly misled America into a war with Iraq.

I doubt that is a high crime or misdomener as proscribed in the Constitution of the United States. Wilson misled us into World World 1. President Johnson misled us into Vietnam. Should these two have been impeached?

Maybe I am your baby sister, Doofus.

I am not a doofus :cry:

First, I want to smack anyone who voted "I'll defect to Canada."

Second, as much as I'd like to see it, I too don't think it is all that likely. Even if Democrats were to win a majority in Congress, in both the House and Senate--which is what they'd need to stand a chance of this--they're just too cowardly. Plus, consider how it would reflect on the United States to have two Presidents IN A ROW impeached! Sure doesn't speak well for our ability to chose our leaders.

By the way, gang, if it were to happen, the current House Leader wouldn't be the one next in line. It would probably be the current minority leader of the House, who would, if the Dems get a majority, become Speaker of the House.

Finally, I don't want to see Dems get a majority anyway. I want to see Republicans hold on. But that's just party loyalty speaking here. I would, of course, prefer it if these Republicans were to act intelligently, quit supporting Bush's bullshit policies, and all that good junk. But, that would probably be too much to ask of politicians.

Two presidents in a row impeached? One of them wasn't having people tortured in Siberia.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]He knowlingly misled America into a war with Iraq.[/quote[

I doubt that is a high crime or misdomener as proscribed in the Constitution of the United States. Wilson misled us into World World 1. President Johnson misled us into Vietnam. Should these two have been impeached?



I am not a doofus :cry:
Don't know much about World War I. I probably would have felt the same about Vietnam as I do about Iraq. I can't imagine I would have supported the Vietnam War. So, "I don't know" to the Wilson; "Yes, probably" to Johnson.

Don't know much about World War I. I probably would have felt the same about Vietnam as I do about Iraq. I can't imagine I would have supported the Vietnam War. So, "I don't know" to the Wilson; "Yes, probably" to Johnson.
Even though it isn't unconstitutional?

Even though it isn't unconstitutional?
Yup. If we don't hold the highest office in the country responsible for it's actions then what does that do to our freedom? Besides, the president needs to pass things by congress if he wants money for a war. Are you saying that it's all right to lie to congress to get that funding?

Yup. If we don't hold the highest office in the country responsible for it's actions then what does that do to our freedom? Besides, the president needs to pass things by congress if he wants money for a war. Are you saying that it's all right to lie to congress to get that funding?

If its not a high crime or misdomener then the President CANNOT be impeached. That is what the Constitution of the United States says. A President can only be impeached for a high crime or misdomenor.

Do you support the Constitution?

Yup. If we don't hold the highest office in the country responsible for it's actions then what does that do to our freedom? Besides, the president needs to pass things by congress if he wants money for a war. Are you saying that it's all right to lie to congress to get that funding?

You hold them accountable by voting them out of office. We've taken away that authority from the people through the 22nd amendment, so now all we can do to get rid of Bush is wait, unless he commits high crimes and misdeamenors.

It takes a pretty heavy burden to prove a "lie" when it comes to statecraft. Its not as simple as pointing something out on the internet. Bush hasn't done anything that comes close to the standards for impeachment we should have.

Clinton lied to a grand jury and obstructed justice - the same thing that everyone is crowing about in regards to Scooter Libby. Those are crimes. Bush hasn't done anything that comes close to that.

If its not a high crime or misdomener then the President CANNOT be impeached. That is what the Constitution of the United States says. A President can only be impeached for a high crime or misdomenor.

Do you support the Constitution?
I support the Constitution but the Constitution is also a living document. If Bush cannot be impeached as it stands (or any other president who acts in a similar matter) then obviously I believe that the Constitution must be amended to allow for it.

I'll state again that I do not believe Bush will be impeached, though I think that he should be and that I do believe it is a possibility.

I support the Constitution but the Constitution is also a living document. If Bush cannot be impeached as it stands (or any other president who acts in a similar matter) then obviously I believe that the Constitution must be amended to allow for it.

How is it a living document? I don't think it is a living document. If it was then why do we have the amendments to give blacks the right to vote as well as women? if it was a living document, these wouldnt' be needed.

As to amending the Constitution. That is very difficult to do and if we impeach presidents for lying to Congress then we'll be impeaching every friggin president to come.

I'll state again that I do not believe Bush will be impeached, though I think that he should be and that I do believe it is a possibility.

Even though he's done nothing Unconstitutional?

How is it a living document? I don't think it is a living document. If it was then why do we have the amendments to give blacks the right to vote as well as women? if it was a living document, these wouldnt' be needed.

As to amending the Constitution. That is very difficult to do and if we impeach presidents for lying to Congress then we'll be impeaching every friggin president to come.



Even though he's done nothing Unconstitutional?
Thanks for making me do a bunch of reading of boring things, guys.

The following was obviously about the Clinton impeachment and it deals a lot with perjury. But it also opens a discusion on the meaning of "High crimes and Misdemeanors."


Here you are:

What does 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' mean? Does it apply to perjury?

Contrary to popular belief, the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' does not translate by the modern meanings of this phrase. Nor was this phrase specifically left vague by the founding fathers for future interpretation. Within the course of debate at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the 'Ex Post Facto' law and the 'Bill of Attainder' be specifically banned from usage by Congress. These two terms refer to common legislative practices of the time which allowed a legislature to pursue criminal action against individuals without a proper trial in court. Such debate naturally prompted a discussion of impeachment. James Madison quickly argued that, in order to prevent dominance by the legislature through the use of impeachment, impeachment must be specifically limited to the serious offense. Upon this statement George Mason proposed to substitute the old British law term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as terminology for what constitutes impeachment. Neither James Madison nor the clerk recorded any further discussion of this matter.

The use of a British common law term to define grounds for impeachment gives us a very precise area by which to define impeachment. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the framers were educated in British law. For this reason, the framers spoke with British legal terms under a common understanding of their meanings. Such interpretation is not only a natural assumption by which the Constitution is to be interpreted. Such interpretation is mandated in precedent by the Supreme Court. In Smith v. Alabama the Supreme Court ruled "The interpretation of the Constitution of the Untied States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." (a ruling of similar terminology is also found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) From this ruling we draw the grounds for interpreting all Common Law terminology in the Constitution as such.

Naturally the next course we must investigate is what the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' means in Common Law definition. The term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' specifically dates to 1388. Since word usage from 1388 differs greatly from that of today (misdemeanor alone has shifted from meaning an 'offense' or 'illegality' to a minor crime such as certain traffic violations. It is unthinkable to assume an official may be impeached for double parking). It helps to view this phrase as not a sentence of specified distinctions but as a legal term of art in itself. If we turn to actual impeachment trials in Britain between 1388 and 1789 we discover 'high crimes and misdemeanors' translates loosely as a "serious offense" or "crimes against public justice" (as termed by William Blackstone). Blackstone, among the most prominent expert of Common Law in Britain's history, included "willful and corrupt perjury" with what he described as "crimes against public justice." This association gives us natural inclination to believe that perjury is clearly included in what is described as 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

To further support this association we look to the reasoning behind the inclusion of perjury under 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' A certain number of crimes (perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subornation of perjury included) constitute crimes against the judicial system. These crimes directly attack the system of justice at its roots by obstructing the process by which justice is carried through. For this reason, all are crimes of precedence. All of these crimes run the danger, if not properly dealt with, of setting a precedent of great damage to the judicial system itself. It is here we find the truth behind the argument that if a president is allowed to commit perjury without receiving punishment, such a precedent will be established in which perjury may no longer hold ground as a crime in court. Such a precedent would obviously be catastrophic to a system which relies on truthful testimony.

Being a crime of precedence, perjury clearly constitutes an impeachable offense. Because it is a crime of precedence in which the judicial system is directly at stake, material perjury in almost all cases is a crime against the state. Perjury associates in all clarity with the constitutionally impeachable crime of Bribery as well as the standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' based on its position in the judicial system.

Perjury being established as impeachable, we now may look to historical impeachments in which perjury was the crime at issue. The Constitution makes little distinction between the impeachment of federal officials (judges, etc.) and presidents when procedure is concerned. For all practical purposes the grounds are the same, "Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The only distinction is that the Chief Justice of the United States chairs impeachment trials for presidents.

Perjury has long been used to impeach federal judges. Two cases occurred in 1988 in which federal judges were impeached and convicted for perjury. Judges Walter Nixon and Alcee Hastings were both impeached on the grounds of perjury (Hastings was also accused of conspiracy to obstruct justice). The House of Representatives impeached both these men. The Senate convicted and expelled both these men. In the course of trial a Democrat controlled Congress accepted perjury as clear and reasonable grounds for impeachment and removal. Ironically Alcee Hastings currently serves as a Congressman from Florida. Hastings voted against all four articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton.

The definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is clearly set out for us to see by examination of historical definition. Further proven is that perjury is impeachable. For this reason Congress is fully justified for removing an official on the charges of perjury, be it judge or president.

Justice rests "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." - Edmund Burke

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitutionquotes.html

And:

The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but it doesn't define the term. Who decides what that means? Columbus, Ohio - 5/3/00

The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."

Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."

In our most recent experience with presidential impeachment -- Watergate in 1974 -- the House Judiciary Committee strongly argued that the case for impeachment need not be limited to actual violations of criminal law. In its report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, the Committee argued the definition should go beyond actual breach of law, citing Blackstone's phrase, "an injury to the state or system of government," Justice Joseph Story's phrase, "offenses of a political character," and Edmund Burke's statement at an impeachment trial that the official on trial should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." The Committee further stated that historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

If you would like to read more about it, the following books deal with this timely and controversial topic:


Grand Inquests by Justice William Rehnquist [1992]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Ann Coulter [1998] -HAHAHAHAHA
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson by Gene Smith [1976]
Impeachment: the Constitutional Problem by Raoul Berger [1973]

It's funny: If it weren't for the Clinton impeachment, all this information on the context of "high crimes and misdemeanors" probably wouldn't be as readily available.

And then: there was silence.

Why don't you try humming to yourself quietly, instead?
Because i'm out of key when i hum, it's straining, and it annoys the sh*t out of me.
I'd rather slap spoons.

He won’t be impeached. The neo-cons have too much power.
Now way am I moving to Canada, though. It’s fucking cold.

And then: there was silence.
Perhaps they're humming quietly to themselves? :D

Oh yeah, ka-POW! :sniper:

lord i wish it would, but it isn't likely. honestly I think we might even have landed ourselves a new dictator.

lord i wish it would, but it isn't likely. honestly I think we might even have landed ourselves a new dictator.

Pardon? When did Bush become a dictatorr pray tell?

i voted 50% - he can rig an election, he can rig an impeachment trial, or stop it even coming to that, but then you never know, he might get what he deserves.

i voted 50% - he can rig an election, he can rig an impeachment trial, or stop it even coming to that, but then you never know, he might get what he deserves.

Which is?

Perhaps they're humming quietly to themselves? :D

Oh yeah, ka-POW! :sniper:
Maybe I should run for Senate?

Maybe I should run for Senate?
Do you have a tight-fitting sorbet-coloured spandex ditty, and are clamoring for photo ops astride a horse?

Do you have a tight-fitting sorbet-coloured spandex ditty, and are clamoring for photo ops astride a horse?
Not so much. I might have t-shirts made, though.

Not so much. I might have t-shirts made, though.
No, no ... the trick is to get other people to make them for you! ...with tithe or taxpayer $ or something along those lines .... ;)

yea, bush rigged what election again? when did he become a dictator?
you liberals make me do this :headbang:
then want to do this :sniper:
but you stop me from doing this :sniper: to these :mp5:

Of all the Cargo Cult rituals that liberals occasionally engage in this one does count as one of the silliest. :rolleyes:

If liberals continue to insist on making Mr. Bush the one and only center of their lives like this I wonder how many of them will be able to cope when he steps down in 2009? :p

yea, bush rigged what election again? when did he become a dictator?
you liberals make me do this :headbang:
then want to do this :sniper:
but you stop me from doing this :sniper: to these :mp5:
That's your first post?
Hmmm.
Perhaps you should refrain from the smilies until you get your thoughts in a coherent enough order to express them with real words.

If liberals continue to insist on making Mr. Bush the one and only center of their lives like this I wonder how many of them will be able to cope when he steps down in 2009? :p
Three things to be exchanged here to make your sense rational:

If conservatives continue to insist on making Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy the one and only center of their lives I wonder how many of them will be able to cope when she steps up and he helps in 2009? :p

There, now isn't that all better?

Three things to be exchanged here to make your sense rational:



There, now isn't that all better?

Not really. No one in the GOP thinks the New York slavegirl or the Massachusetts wino are very important. :D

Not really. No one in the GOP thinks the New York slavegirl or the Massachusetts wino are very important. :D
Well, the rightwing "pundits" of the audio media AND the visual media both betray your sentiment. Are you one of lucky few who has that opinion W/OUT getting it from media saturation? :I

you know what I realize about these general threads...if you get your post on the first page, your post will get read cause by the time people have read those they are to bored to get to the others...anyway yeah I hate bush so I want him impeached but I dont think he will be...also that whole canada thing...I like it but I dont want bush being impeached to be my reason for going there.

That's your first post?
Hmmm.
Perhaps you should refrain from the smilies until you get your thoughts in a coherent enough order to express them with real words.

Thank you. You beat me to it :D

0.

Clinton was impeached because he was caught lying to a grand jury. That was perjury and obstruction of justice - the same thing that Scooter Libby has been charged with now. Those are crimes. What they arose from is immaterial to the legal issue at hand.

Bush was wrong about the WMDs, but he never made a statement under oath and penalty of perjury that there were WMDs. The War in Iraq was undertaken with the sanction of Congress, so he's got 535 folks to share the blame with. Even with the NSA data-mining, there would have to be a case built that he knowlingly and intentionally violated the law in order to hold him accountable there. The fact that he briefed Congress and the White House counsel and DOJ believed that he was within his authority erodes the case that the knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

Politically speaking, even if the Democrats won the House, they'll have such a tiny margin that it would be next to impossible for them to get Articles of Impeachment passed. If they do, it would almost certainly be political suicide for them to try it. And the Senate most definitely wouldn't remove him if he were impeached.

I wonder which Irish bar Kerry was drinking at on Capitol Hill. If it's the one I go to, I'm surprised he actually goes there. There really aren't that many, but who knows.
Back in the '80s, there was a nice little bar in a hotel on M street. Hotel Commodore, I think. Kerry's colleague, Teddy Kennedy, used to go there. I remember having a drink there one evening, while watching Teddy make an ass of himself. The bar had some pretty good Irish bands come through, though, so it was worth the sacrifice to be in the same room as Kennedy.

you know what I realize about these general threads...if you get your post on the first page, your post will get read cause by the time people have read those they are to bored to get to the others...anyway yeah I hate bush so I want him impeached but I dont think he will be...also that whole canada thing...I like it but I dont want bush being impeached to be my reason for going there.
If Bush were impeached and you wanted that to happen, there's no reason for you to defect.

No, no ... the trick is to get other people to make them for you! ...with tithe or taxpayer $ or something along those lines .... ;)
Senatorial tithes... I like that idea. Maybe I can become Reverend Senator?

Thank you. You beat me to it :D
Hey, no problem!

Senatorial tithes... I like that idea. Maybe I can become Reverend Senator?
I can think of three states U.S. RIGHT NOW that would be gracious host to such an undertaking. *nods emphatically*

I can think of three states U.S. RIGHT NOW that would be gracious host to such an undertaking. *nods emphatically*
I can't lose if Jesus Loves Me!

I can't lose if Jesus Loves Me!
But what does everyone else think ... ;)

But what does everyone else think ... ;)
I don't know if Jesus loves them, so I can't say.

I don't know if Jesus loves them, so I can't say.
Oh, i got it ... Jesus thinks everyone ELSE is an .... ;)

If most of this country wasn't stupid and had elected Democrats instead of Republicans then maybe my home boy Feingold could have gotten some support on the Bush censure. If you live in a state that has a Repblican senator you should be campanging so maybe we could actually run this country right

If most of this country wasn't stupid and had elected Democrats instead of Republicans then maybe my home boy Feingold could have gotten some support on the Bush censure. If you live in a state that has a Repblican senator you should be campanging so maybe we could actually run this country right

1st post and you call those who voted for the president stupid makes you look highly unintelligent.

Pray tell how they are stupid for voting for the president?

1st post and you call those who voted for the president stupid makes you look highly unintelligent.

Pray tell how they are stupid for voting for the president?
I was going to say something but I'd rather look intelligent.

I was going to say something but I'd rather look intelligent.

oookkkkk?

If most of this country wasn't stupid and had elected Democrats instead of Republicans then maybe my home boy Feingold could have gotten some support on the Bush censure. If you live in a state that has a Repblican senator you should be campanging so maybe we could actually run this country right


when you say "we" it almost sounds like you would have some part in "running the country right", which would probably never happen. Also, why take such an elitist view that everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid?? Maybe it tells you something that the majority of voters disagreed with you and your homeboy...

If most of this country wasn't stupid and had elected Democrats instead of Republicans then maybe my home boy Feingold could have gotten some support on the Bush censure. If you live in a state that has a Repblican senator you should be campanging so maybe we could actually run this country right

I actually think that intellectual condescension was one of the reasons the democrats lost the 2004 election. It's part of this growing liberal trend to dismiss all opposition on grounds of stupidity whilst assuming their own hallowed truths are self-evident to all with more than two braincells.

when you say "we" it almost sounds like you would have some part in "running the country right", which would probably never happen. Also, why take such an elitist view that everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid?? Maybe it tells you something that the majority of voters disagreed with you and your homeboy...

Even I said something to this hun :D

Glad to see we agree :)

I actually think that intellectual condescension was one of the reasons the democrats lost the 2004 election. It's part of this growing liberal trend to dismiss all opposition on grounds of stupidity whilst assuming their own hallowed truths are self-evident to all with more than two braincells.
No, the opposition earned it. Funnily enough, it's taking the opposition the longest amount of time to come to terms with it. They're easy to rile and slow to change. It all fits, really. It's more of a conservative trend to actually pay attention to the fact that their platform is hot air and venom, and when someone sees through it and calls them on it, the conservatives act churlish and bellicose and go through their usual stances and namecalling.
It's not a coincidence that you don't hear "conservative elite".

No, the opposition earned it. Funnily enough, it's taking the opposition the longest amount of time to come to terms with it. They're easy to rile and slow to change. It all fits, really. It's more of a conservative trend to actually pay attention to the fact that their platform is hot air and venom, and when someone sees through it and calls them on it, the conservatives act churlish and bellicose and go through their usual stances and namecalling.
It's not a coincidence that you don't hear "conservative elite".

Don't both sides do this?

"The vast majority of Democrats, most Independents, and a majority overall are supportive of impeachment. A remarkable 85% of Democrats in Pennsylvania (the only state polled) want to vote for pro-impeachment congressional candidates. And people don't just support impeachment. They're passionate about it. Bush is the least liked president on record, excepting only Nixon, and Bush is on track to break Nixon's record this spring. Nothing will energize people to vote against Republicans like talk of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Few other issues can provide the dramatic motivation to turn out voters in an off-year election.

The Democrats have been dealt a winning hand, and they're afraid – thus far -- to sit down at the table. Instead they're on the defensive, hiding from Feingold and whining about how opposing Bush will energize Republicans. The corporate punditry meanwhile is on the offensive, pretending that impeachment is actually good for Republicans."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_060317_republicans_for_impe.htm

I just love Op Ed pieces! Don't you Desperate Measures? Please tell me how the Dems have been dealt a winning hand when they do not Control congress and that Bush has not committed a crime that deserves impeachment.

"Gore said recently that Bush’s “unlawful” eavesdropping was part of a larger pattern of “seeming indifference” to the American constitution, which could well be an impeachable offence.

John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, was overheard in an Irish bar on Capitol Hill talking about how satisfying it would be to impeach Bush if Congress went Democrat. He was just having a laugh, his spokeswoman rushed to explain: “Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld.”

But then she turned serious: “How are the same Republicans, who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair, going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2092455,00.html

Nice quote of a FOREIGN newspaper.

Now how about some facts here! What the times isn't telling you is that Clinton was impeached for committing Perjury which is lying under oath during an investigation, Grand jury, Court Trial, or testimony to Congress.

Also, Bush didn't intentionally mislead this country into a war. Other presidents have done that deed. Bush though had faulty intelligence. How can he mislead the war if the Intel was faulty and proven to be faulty (unless you wanna believe Saddam's #2 air chief).

I actually think that intellectual condescension was one of the reasons the democrats lost the 2004 election. It's part of this growing liberal trend to dismiss all opposition on grounds of stupidity whilst assuming their own hallowed truths are self-evident to all with more than two braincells.
We must have expected too much...

I just love Op Ed pieces! Don't you Desperate Measures? Please tell me how the Dems have been dealt a winning hand when they do not Control congress and that Bush has not committed a crime that deserves impeachment.



Nice quote of a FOREIGN newspaper.

Now how about some facts here! What the times isn't telling you is that Clinton was impeached for committing Perjury which is lying under oath during an investigation, Grand jury, Court Trial, or testimony to Congress.

Also, Bush didn't intentionally mislead this country into a war. Other presidents have done that deed. Bush though had faulty intelligence. How can he mislead the war if the Intel was faulty and proven to be faulty (unless you wanna believe Saddam's #2 air chief).
Did you even try looking for the story Corneliu? People who write editorials usually don't do polling on the side.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6974

And this:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528

Why do you mistrust foreign newspapers? Are they less honorable than Fox News?

Also, this has nothing to do with Clinton. Congress decides what defines High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's not just for getting blowjobs.

Why do you mistrust foreign newspapers?
He doesn't mistrust foreign newspapers. He mistrusts FOREIGN newspapers, with all-caps.

George W Bush is such a funny fellow. On one hand, as a conservative, he argues that the constitution is not a living document, that it should be taken as is. Then on the other hand he enacts sweeping reforms for "national security" that drastically sway the balance of power to the executive branch. So which is it, strict interpretation or living document? What was that word for when you do opposite of what you preach? hyp... something. Bah, I forget......

Did you even try looking for the story Corneliu? People who write editorials usually don't do polling on the side.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6974

It is still an editorial which is 1 person's opinion. Period.

And this:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528

Who did they poll and at what time did the poll them? Also, what precisely was the question? The Article did not tell me.

Why do you mistrust foreign newspapers? Are they less honorable than Fox News?

Its a foreign newspaper. I don't care what a foreign newspaper is saying about the American President. They don't have a say in American Politics. And I never said I didn't mistrust foreign newspapers.

Also, this has nothing to do with Clinton. Congress decides what defines High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It's not just for getting blowjobs.

I told you before that Clinton's impeachment was not over a blowjob. It was lying to a Grand Jury which is Perjury and a punishable US Crime. That is what constitutes a High Crime or Misdemeaner. Can it be punishable in a US Court.

Succesfully impeaching Bush equates electing Dick Cheney for President.

Nein, danke!

Succesfully impeaching Bush equates electing Dick Cheney for President.

Nein, danke!

All morals are relative. What's right to you may be wrong to someone else. To judge anyone on morals is therefore pointless

Do you live by this or is this part of something? I am curios about it because if you do live by it then you have violated it as you have been judging people left and right.

Do you live by this or is this part of something? I am curios about it because if you do live by it then you have violated it as you have been judging people left and right.


How does being pointless violate something?

Of course, everything is pretty much pointless from an objective point of view, but objectivity is impossible anyway.

To paraphrase and modify another thread: life may be meaningless, but it won't stop me from living it anyway.

Just a quick note for those who aren't civily inclined:

Impeachment does not in and of itself mean removal of Bush from office. Even if Bush were found guilty, such a verdict does not necessarily require Bush's removal.

Jeez, learn a little bit about the process people...

Just a quick note for those who aren't civily inclined:

Impeachment does not in and of itself mean removal of Bush from office. Even if Bush were found guilty, such a verdict does not necessarily require Bush's removal.

Jeez, learn a little bit about the process people...

In retrospect, impeaching the President sends it to the US Senate for trial.

It is still an editorial which is 1 person's opinion. Period.

And this:


Who did they poll and at what time did the poll them? Also, what precisely was the question? The Article did not tell me.



Its a foreign newspaper. I don't care what a foreign newspaper is saying about the American President. They don't have a say in American Politics. And I never said I didn't mistrust foreign newspapers.



I told you before that Clinton's impeachment was not over a blowjob. It was lying to a Grand Jury which is Perjury and a punishable US Crime. That is what constitutes a High Crime or Misdemeaner. Can it be punishable in a US Court.
He lied about getting a blowjob. Which is perjury in a Grand Jury. But to his wife, really: it was the least he could do.

Just a quick note for those who aren't civily inclined:

Impeachment does not in and of itself mean removal of Bush from office. Even if Bush were found guilty, such a verdict does not necessarily require Bush's removal.

Jeez, learn a little bit about the process people...
I thought that was understood?

He lied about getting a blowjob. Which is perjury in a Grand Jury. But to his wife, really: it was the least he could do.

He lied during a criminal investigation. That's Perjury and a punishable US Crime.

So tell me, what punishable US Crime did Bush do?

He lied during a criminal investigation. That's Perjury and a punishable US Crime.

So tell me, what punishable US Crime did Bush do?
He knowingly led us into a war with cherry picked intelligence which he then gave to Congress. For every argument for the war, there was an argument against going to war. He took only what he needed to make his case without showing any of the doubt from skeptics within the CIA. He played on the emotions of 9-11 to conduct a war which was just looking for an excuse far before the events of September 11th. Instead of making us safer from terrorism, his war has done more to recruit terrorists than anything Bin Laden could have done on his own.

But who knows? Maybe one day someone will give him a blowjob and we can really stick it to the man.

He knowingly led us into a war with cherry picked intelligence which he then gave to Congress. For every argument for the war, there was an argument against going to war. He took only what he needed to make his case without showing any of the doubt from skeptics within the CIA. He played on the emotions of 9-11 to conduct a war which was just looking for an excuse far before the events of September 11th. Instead of making us safer from terrorism, his war has done more to recruit terrorists than anything Bin Laden could have done on his own.

That's not a crime, however. The only thing you can do with that is show him to be incompetent and make sure not to reelect or elect people who share his views on the situation. Impeachment is not the same as a vote of no confidence; no matter how foolish or dangerous the president's actions are you can't remove him unless he has committed a crime under US law.

That's not a crime, however. The only thing you can do with that is show him to be incompetent and make sure not to reelect or elect people who share his views on the situation. Impeachment is not the same as a vote of no confidence; no matter how foolish or dangerous the president's actions are you can't remove him unless he has committed a crime under US law.
Congress can decide what a high crime and misdemeanor is. (sets the needle back to the edge of the record)

Congress can decide what a high crime and misdemeanor is. (sets the needle back to the edge of the record)

However, they can only do so in accordance to the laws of the land.

Congress can decide what a high crime and misdemeanor is. (sets the needle back to the edge of the record)

I don't know for sure; since it is a Constitutional phrase it seems a court would make that decision first and foremost. However, if it is clearly a crime it is definitely impeachable, but if it isn't it requires more examination/

However, they can only do so in accordance to the laws of the land.
He puts it better than I did:

"Also, many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct. In the words of Dean John D. Feerick of Fordham University School of Law, in an article published in 1984, "Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable. Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is generally regarded as grounds for impeachment. Since impeachment is a drastic sanction, the misconduct must be substantial and serious.""
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

D.M. (may I call you that?) No US law has been broken and there hasn't been an investigation at all. The President hasn't broken any, and I mean any, US Law. He cant be impeached.

Are you people this stupid!!??Impeaching Bush is by no way going to help anymore, it never would of. Bush isn't the best president but he is no where near the worst. Unfortunately I believe there is a slight chance of impeachment. It wouldn't help. This country is too divided no one has morrals anymore. Because obviously the US people dont care if the terrorists win and another act of genocide takes place. If we pull out of Iraq MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE!!:mp5: This nation is going to crap, we need a new governmental plan to get this country back on track. And we should be working on a UN that is all one country! The UN shouldn't be many countries.:cool:

This poll is just broken to the point of being silly.

The odds of it happening are (roughly) 0%.

For a variety of reasons, though innocence isn't necessarily one of them.

But, I'm not going to flee to Canada over it. (You really needed to leave a choice that said..."It isn't going to happen, and that's too bad.")

This poll is just broken to the point of being silly.

The odds of it happening are (roughly) 0%.

For a variety of reasons, though innocence isn't necessarily one of them.

But, I'm not going to flee to Canada over it. (You really needed to leave a choice that said..."It isn't going to happen, and that's too bad.")
Most polls are silly.

D.M. (may I call you that?) No US law has been broken and there hasn't been an investigation at all. The President hasn't broken any, and I mean any, US Law. He cant be impeached.
Well, yeah he can be impeached if Congress decides to impeach him. Have you been paying attention?

Are you people this stupid!!??Impeaching Bush is by no way going to help anymore, it never would of. Bush isn't the best president but he is no where near the worst. Unfortunately I believe there is a slight chance of impeachment. It wouldn't help. This country is too divided no one has morrals anymore. Because obviously the US people dont care if the terrorists win and another act of genocide takes place. If we pull out of Iraq MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE!!:mp5: This nation is going to crap, we need a new governmental plan to get this country back on track. And we should be working on a UN that is all one country! The UN shouldn't be many countries.:cool:
I don't know what you said but it scared me.

Well, yeah he can be impeached if Congress decides to impeach him. Have you been paying attention?

Yea but it has to be a criminal offense. Have you been paying attention?

Im off for dinner now.

Yea but it has to be a criminal offense. Have you been paying attention?

Im off for dinner now.
ABUSE OF POWER. It does not have to be an indictable offense.

This is the definition of an indictable offense: indictable offense n. a crime (offense) for which a grand jury rules that there is enough evidence to charge defendant with a felony (a crime punishable by death or a term in the state penitentiary). These crimes include murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnaping, grand theft, robbery, burglary, arson, conspiracy, fraud, and other major crimes, as well as attempts to commit them. (See: indictment)

It doesn't have to be an indictable offense.

Abuse of power is when someone in public office uses his power (political, physical, etc.) improperly. This does not include doing things outside his authority, which is referred to as usurpation.
It can be that.

Get it????

And you can call me DM, if you want.

ABUSE OF POWER. It does not have to be an indictable offense.

This is the definition of an indictable offense: indictable offense n. a crime (offense) for which a grand jury rules that there is enough evidence to charge defendant with a felony (a crime punishable by death or a term in the state penitentiary). These crimes include murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnaping, grand theft, robbery, burglary, arson, conspiracy, fraud, and other major crimes, as well as attempts to commit them. (See: indictment)

It doesn't have to be an indictable offense.

Abuse of power is when someone in public office uses his power (political, physical, etc.) improperly. This does not include doing things outside his authority, which is referred to as usurpation.
It can be that.

Get it????

Yea I get it however, how do you know that the President has abused his power? The President has more power than you or I dare believe he has.

Yea I get it however, how do you know that the President has abused his power? The President has more power than you or I dare believe he has.
I believe he has abused his power and there is enough speculation and testimony from former members of his cabinet to support that. The impeachment would, hopefully, show whether or not he has abused his powers as president.

The President is meant to have as much power as the people are willing to give him. Not exactly part of today's reality but that's the ideal.

I believe he has abused his power and there is enough speculation and testimony from former members of his cabinet to support that. The impeachment would, hopefully, show whether or not he has abused his powers as president.

It'll have to be investigated by the Judiciary Committee of the House first. After they vote then it goes to the floor for consideration. I do not believe he has overstepped his bounds at all.

The President is meant to have as much power as the people are willing to give him. Not exactly part of today's reality but that's the ideal.

And what makes you think they haven't given him the power? If Congress grants him the power to do it, then how is it abuse of power?

It'll have to be investigated by the Judiciary Committee of the House first. After they vote then it goes to the floor for consideration. I do not believe he has overstepped his bounds at all.



And what makes you think they haven't given him the power? If Congress grants him the power to do it, then how is it abuse of power?
Congress was misled. And we've come full circle.

Congress was misled. And we've come full circle.

How was Congress misled? Correct me if I'm wrong someone but aren't the republicans spouting the samething the dems did earlier?

How was Congress misled? Correct me if I'm wrong someone but aren't the republicans spouting the samething the dems did earlier?
They were given bad information that led us to war. Bush rode this in on the 9-11 horse. The whole Colin Powell truck thing. Yellow Cake. Have you heard of the Downing Street Memo? I mean just look at the PNAC website. Iraq was not an immediate threat to the United States. Some things were not entirely clear and we were right to be worried. We were right to want Saddam out of power. But we were wrong to throw ourselves into a war without all the facts on the table. We were wrong to turn our backs on the UN (say what you will about the UN, we are part of it and we do use it to our advantage when it suits us). The war is a mistake and it is Bush's war. If you're going to "act from the gut" then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if you were wrong.

They were given bad information that led us to war.

Can't pin this on Bush then. Put the blame where the blame is due. On the Intel community if that was the case

Can't pin this on Bush then. Put the blame where the blame is due. On the Intel community if that was the case
No, sorry. Bush's cabinet took only the information that they "liked" from the Intel community. The Intel community had a plethora of information that if taken to account would have given us a much more sober view of Iraq.

No, sorry. Bush's cabinet took only the information that they "liked" from the Intel community. The Intel community had a plethora of information that if taken to account would have given us a much more sober view of Iraq.

Still have to blame the intel community DM. I'm sorry but they screwed up then it wasn't the President's fault.

Still have to blame the intel community DM. I'm sorry but they screwed up then it wasn't the President's fault.
Um, no. They had a lot of information. Different types of information. Only one type was taken by the Bush cabinet. The intelligence community can't be held responsible for other people taking their findings out of context.

Still have to blame the intel community DM. I'm sorry but they screwed up then it wasn't the President's fault.

Actually, cherrypicking evidence while you're aware that other evidence exists to the contrary is pretty much equivalent to telling a lie.

I voted 100% impeach... because in any country that wasn't America, this would be a no-brainer. You don't bypass the law and spy on innocent civilians in a democratic nation without repercussions (i.e., being impeached). And that's just one of his illegal actions.
Not letting the UN finish their job before invading on conspiracy theories about WMD's is big. I don't care how you slice it, trying to blame Dem's, the intelligence community, or what. The UN was looking. Iraq was disarming the slightly questionable missiles that had been found. And Bush ordered the charge before Americans got bored, and had their minds wander from 9/11. He said, "Screw due process. Let's get 'em!"

I only hope enough Americans come to their senses that the impeaching of Bush becomes a common history lesson for future Americans.

I voted 100% impeach... because in any country that wasn't America, this would be a no-brainer. You don't bypass the law and spy on innocent civilians in a democratic nation without repercussions (i.e., being impeached). And that's just one of his illegal actions.

Oh brother. Bush isn't spying on innocent civilians hun. Only those that they suspect are in cahoots with Al Qaeda. In other words, its from things overseas.

Not letting the UN finish their job before invading on conspiracy theories about WMD's is big. I don't care how you slice it, trying to blame Dem's, the intelligence community, or what. The UN was looking. Iraq was disarming the slightly questionable missiles that had been found. And Bush ordered the charge before Americans got bored, and had their minds wander from 9/11. He said, "Screw due process. Let's get 'em!"

Hate to break this to you but he does have authority to attack any nation he deems fit provided that Congress gives him authority to do so. They did do this so how is this impeachable? It isn't.

I only hope enough Americans come to their senses that the impeaching of Bush becomes a common history lesson for future Americans.

:rolleyes:

Oh brother. Bush isn't spying on innocent civilians hun. Only those that they suspect are in cahoots with Al Qaeda. In other words, its from things overseas.



Hate to break this to you but he does have authority to attack any nation he deems fit provided that Congress gives him authority to do so. They did do this so how is this impeachable? It isn't.



:rolleyes:
You're being stubborn. I don't think that Bush will be impeached. Personally, I think he should be. Congress has the right to impeach him because there is enough evidence to show, at the very least, he may have abused his powers as president.

You're being stubborn. I don't think that Bush will be impeached. Personally, I think he should be. Congress has the right to impeach him because there is enough evidence to show, at the very least, he may have abused his powers as president.

Can't get on abuse of power since Congress granted him authority to do it.

Can't get on abuse of power since Congress granted him authority to do it.

They didn't grant him authority to spy on people without a warrant.

They didn't grant him authority to spy on people without a warrant.

Funny thing is, Congress would approve a bill giving him that authority and that Americans actually want the spying.

Can't get on abuse of power since Congress granted him authority to do it.
Congress granted him the authority after being lied to. Congress granted him the authority after being lied to. Cong *bashes my head against the computer*

Congress granted him the authority after being lied to. Congress granted him the authority after being lied to. Cong *bashes my head against the computer*

have to prove it was a lie and you cannot prove that it was a lie. Intel admitted it was faulty after the fact so since Intel stated that it was bad, you cannot blame the president for the intel he was given. Even I know this and I'm not even college.

have to prove it was a lie and you cannot prove that it was a lie. Intel admitted it was faulty after the fact so since Intel stated that it was bad, you cannot blame the president for the intel he was given. Even I know this and I'm not even college.
I'm not in college either but please turn off Rush Limbaugh for a moment. I don't have to prove anything. In fact, in reality, I really can't. The impeachment process can prove for or against Bush. As a citizen, I believe that the people who represent myself in Congress should do what I feel is necessary. Which is to determine, once and for all, if Bush abused his powers as president. I might not agree with the final ruling but at least something was done.

I'm not in college either but please turn off Rush Limbaugh for a moment.

Who is Rush Limbaugh?

I don't have to prove anything. In fact, in reality, I really can't.

And neither will anyone else.

The impeachment process can prove for or against Bush. As a citizen, I believe that the people who represent myself in Congress should do what I feel is necessary. Which is to determine, once and for all, if Bush abused his powers as president. I might not agree with the final ruling but at least something was done.

There's nothing there to impeach him on. Everyone knows it. They just want to because it was done to Bill Clinton.

"Why We Act

Author: John Conyers, Jr.
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 03/09/06 15:19


There are few roles in our constitutional government that are more frustrating than being a member of the minority party during a period of one party control of the government. However, at a time when the majority party in general — and the president in particular — appears to be acting in open violation of the laws and the Constitution, there are few jobs which are more important to the future of our democratic form of government.

People think of Watergate or Iran Contra as constituting crises. They were, in the sense that an executive branch was acting in violation of the law and in tension with the majority party in the Congress. But in the end, the system worked, the abuses were investigated, and actions were taken — even if presidential pardons ultimately prevented a full measure of justice.

Today, the crisis is substantively and systemically far worse. The alleged acts of wrongdoing — lying about the decision to go to war; manipulation of intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent; open and flagrant violations of federal wiretap laws — are far more egregious than any I have witnessed in my 41 years in Congress. The majority party has shown no ability to engage in simple oversight, let alone challenge the administration directly. The courts, while operating as an occasional and partial check, are institutionally incapable of delving into most of the controversies we are presented with as a result of limitations on standing, ripeness, and other doctrines. The media, which is increasingly concentrated, was shell-shocked and in some respects cowered by 9/11, and for the most part unwilling to alienate the party in charge.

Faced with that dilemma, we had a choice. We could simply ignore the myriad of transgressions being committed, and continue to react to the legislative agenda put before us by the Republican Party on a day-to-day basis, or we could do everything in our power to call attention to and document these very grave abuses of power. I opted for the latter course.

I could not live with myself or my children if, when faced with an administration that went to war under false pretenses, used classified information to smear political opponents and wiretapped innocent Americans without warrants, I did not formally respond to it. If the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Constitution, is silent on these matters, who else can we expect to speak out?

So for the last several years I have:

• Forwarded scores of letters to the administration requesting information about these abuses, including a letter signed by 122 members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans.

• Forwarded numerous letters to the Republican chairs asking them to conduct hearings on these abuses, including a letter signed by 52 members.

• Filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the administration, asked for investigations by GAO, various inspectors general, and the Justice Department.

• Held our own Democratic hearings, for which we were forced by the majority to retreat to the basement of the Capitol.

• Filed legislation resulting from our investigation not only censuring the president and the vice president, but creating a select committee to more fully investigate whether impeachable offenses had occurred.

When the National Security Agency scandal broke, we again responded with letters, requests for independent investigations, holding our own hearing, and are now in the process of completing a comprehensive report of these and related civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since 9/11.

All of this constitutes a public record of the constitutional abuses we have seen, and is designed to stand the test of time. It comes on top of the hearings and report I prepared on the electoral abuses in Ohio, which led to an unprecedented Electoral College challenge in the House and the Senate.

Now let me add, in many respects, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the policy failures of this administration. Over the last six years we have seen a record budget surplus turn into a record deficit; we face trade deficits as far as they eye can see and the near evisceration of our manufacturing base; we have a record number of individuals and families who do not have health insurance; we passed a disastrous Medicare sell-out bill; we went through the debacle of Congress and the president politicizing the tragic Terri Schiavo case; port security is abysmal, the Homeland Security Department is a joke, and we learned that Bush knew very well that the levees in New Orleans could be breached even though he later said no one anticipated it. These are all weighty, serious issues. They present significant problems for our nation as well. However, they are not of the same constitutional magnitude as the issues we’re talking about here.

There can be no doubt that today we are in a constitutional crisis that threatens the system of checks and balances that has preserved our fundamental freedoms for more than 200 years. Just because the president’s approval ratings is down to 34 percent and the vice president’s approval is down to 18 percent, does not mean they cannot do severe, long-term harm to our nation. Our actions are an important clarion call to anyone who is listening — that there is a constitutional line that even a president cannot cross without our people standing up and fighting for their democracy.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

This is slightly abridged from his diary on www.dailykos.com"
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8731/1/312

Who is Rush Limbaugh?



And neither will anyone else.



There's nothing there to impeach him on. Everyone knows it. They just want to because it was done to Bill Clinton.
Don't care about Bill Clinton.

*Snip*

Very very nice. I'm proud he feels that way. Unfortunately, he does not have any legal grounds for impeachment of the President of the United States.

I don't know what you said but it scared me.
It isn't supposed to scare you but make you realize bush is not the only problem. Why do you w\nt him out DM?:eek: :confused: :eek: :eek:

Very very nice. I'm proud he feels that way. Unfortunately, he does not have any legal grounds for impeachment of the President of the United States.
There is enough evidence of an abuse of power and enough people feel that he has abused his powers as president. You should have already known what I was going to say.

There is enough evidence of an abuse of power and enough people feel that he has abused his powers as president. You should have already known what I was going to say.

The point still remains in how can it be abuse of power if Congress granted him the authority to do it?

The point still remains in how can it be abuse of power if Congress granted him the authority to do it?
So, what you're saying is that if you lie to Congress, get them to agree with what you want to do, they say you can go ahead and do it and then they find out later about what you've done, they can do nothing?

What world do you live in?

So, what you're saying is that if you lie to Congress, get them to agree with what you want to do, they say you can go ahead and do it and then they find out later about what you've done, they can do nothing?

What world do you live in?

The same world you do. However, you still have to prove that Bush knowingly lied to Congress and I do not believe he did.

The same world you do. However, you still have to prove that Bush knowingly lied to Congress and I do not believe he did.
Every single word out of Bushs mouth is a Lie--you still have to prove Bush has ever told the truth

Every single word out of Bushs mouth is a Lie--you still have to prove Bush has ever told the truth

:rolleyes:

The same world you do. However, you still have to prove that Bush knowingly lied to Congress and I do not believe he did.
Well, gee. How can it be proved that Bush lied to Congress? Maybe we should have a trial? Do you think, maybe that would show whether or not Bush lied?

Well, gee. How can it be proved that Bush lied to Congress? Maybe we should have a trial? Do you think, maybe that would show whether or not Bush lied?

Well gee wileckers (sp?) You know what? My significant other tells me that it is the same intel that was used to launch military operations in the late 90s. So if the Intel was lying now, what about then?

This is more complex then we all think.

Well gee wileckers (sp?) You know what? My significant other tells me that it is the same intel that was used to launch military operations in the late 90s. So if the Intel was lying now, what about then?

This is more complex then we all think.
Bush cherrypicked what intel he wanted to hear thats common knowledge by now

Well gee wileckers (sp?) You know what? My significant other tells me that it is the same intel that was used to launch military operations in the late 90s. So if the Intel was lying now, what about then?

This is more complex then we all think.
Maybe Clinton was impeached for the wrong thing?

Bush cherrypicked what intel he wanted to hear thats common knowledge by now

do you have anything constructive to say or are you going to just belittle every one of my posts for awhile like an immature spoiled brat?

Maybe Clinton was impeached for the wrong thing?
Almost everything Bush does is an impeachable offense yet republicans in the 90s ignored terrorism for an entire decade to lynch a President for having consensual sex:rolleyes:

Maybe Clinton was impeached for the wrong thing?

I don't know much about Clinton's impeachment so if you believe Bush is lying now you believe Clinton is lying, doesn't point to a fact that the Intel could've been just flat out wrong on all levels and that 2 presidents didn't knowingly lie about these weapons?

Dont impeach him; enlist him, make 'im a private, and ship 'im somewhere sandy.

Almost everything Bush does is an impeachable offense yet republicans in the 90s ignored terrorism for an entire decade to lynch a President for having consensual sex:rolleyes:

I'm going to say this to you:

Grow up a little and maybe if your a good boy, we'll let you have your computer again.

Dont impeach him; enlist him, make 'im a private, and ship 'im somewhere sandy.

From my understanding, he's to old to enlist.

I don't know much about Clinton's impeachment so if you believe Bush is lying now you believe Clinton is lying, doesn't point to a fact that the Intel could've been just flat out wrong on all levels and that 2 presidents didn't knowingly lie about these weapons?
3 words

Downing Street Memos

I don't know much about Clinton's impeachment so if you believe Bush is lying now you believe Clinton is lying, doesn't point to a fact that the Intel could've been just flat out wrong on all levels and that 2 presidents didn't knowingly lie about these weapons?
The intel wasn't wrong on all levels. There were plenty reports from the intelligence community that acknowledged that Saddam either didn't have WMD or it wasn't known whether he had them. My favorite, though, is the one which states that if Saddam does have WMD, he would probably only use them if attacked.

The intel wasn't wrong on all levels. There were plenty reports from the intelligence community that acknowledged that Saddam either didn't have WMD or it wasn't known whether he had them. My favorite, though, is the one which states that if Saddam does have WMD, he would probably only use them if attacked.

Even though he most assuredly knew what would happen if he did? I do not believe Saddam would be that stupid to use them on coalition troops even if he did have them for the simple fact that retribution would be swift and, on top of that, prove that he had them which would put egg on the faces of those who said he didn't have them.

And if my information was right, didn't Saddam's Air Chief say that Saddam had them and that they were moved by air to Syria?

Even though he most assuredly knew what would happen if he did? I do not believe Saddam would be that stupid to use them on coalition troops even if he did have them for the simple fact that retribution would be swift and, on top of that, prove that he had them which would put egg on the faces of those who said he didn't have them.

And if my information was right, didn't Saddam's Air Chief say that Saddam had them and that they were moved by air to Syria?

Second in Command, and dismissed before the war, I believe. Eevn if not, why would he know the upmost details of where they were moved to, being in the airforce? Secondly, his motives are rather suspicious. Why he didn't say anything directly after the war is suspicious in of itself; it seems to be more for making money from the book than anything else.

Even though he most assuredly knew what would happen if he did? I do not believe Saddam would be that stupid to use them on coalition troops even if he did have them for the simple fact that retribution would be swift and, on top of that, prove that he had them which would put egg on the faces of those who said he didn't have them.

And if my information was right, didn't Saddam's Air Chief say that Saddam had them and that they were moved by air to Syria?
Take a look at this:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html

Even though he most assuredly knew what would happen if he did? I do not believe Saddam would be that stupid to use them on coalition troops even if he did have them for the simple fact that retribution would be swift and, on top of that, prove that he had them which would put egg on the faces of those who said he didn't have them.

Yeah, 'cause, y'know, it's not like his country was invaded and he was deposed and imprisoned or anything. Imagine what might've happened if he had possessed WMD. Boy he'd've been in trouble then!

Yeah, 'cause, y'know, it's not like his country was invaded and he was deposed and imprisoned or anything. Imagine what might've happened if he had possessed WMD. Boy he'd've been in trouble then!

He would've been, especially if he used them. I doubt we'll be having problems in Iraq if he did use WMD.

He got 535 folks to back him by misleading them.

A point many love to tout, yet I belive no evidence has been produced to support this position.

Dont impeach him; enlist him, make 'im a private, and ship 'im somewhere sandy.


I don't even care that this is my first post and it's going to make me look stupid...


That is the best idea i have read in this almost 20 page long thread.

:edit: for the record i'm a brit... but i fully think bush shoulld be removed from power. however even with my extremely limited knowledge of the US legal system i doubt it will happen

Being a Brat is an act of Revolution and an organic expression of PeoplePower

Being a Brat is an act of Revolution and an organic expression of PeoplePower

:confused:

A point many love to tout, yet I belive no evidence has been produced to support this position.
"Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

But... you know... he was just the Counterterrorism Czar.

"Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

But... you know... he was just the Counterterrorism Czar.

And during some congressional enquiry, I believe it was Wolfowitz who was shown as most reluctant to accept that Iraq had nothing to do with the NYC attack, despite having been told so in a specific briefing that they were not involved.

Indeed Bush was aware from september 21st that there was not a Iraq/Al Qaeda link, which information he received in a Presedential Daily Briefing the contents of which he refused to hand over to the Congressional Committee on pre-war Intelligence.

In short the President is a Dangerous Liar who is NOT to be trusted by thinking people

In short the President is a Dangerous Liar who is NOT to be trusted by thinking people

What have I told you about playing near the computer?

Don't both sides do this?
Given the right circumstances, probably.
The difference is, at this point, my statement can be *immediately* corroborated.

They were given bad information that led us to war. Bush rode this in on the 9-11 horse. The whole Colin Powell truck thing. Yellow Cake. Have you heard of the Downing Street Memo? I mean just look at the PNAC website. Iraq was not an immediate threat to the United States. Some things were not entirely clear and we were right to be worried. We were right to want Saddam out of power. But we were wrong to throw ourselves into a war without all the facts on the table. We were wrong to turn our backs on the UN (say what you will about the UN, we are part of it and we do use it to our advantage when it suits us). The war is a mistake and it is Bush's war. If you're going to "act from the gut" then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if you were wrong.
Hey Desperate Measures, feel free to quote some posts of mine if they help.

There's nothing there to impeach him on. Everyone knows it. They just want to because it was done to Bill Clinton.
Wrong.
Feel free to sift my posts, as i stated earlier.
I tend not to dwell so much on the rhetoric as i do the links.

Wrong.
Feel free to sift my posts, as i stated earlier.
I tend not to dwell so much on the rhetoric as i do the links.

And then, just as quickly, dismiss the links as rightist rhetoric if you disagree with them..

From my understanding, he's to old to enlist.
And he wouldn't pass his physical or bother finishing his term anyway. If his deferrments didn't work, that is.

And then, just as quickly, dismiss the links as rightist rhetoric if you disagree with them..
The funny thing is, Myo, you never come back to clean up your mess! ;P

You're fun to argue with but i really don't just *dismiss* "rightist rhetoric" unless that is just what it is, rightist rhetoric. My "agreement" with something usually is qualified by evidence, and i usually point out as much.

Besides, consider that your chip with me isn't as big as it is with CanuckHeaven - you gotta be walking funny after that. I personally haven't committed an entire thread, site, or db to you. ;)


Yours in enmity ... ;)

The funny thing is, Myo, you never come back to clean up your mess! ;P

You're fun to argue with but i really don't just *dismiss* "rightist rhetoric" unless that is just what it is, rightist rhetoric. My "agreement" with something usually is qualified by evidence, and i usually point out as much.

Besides, consider that your chip with me isn't as big as it is with CanuckHeaven - you gotta be walking funny after that. I personally haven't committed an entire thread, site, or db to you. ;)


Yours in enmity ... ;)

Not really, I barely even knows he exists. Are you saying he started a thread after little old me? Gee, he must need a life even worse than I had thought.

As for "my mess". I made a point, directed at you, then went to bed. End of story.

I'd probably revisit old threads, and occasionaly post a rebuttal, if some (correct that, ANY) of the search tools worked at Jolt.

Not really, I barely even knows he exists. Are you saying he started a thread after little old me? Gee, he must need a life even worse than I had thought.
Not a thread AFAIK, a whole db. It's sweeeeeet. Besides, you should chat with s/he in a relatively neutral setting - s/he is rather a remarkably decent individual with a talent for attention and detail.


As for "my mess". I made a point, directed at you, then went to bed. End of story.
You know what else that sounds like ? :D A perfect response to the "mess" quote.


You make me sound like kleenex. I would feel honoured and titillated if i weren't so disgusted and amused. *bows*

EDIT:
I'd probably revisit old threads, and occasionaly post a rebuttal, if some (correct that, ANY) of the search tools worked at Jolt.
The trick is right clicking and opting to open it. That was a fun thing to learn.
The tools still work - you just need wherewithal. For some, more daunting a task than others, it would appear.