NationStates Jolt Archive

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

Ummm....No..

No.

And neither does Congress think so.

In other words; STFU!

Sure, go for it. An impeachment movement would really help the Democrats in November.. :D

I think yes. he is just too stupid to rule a country.

hell Yeah..!!!

Stupidity isn't a basis for impeachment as much as some would like it to be.

I voted no because there's no proof about his apparent immorality like the huge cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

No, because disliking him is no grounds for impeaching him.
Impeachment was meant for such things as getting rid of traitors ( eg: a manchurian candidate ).

On a sidenote: why is it that the extreme left has so much problems with just following the law?

Wow - an amazingly ignorant bunch of posts on this particular thread. First time i was ever convinced to say that.
*shakes head*

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_

I think he should be empeached. A crowd should gather and hurl peaches at him, untill he's properly covered in a mount of peach.

No because then Lord Cheney would be put in charge.
Kiss our freedom goodbye then.

No because then Lord Cheney would be put in charge.
Kiss our freedom goodbye then.

Also we'll get peppered real good in the face.

No because then Lord Cheney would be put in charge.
Kiss our freedom goodbye then.
There is a composite that is listed in Wallace and Wallechinsky's Book of Lists (one of them, anyway) having to do with broccoli and a few other things ... a concoction, as it were.
BTW - what kicked Arafat off again?

Stupidity isn't a basis for impeachment as much as some would like it to be.

I voted no because there's no proof about his apparent immorality like the huge cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

Definitions of morality vary. What does the fact that Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office have to do with his ability or inability to act upon his presidential duties? What about the way that Clinton ran the presidency involved poor judgement? Keep in mind that Monicagate had nothing to do with his abilities as president.

Anybody have any specific reasons why Bush should be impeached? I'd be interested to see a good case against him on NSG. If one of you were able to impeach Bush, what would you make your case on and what evidence do you have?

Anybody have any specific reasons why Bush should be impeached? I'd be interested to see a good case against him on NSG. If one of you were able to impeach Bush, what would you make your case on and what evidence do you have?
My biggest one is that i've actually read FISA '78 and the pertinent parts of the Patriot Act that are claimed when discussing the wiretapping issue - i've actually read them AND posted about them on NS - for which Bush's administration violates the 4th Amendment.

There's a few people here to consider ..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085

and

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/bush_on_wiretap.html

and

http://www.counterbias.com/527.html

But admittedly, my strongest argument comes from the personal experience of actually reviewing the 4th Amendment issue i brought up earlier.

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.


For what????

He was right about WMD's, his economic policies have helped us weather some of the worst disasters in the nations history, 911 and the Enron Scandal (which btw the crimes occured BEFORE he was in office and HIS administration is the one that brought them to justice). He inheritated an economy in a rapid decline and at that vulnerable point, we were hit by the 911 attacks. We should have been in a depression, but the tax cuts and other policies kept us out of one.

There are some serious issues that this President is on the wrong side of, but none of them come close to reasons for impeachment.

As far as him being stupid, he is the FIRST President to hold an MBA degree, and that degree happens to be from one of the toughest universities in the WORLD - Harvard. His grades were better than the supposed genius John Kerry.

The left has lied often and outrageously about our President. There ought to be recourse for the lies. I would suggest that you actually look to the truth instead of spouting left wing talking points.

Definitions of morality vary. What does the fact that Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office have to do with his ability or inability to act upon his presidential duties? What about the way that Clinton ran the presidency involved poor judgement? Keep in mind that Monicagate had nothing to do with his abilities as president.


So it is OK to undermine our justice system if you are powerful enough to manipulate the system??? Using your position to deny due process to a citizen, is VERY serious. The press and the left are the ones who spun it as "about sex". That was not it at all.

For what????

He was right about WMD's, his economic policies have helped us weather some of the worst disasters in the nations history, 911 and the Enron Scandal (which btw the crimes occured BEFORE he was in office and HIS administration is the one that brought them to justice). He inheritated an economy in a rapid decline and at that vulnerable point, we were hit by the 911 attacks. We should have been in a depression, but the tax cuts and other policies kept us out of one.

There are some serious issues that this President is on the wrong side of, but none of them come close to reasons for impeachment.

As far as him being stupid, he is the FIRST President to hold an MBA degree, and that degree happens to be from one of the toughest universities in the WORLD - Harvard. His grades were better than the supposed genius John Kerry.

The left has lied often and outrageously about our President. There ought to be recourse for the lies. I would suggest that you actually look to the truth instead of spouting left wing talking points.

:confused:

My biggest one is that i've actually read FISA '78 and the pertinent parts of the Patriot Act that are claimed when discussing the wiretapping issue - i've actually read them AND posted about them on NS - for which Bush's administration violates the 4th Amendment.

There's a few people here to consider ..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085

and

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/bush_on_wiretap.html

and

http://www.counterbias.com/527.html

But admittedly, my strongest argument comes from the personal experience of actually reviewing the 4th Amendment issue i brought up earlier.


OK! I'll take your word over the multitude of court decisions.:rolleyes:

For what????

He was right about WMD's, ....


I think I missed this. Which WMDs were found, and when and where and by whom? We've been waiting so long for this, could you direct me to the source material?

TIA.

OK! I'll take your word over the multitude of court decisions.:rolleyes:
The ones you're providing? Is that it, clever person, you?
Ante- or shut-

What do you have?

I think yes. he is just too stupid to rule a country.

Stupid? No...
Dangerous? Yessss ...
AND just a puppet.

He was right about WMD's, his economic policies have helped us weather some of the worst disasters in the nations history, 911 and the Enron Scandal (which btw the crimes occured BEFORE he was in office and HIS administration is the one that brought them to justice). He inheritated an economy in a rapid decline and at that vulnerable point, we were hit by the 911 attacks. We should have been in a depression, but the tax cuts and other policies kept us out of one.

Well, we have no evidence of WMDs. Its possible he could have been right, but the evidence so far (such as the reports that there actually were none from intelligence) points against it. His economic policies have resulted in the highest deficit and foreign debt in the history of the United States. I'm not sure if you can say we weathered any bad disasters, considering that the stock market crashed after 9/11 and New Orleans totally failed.

Not to mention that the "economy in rapid decline" is just right-wing propaganda. You'll be hard pressed finding an economist that isn't part of the GOP mouthpiece that claims such a thing. Its an excuse used to explain why the Bush admin has resulted in the largest deficit and foreign debt in national history.

Bush also hasn't made a single tax-cut that gives people in the official "middle class" income bracket, who make up about 90% of the US population, more than a few hundred dollars tax return per year. He made lots of tax cuts, but none that have provided significant benefits for the majority of the population.

As far as him being stupid, he is the FIRST President to hold an MBA degree, and that degree happens to be from one of the toughest universities in the WORLD - Harvard. His grades were better than the supposed genius John Kerry.

George W. Bush had a known drinking and cocaine problem. He went through Harvard due to his political background and money - Harvard caters to politics - not due to academic merit. Since they both spent time at Yale, and that is where Kerry graduated from, it would be more accurate to evaluate their cumulative scores there - Kerry finished with a cumulative score of 76, Bush finished with a cumulative score of 77. Both got D's in classes. 70-80 is a B average at Yale.

The real test of Dubya's intelligence is to watch the man speak. We don't have to look at his medicore academic record to tell that he's stupid. The man speaks like Forrest Gump and demonstrates similiar intelligence in his usage of obscure terms. He obviously doesn't understand what speech writers put on the paper for him all the time.

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.
Bloody yes!

Bush isn't stupid, it may be what he wants people to think though. When people don't expect much it's easy to impress them, or sneak things past them. I think we should remove him from office, as well as most of the other career politicians. For one, we are stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq. We had NO reason to invade, there was no direct threat to us from Saddam. They had what, 3 or 4 months warning to move or hide any WMD's before the invasion? Dismantled labs, empty warheads, and other restricted undocumented equipment has been found, so we know he had some capability and probably some nasty stuff, but the fact is that NONE WERE FOUND. So at what point were we justified to invade a sovereign country, turn it upside down, and spend billions of tax payer dollars to a war that is likely to never end?

I think the last 15 or 20 years has given us good reasons to stay out of nation building. Why not take out some of the other US backed dictators who commit murder daily in puppet gov'ts of South America and other regions? Oh, that's right, we let them do whatever we want as long as they behave and give us what we want. :rolleyes:

:confused:

On the WMD issue - I would point you to the Iraqi Survey Groups Report - often reffered to as the Duelfer report.


Yes the VERY same document that the left and their waterboys in the press MISREPORTED as stating we found no WMD's.

We found enough viable, binary sarin gas to make 9-11 look like a Sunday picnic. It was in the report. Why did that not get reported?? The report listed 53 separate instances of WMD's. We found 500 TONS of yellow cake uranium 1.77 TONS of which was highly enriched. It was in the report, why was that not reported in the press???? (The left and the press harped on "niger" when Bush NEVER ONCE said Niger. He said "Africa" and indeed they recieved much of it from Congo. Joe Wilson lied, yet has he been exposed for those lies???) We have also found 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons, 1,000 radioactive materials - ideal for "dirty bombs", and 17 warheads filled with chemical weapons including cyclosarin - which is 5 times more powerful than sarin. Add to this the recently released documents naming 500 WMD's.

Why did none of this make it to the front page of the NYT's??? Why no headlines on the nightly news???

The press has actively undermined both our President and our efforts to win the war against those that would kill us. The covering up of the WMD discoveries and the passing along of our methods of finding the terrorists are but a couple of examples.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html

This is annex "F", the full report is here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html


Richard Miniter has compiled a list of WMD's found HERE:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260069/103-5627107-7868656?v=glance&n=283155

As for the rest of the WMD's we have Charles Duelfer (yes the leader of the ISG) stating there was "sufficiently credible evidence" that WMD's were also shipped to Syria and Iran.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

We have the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force, stating he supervised the hollowing out of two jumbo jets, and then the loading and transportation of 56 Flights full of WMD's to Damascus.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


Had enough???

Bush isn't stupid, it may be what he wants people to think though. When people don't expect much it's easy to impress them, or sneak things past them. I think we should remove him from office, as well as most of the other career politicians. For one, we are stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq. We had NO reason to invade, there was no direct threat to us from Saddam. They had what, 3 or 4 months warning to move or hide any WMD's before the invasion? Dismantled labs, empty warheads, and other restricted undocumented equipment has been found, so we know he had some capability and probably some nasty stuff, but the fact is that NONE WERE FOUND. So at what point were we justified to invade a sovereign country, turn it upside down, and spend billions of tax payer dollars to a war that is likely to never end?

I was just looking further on Bush's education, and he actually graduated with a 2.4 GPA. He definately was stupid. I have a hard time believing that he pretends to be stupid to fool people. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, as if he is involved in a grand deception where he needs to trick people's very perceptions of him. So much so, that he has been planning it ever since he was an alcoholic in Yale, and the bad grades are all a part of his master plan.

Not many of these posts are relavent to anything. To impeach a President you need evidence that they broke a law. I can see none.

bush shouldn't be impeached, he should have been impeached already.

He was right about WMD's,

Bullshit.

To this very day, no significant amount of WMD's have been found in Iraq.
THAT is the truth, and if you truly believe otherwise, your own intelligence may be in question.

his economic policies have helped us weather some of the worst disasters in the nations history,

Complete and total exaggeration.
Katrina was bad.
The Great Depression was worse.


911 and the Enron Scandal (which btw the crimes occured BEFORE he was in office and HIS administration is the one that brought them to justice)

He personally pardoned how many Enron execs again?
Look intio it.

Say, which man, was the person who had donated more money to Bush's first election campaign?

You better look into that too.



. He inheritated an economy in a rapid decline and at that vulnerable point, we were hit by the 911 attacks. We should have been in a depression, but the tax cuts and other policies kept us out of one.

You call leaving the budget with a SURPLUS of funds, a rapid decline?

Perhaps we arent in a "recession", but then again, did you notice the price of gas yesterday?

There are some serious issues that this President is on the wrong side of, but none of them come close to reasons for impeachment.

Sadly, this is the only accurate statement you have made thus far.


As far as him being stupid, he is the FIRST President to hold an MBA degree,

Big deal.
Having a business degree means nothing.
How many sucsessful businesses did he run?
Zero.


and that degree happens to be from one of the toughest universities in the WORLD - Harvard. His grades were better than the supposed genius John Kerry.

Actually, I believe that one he got at Yale Business.



The left has lied often and outrageously about our President. There ought to be recourse for the lies. I would suggest that you actually look to the truth instead of spouting left wing talking points.

I suggest you take some of your own medicine, and learn the truth before spouting Right-Wing propoganda.

Sadly, too many posters who despise Bush, are eager to see him Impeached, without understanding what the requirements for such a proceeding are.

Lets start with breaking the law, people.

You cant impeach him because "He is TEH SUXXOR."

Clinton was impeached not for nailing a fat intern...he was himself nailed for Lying Under Oath...wich is a crime.

Guess what....he got off.

Pun intended.

*snip*

You do realize that those first two reports all refer to the remnants of pre-1991 weapons that Iraq had actually declared that it was in posession of? In fact, in regards to WMDs after that fact, nuclear weapons and yellow cake, the report states, "Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date."

We all know that Iraq had chemical weapons. The WMD scare was over Iraq developing new chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The reports never state anything about the development of weapons post 1991, and thus don't confirm the original scare and claims made by Bush - that Saddam was developing new WMDs, including nuclear weapons. Rather, the reports contradict it.

The news articles you listed are similiar. They rely on heresy regarding the transfer of weapons out of the country. I don't doubt it occured - but they don't confirm the development of new weapons that Saddam had not declared.

In addition, the last two articles were from the mainstream media. You can't use your "OMG, the media didn't report it, they're trying to undermine our prezident!" argument if you're citing media sources. Thats the fallacy of internal contradiction.

bush shouldn't be impeached, he should have been impeached already.

For causing 9/11? :D

None of these posts offer proof that George W. Bush broke a single law....They offer speculation, accusation, and angry insults....as well as criticism of policy. But I really am not reading anything that has to do with potential impeachment causes. Just random accusations.

I am also happy to see how many people would like Dick Cheney as the 44th President. :p

I am also happy to see how many people would like Dick Cheney as the 44th President. :p
Surely he's a bit too ill?

You're likely to be electing both the 44th President and the 45th at the same time if you picked him.

Surely he's a bit too ill?

You're likely to be electing both the 44th President and the 45th at the same time if you picked him.

"picked him"?

None of these posts offer proof that George W. Bush broke a single law....They offer speculation, accusation, and angry insults....as well as criticism of policy. But I really am not reading anything that has to do with potential impeachment causes. Just random accusations.

Ordering Illegal Wiretapping may be a good enough one.
Sadly, with a Republican control house and senate, do you think such proceedings would take place?

Lets face it, George may have just barely broken the law several times in his administration, if wich, any or all of it could be proven, he'd likely be hung by piano wire.
His only politcal gift, is in choosing his subordinates.
People like Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby, have been able to spin things nicely to avoid charges and trials.

How about Leaking vital information of an undercover agent to the press?
This may not have Georges actual fingerprints on it, but Roves hands are probably blood red.
Do you think that if Rove knew it, and Cheney knew it, that Bush didnt?

Bush has the Rep controlled Congress and Senate to thank for his lack of prosecution, more than his innocence.

Ordering Illegal Wiretapping may be a good enough one.

Thats probably the only thing that a case could be built on to impeach him. Its definately the strongest case, as talks of impeachment flew around the house when it began to come to light. They're still flying, in fact.

"picked him"?
Yes. Selected. Chose. Decided upon. Plumped for. Allowed the Supreme Court to Appoint.

Ordering Illegal Wiretapping may be a good enough one.
Sadly, with a Republican control house and senate, do you think such proceedings would take place?



How about Leaking vital information of an undercover agent to the press?
This may not have Georges actual fingerprints on it, but Roves hands are probably blood red.
Do you think that if Rove knew it, and Cheney knew it, that Bush didnt?

Bush has the Rep controlled Congress and Senate to thank for his lack of prosecution, more than his innocence.

Well, here is the thing....those wiretaps have never been called illegal ( other than michaelmoore.com or somthing). As a matter of fact, many of the most liberal members of the Senate would like to see the program continue.

Second, that "undercover" agent leak has never had anything to do with Bush ....at all.

So now.....if your Chief of Staff leaks a name and you wiretap terrorists....you get impeached. yay Democrats.

Yes. Selected. Chose. Decided upon. Plumped for. Allowed the Supreme Court to Appoint.

But the VP takes over when President is impeached. It's in the Constitution. What on earth are you talking about? heh.

Thats probably the only thing that a case could be built on to impeach him. Its definately the strongest case, as talks of impeachment flew around the house when it began to come to light. They're still flying, in fact.


If indeed, he did, he should be tried.
Same as anyone else who broke the law.

However, is this case, I would take a particular delight in seeing just a crumb of justice fall back onto America's plate.

Thats probably the only thing that a case could be built on to impeach him. Its definately the strongest case, as talks of impeachment flew around the house when it began to come to light. They're still flying, in fact.

Yeah, but they are not "flying" into a bill. None has been offered. None.

But the VP takes over when President is impeached. It's in the Constitution. What on earth are you talking about? heh.
Ah. I assumed your original question, 'how many people would support Cheney as President', meant after Bush has left office, ie in the 2008 elections.

Definitions of morality vary. What does the fact that Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office have to do with his ability or inability to act upon his presidential duties? What about the way that Clinton ran the presidency involved poor judgement? Keep in mind that Monicagate had nothing to do with his abilities as president.

how about not following up on bin laden, ruling by polling rather than by ideas, inability to remember things in court testimony, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc

:gundge:

If indeed, he did, he should be tried.
Same as anyone else who broke the law.

However, is this case, I would take a particular delight in seeing just a crumb of justice fall back onto America's plate.

I guess you would like Dick Cheney as President.

Ah. I assumed your original question, 'how many people would support Cheney as President', meant after Bush has left office, ie in the 2008 elections.

No, I said that I was happy to see that all of the people here who want a Bush impeachment are really trying to make Cheney the President.

how about not following up on bin laden, ruling by polling rather than by ideas, inability to remember things in court testimony, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc

:gundge:

Yeah, Clinton could have got head all day...that was not why he was impeached. He lied to a grand Jury.

You do realize that those first two reports all refer to the remnants of pre-1991 weapons that Iraq had actually declared that it was in posession of? In fact, in regards to WMDs after that fact, nuclear weapons and yellow cake, the report states, "Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date."

We all know that Iraq had chemical weapons. The WMD scare was over Iraq developing new chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The reports never state anything about the development of weapons post 1991, and thus don't confirm the original scare and claims made by Bush - that Saddam was developing new WMDs, including nuclear weapons. Rather, the reports contradict it.

The news articles you listed are similiar. They rely on heresy regarding the transfer of weapons out of the country. I don't doubt it occured - but they don't confirm the development of new weapons that Saddam had not declared.

In addition, the last two articles were from the mainstream media. You can't use your "OMG, the media didn't report it, they're trying to undermine our prezident!" argument if you're citing media sources. Thats the fallacy of internal contradiction.


We went to Iraq because Saddam REFUSED to show that he had destroyed all of the weapons we KNEW he had. Now we know why.

Well, here is the thing....those wiretaps have never been called illegal ( other than michaelmoore.com or somthing). As a matter of fact, many of the most liberal members of the Senate would like to see the program continue.

I highly doubt that.

Read into it again, if indeed Bush did order them to take place, they did so out of the security of the Constitution..wich makes them illegal.
I also seriously doubt any of these Liberal senators enjoys that partuclar program.


Second, that "undercover" agent leak has never had anything to do with Bush ....at all.

Just like the military, if your subordinate fucks up on your watch, its your ass.

Im guessing you never listened to Plamps husband discuss the situation.
He claims the reason it was done, was as a red herring, to discredit, and draw attention away from his studies involving the "Yellow Cake Uranium From Africa" scenario.
He discovered there was absolutely no basis for such claims that were made by the Bush administration.
So, a while later, when he comes back and gives this report, his wifes name is given to the Press, by Karl Rove, in order to silence him, and draw attention away from his report.

and you think this had nothing to do with Bush?
Please.

The only thing you can gloat about, is that thus far, Bush's hand isnt directly implicated.


So now.....if your Chief of Staff leaks a name and you wiretap terrorists....you get impeached. yay Democrats.

Whats good for the goose....

No, I said that I was happy to see that all of the people here who want a Bush impeachment are really trying to make Cheney the President.
You didn't say that at all. But it was my mistake, I should have made the connection, even though it wasn't explicitly stated. Apologies.

I guess you would like Dick Cheney as President.


Hardly.

Not only is Cheney ill of health, and would have little time left in office, but any time he did have, would be certainly "Lame Duck".
Further, Cheney by himself is unelectable.

So..to see Bush brought to Justice, (If indeed guilty), yeah...thats a fair trade.

The only thing you can gloat about, is that thus far, Bush's hand isnt directly implicated.


.[/QUOTE]

Well that makes it impossible to impeach him.

Hardly.

Not only is Cheney ill of health, and would have little time left in office, but any time he did have, would be certainly "Lame Duck".
Further, Cheney by himself is unelectable.

So..to see Bush brought to Justice, (If indeed guilty), yeah...thats a fair trade.

Besides, you need a 2/3 vote to convict and remove from office. You think you would get that? It has never happened before.

Well that makes it impossible to impeach him.[/QUOTE]


For the Blowing of a CIA agents cover.....yes.

For the wiretapping, that remains to be seen.

I suspect, that even if there is enough evidence, it wouldnt happen under the current Congress, unless it was SO apparent, Bush were to be made the sacrificial lamb in an Election year.
Weve already seen many conservative republicans distance themselves from a very unpopular presidency.

Besides, you need a 2/3 vote to convict and remove from office. You think you would get that? It has never happened before.


Andrew Johnson.

Impeached.

Although I cant remember if he was actually removed from office...

However, your right.
Wont happen.

Hell, even a Republican controlled Congress couldnt get the 2/3 majority to remove Clinton.
and they hated that fat Arkansansan.

Well that makes it impossible to impeach him.


For the Blowing of a CIA agents cover.....yes.

For the wiretapping, that remains to be seen.

.[/QUOTE]

So....wiretapping...

The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.
The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans. In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect—reliably, immediately, and without delay—whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.
There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time. Members of both parties and Houses in Congress were fully briefed. NO SUPREME COURT RULING OR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE HAS FOUND THE ADMINSTRATION TO BE IN ERROR OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT.

So.....how could you impeach?

yep, people like him should be punished for their actions

Andrew Johnson.

Impeached.

Although I cant remember if he was actually removed from office...

However, your right.
Wont happen.

Hell, even a Republican controlled Congress couldnt get the 2/3 majority to remove Clinton.
and they hated that fat Arkansansan.

No, interestingly enough, Andrew Johnson was spared from being removed from office by just 1 vote.

Bullshit.

To this very day, no significant amount of WMD's have been found in Iraq.
THAT is the truth, and if you truly believe otherwise, your own intelligence may be in question.

Read the links I provided - most are the same reports that the left has lied to say they proved no WMD's when in fact they said Saddam was more dangerous than we thought.



Complete and total exaggeration.
Katrina was bad.
The Great Depression was worse.

The policies of Bush helped us avoid a depression. The EVENTS of Katrina, 911 and Corporate scandals each on thier own could have cause a recession or in the case of 911 and the combined hurricanes, a depression. They did not largely because of the policies and actions of President Bush.




He personally pardoned how many Enron execs again?
Look intio it.

Zero. They are in JAIL. Look into it.



Say, which man, was the person who had donated more money to Bush's first election campaign?

You better look into that too.

Enron Donated to Clinton and Gore also - look into it. Also while you are looking why not investigate which administration actually gave them a Quid pro quo??? Enron was a BIG proponent of the Kyoto protocals, who supported that after taking thier money??? Who did NOT support that and who PROSECUTED them when they broke the law???

Look into it. The left has been LYING to you.





You call leaving the budget with a SURPLUS of funds, a rapid decline?

If we really had a surplus, why did the debt go up every year. Either way, since when is that the only economic measurement?? The unemployment rate was going up ever since april of 2000, the GDP fell from a 4.5% to .8% between 1999 and 2001. The stock markets crashed in the first quarter of 2000. Curious, all of that occured BEFORE Bush took office. Look into it.

Perhaps we arent in a "recession", but then again, did you notice the price of gas yesterday?

Did you compare that with the increase in average wages???? I'll take a couple of thousan extra dollars per year income as a trade off for a couple of hundred bucks extra per year in gas.

Either way, tell me, how does the fact that China and India are rapidly increasing their demand for oil mean that Bush is responsible for gas prices?? How do you blame Bush for the price when the environmental left will not allow us to increase the supply??

Higher demand and no corresponding increase in supply means higher prices. It is basic economics.

Sadly, too many posters who despise Bush, are eager to see him Impeached, without understanding what the requirements for such a proceeding are.

Lets start with breaking the law, people.


Agreed, so what laws did he break??

You cant impeach him because "He is TEH SUXXOR."

Clinton was impeached not for nailing a fat intern...he was himself nailed for Lying Under Oath...wich is a crime.


Exactly

Well done!!!!!

For the Blowing of a CIA agents cover.....yes.

For the wiretapping, that remains to be seen.

.

So.....how could you impeach?[/QUOTE]


The stink, was in particular, about twenty names whos phones were tapped, but who had no suspected links, no prior felonies, and were natural-born americans, who did not possess visas or were naturalized citizens.
Basically, those people where entirely innocent.
So essentially what you have is "no probable cuase".
Also, if i remember correctly, there was something about the warrants themselves, perhaps evem that they werent issued.
Although, im no way positve on that.

So..while not a direct breach of the law, its a small smudge on several.

I suppose if crimes were given a "1 to 10 rating", it would be about a 3.
However, lying about a blowjob would be a 2.
So..go figure.

I wish that I could bestow my "quite deadly" status onto Salvelinus fontinalis!



Zing!

So.....how could you impeach?



So..while not a direct breach of the law, its a small smudge on several.

I suppose if crimes were given a "1 to 10 rating", it would be about a 3.
However, lying about a blowjob would be a 2.
So..go figure.[/QUOTE]

So now you have admitted that you have no laws that Bush has broken. I busted you on the Plame thing and the wiretap thing.

Crimes are not on a "1 to 10 rating".

Clinton was not impeached because of a blowjob. He could have one all day for his 8 years in office and no impeachment material would have been available. He LIED TO A GRAND JURY AND THEN ADMITTED THAT HE DID. That, my friend, is very impeachable.

Can you answer me somthing. Why is it that everyone on this forum uniformly believes that Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob? That is demonstratably false. Are they misleading on purpose or are they ignorant of the facts of the impeachment case?

I think I missed this. Which WMDs were found, and when and where and by whom? We've been waiting so long for this, could you direct me to the source material?

TIA.
WEll actually, they're now getting evidence that the WMD's were shipped out fo the country...

As bad a president as I think he is, I don't think that impeaching him will do any good. You can't try to kick a president out just because you don't agree with him. That would set a very bad precedent for our future presidents. And while I think his administration is getting into shady territory with the wiretapping and leaking scandals, none of it has been enough to charge him with a crime yet. Until then, we'll just have to say we don't like him.

Can you answer me somthing. Why is it that everyone on this forum uniformly believes that Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob? That is demonstratably false. Are they misleading on purpose or are they ignorant of the facts of the impeachment case?

I believe he was impeached for perjury. He could have lied about licking a postage stamp, and it's still perjury before a grand jury.

They are misleading on purpose, because they support a President who lies, as long as it's the one they like.

President... precedent...

Try and say that five times fast.

If indeed, he did, he should be tried.
Same as anyone else who broke the law.

However, is this case, I would take a particular delight in seeing just a crumb of justice fall back onto America's plate.
Are you serious? Thing slike this have always been going on. We give up a little bit of freedom, for some added safety. The eventually the program gets leaked and we have to come up with a new one. AS for people who should be tried. How about the reporters who dug this up and exposed it. Correct me if i'm wrong but does that count as espionnage? (It is a matter of national security and all)

I believe he was impeached for perjury. He could have lied about licking a postage stamp, and it's still perjury before a grand jury.

They are misleading on purpose, .

How did I mislead? I said that Clinton was impeached for lying ( perjury) to a grand jury. You just said that too. I don't get it.

Are you serious? Thing slike this have always been going on. We give up a little bit of freedom, for some added safety. The eventually the program gets leaked and we have to come up with a new one. AS for people who should be tried. How about the reporters who dug this up and exposed it. Correct me if i'm wrong but does that count as espionnage? (It is a matter of national security and all)

Because longevity makes everything right.

Seriously, get it through your heads. Just because it's been happening for years (decades, centuries) doesn't make it right. Slavery had been going on since Biblical times, but that didn't make it right.

How did I mislead? I said that Clinton was impeached for lying ( perjury) to a grand jury. You just said that too. I don't get it.
I think there's something broken with the quote thingy.

In any case, it wasn't over a blowjob.

Every president for the past hundred years, has had some sort of program like this. Every one. (Comparing this to slavery...?)

Every president for the past hundred years, has ahd some sort of program like this. Every one. (Comparing this to slavery...?)

Which makes it right?

Slavery was merely the first example that springs to mind. You want another? Murder. Murder's been going on... well it depends on how you define murder and intelligence really. But it's been around a long time. Doesn't make it right.

So yes, this was wrong when Bush did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Clinton did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Bush Sr did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Reagan did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Carter did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Ford did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source, although I'm rather inclined to believe this one) Nixon did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Johnson did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Kennedy did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Eisenhower did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) FDR did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Hoover did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Coolidge did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Harding did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Wilson did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) Taft did it.

It was wrong when (if, since I haven't seen your source) TR did it.

Hell, it was wrong when (if) Washington did it.

Because longevity makes everything right.

Seriously, get it through your heads. Just because it's been happening for years (decades, centuries) doesn't make it right. Slavery had been going on since Biblical times, but that didn't make it right.

But slavery is unconstitutional. I don't see how wiretapping terrorists is.

Hysteria and disliking the President's ideology are not grounds for impeachment.

But slavery is unconstitutional. I don't see how wiretapping terrorists is.

It's not. And no Americans would be against that. But some of the more staunch civil rights advocates are worried that it's not just terrorists the NSA is spying on.

It's not. And no Americans would be against that. But some of the more staunch civil rights advocates are worried that it's not just terrorists the NSA is spying on.


But they offer no proof of that. Just because some "advocates" are "worried" people go on this impeachment rampage.....I don't know...it just seems rather premature to me.

But slavery is unconstitutional. I don't see how wiretapping terrorists is.


Well no, the constitution originally didn't ban slavery. It just said that Congress could deal with it later. It was a constitutional amendment. But was slavery morally right until that amendment was put into effect?

Well no, the constitution originally didn't ban slavery. It just said that Congress could deal with it later. It was a constitutional amendment. But was slavery morally right until that amendment was put into effect?


I said ( ahem ) .... "slavery is not Constitutional". I was not talking about the past. That is why I used the present tense.

The question as to whether slavery was morally right is not relavent to this discussion ( even by accident). Presidents are not impeached for doing "immoral" things. They are impeached for doing "illegal" things. I thought we had established this.

But they offer no proof of that. Just because some "advocates" are "worried" people go on this impeachment rampage.....I don't know...it just seems rather premature to me.

It is premature. People rarely separate law from hysteria and emotion anymore. I myself am just leaving it at: "I'm worried about where these spying programs will take us." And that's all.

I wish that I could bestow my "quite deadly" status onto Salvelinus fontinalis!



Zing!


Why thank you sir! I had an even better one (graphs, more sourcing etc.) but it got erased before I could post it and I had no time to re-create it.


It amazes me that either through apathy or willful ignorance people still believe the lies that are out there about the economy, and WMD's.


I am giving them the benefit of the doubt there. The only other option is the are knowingly lying.

Why thank you sir! I had an even better one (graphs, more sourcing etc.) but it got erased before I could post it and I had no time to re-create it.


It amazes me that either through apathy or willful ignorance people still believe the lies that are out there about the economy, and WMD's.


I am giving them the benefit of the doubt there. The only other option is the are knowingly lying.


Unfortunately, many of them ARE lying.

I think a democratic congress (06!) will impeach him for jaywalking.

Presidents get impeached when they break the law. That's it.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. I can't think of anything Bush has done that would warrant it.

I like him right where he is: As a millstone around the neck of the Republican Party. :)

I'm still hoping all the REAL conservatives jump ship and return to their Libertarian roots. We could use a real third party. *nod*

Presidents get impeached when they break the law. That's it.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. I can't think of anything Bush has done that would warrant it.
Violating the USMC re: POW and the geneva conventions. President Bush committed a war crime :).

Why? That would be a waste of a barrel of peaches if you were to dunk him in there... :rolleyes:

hell Yeah..!!!

Amen!

Presidents get impeached when they break the law. That's it.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. I can't think of anything Bush has done that would warrant it.
I agree. And now I'm off to make my weekend plans of misleading our country into war.

Too bad you didn't have a "YES! Reasons 1 and 2".

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

People who use "plz" instead of please should be shot.

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

No, because by the time you get it started and debated, his term will be over.

That, and on what grounds?

Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So:
Treason: Nope, no grounds here.

Bribery: Nope, no grounds here (at least that we don't know of. And let's face it, that's hard to hide these days).

Other high crimes and misdemeanors: You can maybe make a pitch here, if you can find a specific law that was broken. Just because you don't like how he handled Iraq/the Hurricanes/high gas prices does NOT make him impeachable.

People who use "plz" instead of please should be shot.

People who advice the shooting of others should be put into detention.

[/my 2 euro-cents]

Violating the USMC re: POW and the geneva conventions. President Bush committed a war crime :).


Show me the conviction. (hell, I would settle for a legitimate argument.)

I agree. And now I'm off to make my weekend plans of misleading our country into war.


Why are you repeating this LIE??????


How did he mislead anyone????

Hell the CIA chief appointed by President Clinton told Bush the WMD's were a "Slam Dunk"!!!

It turns out he was right!

Yes, for commiting the high crime of violating his presidential oath to uphold the constitution.

Someone asked for a specific reason I think Bush should be impeached. I think I can provide that...in fact, I can provide at least two.

Abu Ghraib and the death of New Orleans.

True, in the case of the former, it was grunts who carried it out with orders from above, and *in collusion with private civilian contractors.* I do believe the orders from above came from above but the Bush Administration, with the environment of the War On Terror, created an atmosphere within which officers and contractors believed that torture was okay. The President's own lawyer issued a legal opinion that torture of terrorist suspects was both warranted and necessary, *in direct opposition to the overwhelming, broad-based will of the People and Congress that IT IS NOT.* I draw my cite from the overwhelming passage of the McCain bill banning torture by both houses of Congress. Indeed, anti-torture sentiment increased in the five-year period since 9/11: I remember a poll taken shortly afterwards asking "If we catch the leaders of Al Qaeda should torture be used to extract information?" 74% of America said a resounding NO. The McCain bill passed by 96%.

When the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib were caught, no heads rolled, *even after Al Qaeda specifically cited the tortures in Abu Ghraib as a recruitment issue.* They thanked us for doing it because they'd never gotten so many recruits, so quickly. To me, this is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war and this amounts to TREASON. At the very least, the soldiers who did the actual torture should be dishonourably discharged and thrown in the brig, and a general court-martial on grounds of treason for the commanding officers. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, because the Bush Administration has gone on record that torture is acceptable. They got promoted when they should be facing a firing squad.

When Bush signed the McCain torture ban into law, he issued a signing statement that left him legally clear to IGNORE the law. The Attorney General backs his position whole-heartedly.

On the fuck-up of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina.
I don't think I have to cite anything to prove my position on that. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DROPPED THE BALL, and a major city died. There are only half as many people living there now, as there'd been this time last year. $10 million in trailer homes to shelter the refugees lay fallow and empty, unused on FEMA's lot. I remember the Loma Prieta 'quake of '89, FEMA came in and it was like the angels descending on the tails of the Cavalry. This FEMA is a joke compared to that, and worse than that it's a bad joke. This is inexcuseable: the director of FEMA is appointed by and answerable to the President of the United States, and while the levees were breaking and people were dying, said director was asking his secretary what colour shirt he should wear for the cameras. FUCK THE BLOODY SHIRT! They should have been onsite and ready to enforce evacuation when Katrina got done with Florida and headed across the Gulf. The National Guard weren't even in the country: they were in Iraq and had to ask permission to leave and go save their town.

When the grunt screws up, the boss is to be held responsible. Michael Brown screwed up, and George W. Bush, as his superior, is responsible for the death of a city.

And, it gets better. The violent crime situation in New Orleans is such that the governor had to call in the National Guard to free up the local police so they could put a stop to it. There are parts of New Orleans that will never be habitable again. AND, they're rebuilding it, just the way it was. Which has been proven, nay, *confirmed* that the levee system is faulty. Yes, they had a chance to totally rebuild New Orleans and bring it into the 21st century by making it a floating city and letting Lake Pontchartrain have as much land as it wants. But no — they're building it using the same old, demonstrably faulty infrastructural systems. Too expensive? Can we afford another large-scale flooding like that?

I have other, comparatively minor and admittedly personal reasons to want to see BushCheney having the rug pulled out from under them, but I wanted to concentrate on the major points that are solidly indicting, that pretty much everyone can agree are dangerous, irresponsible abuses of power and flagrantly illegal accord to United States and international law. The bad news is, even if an impeachment comes through, they're legally cunning enough to plant a parthian shot and while they're on trial, they're still in power and making decisions. And personally, I think a recall vote would accomplish the same end and send a more powerful message. It would essentially be the American People saying to the Administration, "You're not doing a good job. You're fired."

he hasnt done great i think everybody in the world will accept that. but could you imagine the implications of a sucessful impeachment. what would that say for the status of the american presidency and our democracy?

Someone asked for a specific reason I think Bush should be impeached. I think I can provide that...in fact, I can provide at least two.

Abu Ghraib and the death of New Orleans.

True, in the case of the former, it was grunts who carried it out with orders from above, and *in collusion with private civilian contractors.* I do believe the orders from above came from above but the Bush Administration, with the environment of the War On Terror, created an atmosphere within which officers and contractors believed that torture was okay. The President's own lawyer issued a legal opinion that torture of terrorist suspects was both warranted and necessary, *in direct opposition to the overwhelming, broad-based will of the People and Congress that IT IS NOT.* I draw my cite from the overwhelming passage of the McCain bill banning torture by both houses of Congress. Indeed, anti-torture sentiment increased in the five-year period since 9/11: I remember a poll taken shortly afterwards asking "If we catch the leaders of Al Qaeda should torture be used to extract information?" 74% of America said a resounding NO. The McCain bill passed by 96%.

When the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib were caught, no heads rolled, *even after Al Qaeda specifically cited the tortures in Abu Ghraib as a recruitment issue.* They thanked us for doing it because they'd never gotten so many recruits, so quickly. To me, this is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war and this amounts to TREASON. At the very least, the soldiers who did the actual torture should be dishonourably discharged and thrown in the brig, and a general court-martial on grounds of treason for the commanding officers. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, because the Bush Administration has gone on record that torture is acceptable. They got promoted when they should be facing a firing squad.

When Bush signed the McCain torture ban into law, he issued a signing statement that left him legally clear to IGNORE the law. The Attorney General backs his position whole-heartedly.

On the fuck-up of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina.
I don't think I have to cite anything to prove my position on that. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DROPPED THE BALL, and a major city died. There are only half as many people living there now, as there'd been this time last year. $10 million in trailer homes to shelter the refugees lay fallow and empty, unused on FEMA's lot. I remember the Loma Prieta 'quake of '89, FEMA came in and it was like the angels descending on the tails of the Cavalry. This FEMA is a joke compared to that, and worse than that it's a bad joke. This is inexcuseable: the director of FEMA is appointed by and answerable to the President of the United States, and while the levees were breaking and people were dying, said director was asking his secretary what colour shirt he should wear for the cameras. FUCK THE BLOODY SHIRT! They should have been onsite and ready to enforce evacuation when Katrina got done with Florida and headed across the Gulf. The National Guard weren't even in the country: they were in Iraq and had to ask permission to leave and go save their town.

When the grunt screws up, the boss is to be held responsible. Michael Brown screwed up, and George W. Bush, as his superior, is responsible for the death of a city.

And, it gets better. The violent crime situation in New Orleans is such that the governor had to call in the National Guard to free up the local police so they could put a stop to it. There are parts of New Orleans that will never be habitable again. AND, they're rebuilding it, just the way it was. Which has been proven, nay, *confirmed* that the levee system is faulty. Yes, they had a chance to totally rebuild New Orleans and bring it into the 21st century by making it a floating city and letting Lake Pontchartrain have as much land as it wants. But no — they're building it using the same old, demonstrably faulty infrastructural systems. Too expensive? Can we afford another large-scale flooding like that?

I have other, comparatively minor and admittedly personal reasons to want to see BushCheney having the rug pulled out from under them, but I wanted to concentrate on the major points that are solidly indicting, that pretty much everyone can agree are dangerous, irresponsible abuses of power and flagrantly illegal accord to United States and international law. The bad news is, even if an impeachment comes through, they're legally cunning enough to plant a parthian shot and while they're on trial, they're still in power and making decisions. And personally, I think a recall vote would accomplish the same end and send a more powerful message. It would essentially be the American People saying to the Administration, "You're not doing a good job. You're fired."

While both of these show bad judgement, neither of them is a crime.
(Sure, they may be crimes to you, but not to a jury.)

Someone asked for a specific reason I think Bush should be impeached. I think I can provide that...in fact, I can provide at least two.

Abu Ghraib and the death of New Orleans.




OK the death of new orleans. obviously you didnt see the news in the 3 days prior to katrina where bush warned the residents of new orleans and mississippi to leave. and obviously it was bush that was sitting there with an assault rifle inside the superdome. and everybody knows he was just too damn incompetant to know there was a hurricane on its way. and it was definately bush's job to activate FEMA and get the trailors out to people.................*ahem* michael brown *ahem*

and abu ghraib, wow your right startling revelation: My thoughts right now, "OOOOOHHH, that chick with the short hair holding a dog DOES really look like george bush. it must be him in disguise. geez how could i have missed that, bush obviously was the one torturing people. i guess he was so busy torturing people that he forgot emergeny mangement in N. orleans."

HELLO...IDIOT...ANYBODY IN THERE. bush didnt order the anarchy after katrina, he didnt delay the rescue efforts, that was the poor people trying to save all that was left of the notihng they had to begin with and michael brown.

and if you're going to blame anybody for abu ghraib, blame Rumsfled, it was his signature on the order of what to do there....bush's was absent.....

he hasnt done great i think everybody in the world will accept that. but could you imagine the implications of a sucessful impeachment. what would that say for the status of the american presidency and our democracy?

Impeachment does not mean removal from office, so I have to agree: it would just solidify the media as running the government.

Watergate set a bad precident. Both for Presidents and the Press.

OK the death of new orleans. obviously you didnt see the news in the 3 days prior to katrina where bush warned the residents of new orleans and mississippi to leave. and obviously it was bush that was sitting there with an assault rifle inside the superdome. and everybody knows he was just too damn incompetant to know there was a hurricane on its way. and it was definately bush's job to activate FEMA and get the trailors out to people.................*ahem* michael brown *ahem*

and abu ghraib, wow your right startling revelation: My thoughts right now, "OOOOOHHH, that chick with the short hair holding a dog DOES really look like george bush. it must be him in disguise. geez how could i have missed that, bush obviously was the one torturing people. i guess he was so busy torturing people that he forgot emergeny mangement in N. orleans."

HELLO...IDIOT...ANYBODY IN THERE. bush didnt order the anarchy after katrina, he didnt delay the rescue efforts, that was the poor people trying to save all that was left of the notihng they had to begin with and michael brown.

and if you're going to blame anybody for abu ghraib, blame Rumsfled, it was his signature on the order of what to do there....bush's was absent.....

Didn't you get the memo? Bush has a weather control machine, and was punishing Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi for voting for him. :D

Why are you repeating this LIE??????


How did he mislead anyone????

Hell the CIA chief appointed by President Clinton told Bush the WMD's were a "Slam Dunk"!!!

It turns out he was right!


THANK YOU for pointing that out. but also mention that every sensible world power said iraq had weapons of mass destruction. they just didnt support the war. but like us...they KNEW saddam had WMD's.

...yeah people who say he lied and missled. wow....are you taht lacking to look beyond your own blind hatred of bush. bush cant go to iraq and do spywork on his own. he had to RELY on the CIA, he has to go off the CIA and its not bush's fault if the director of the CIA is wrong. if something come across your desk saying saddam has WMD's and he is ready to use them....would you just say...oh well and shred it.....i hope to hell not.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office, so I have to agree: it would just solidify the media as running the government.

Watergate set a bad precident. Both for Presidents and the Press.

true true....but do we really want bill o'reiley running the country? im a conservative and that still scares me shitless.

true true....but do we really want bill o'reiley running the country? im a conservative and that still scares me shitless.

Hell no! <shivers> That's what I'm railing against!!

I'm all for banning 24 hour cable news. The world had better news back in 1981. :D

NO, congress voted TWICE to go to war, so if you want to " Impeach " someone impeach congress.

NO, congress voted TWICE to go to war, so if you want to " Impeach " someone impeach congress.



yesssssssssssssss!

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

Because there's no Constitutional basis for doing so. Because the House of Representatives will never pass articles of impeachment. Because calling for impeachment is nothing but left-wing political masturbation and sour grapes. Turn the page, blue-state losers.

Show me the conviction. (hell, I would settle for a legitimate argument.)
Miss Hamdan today? All detainees have the rights inherent under the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions. Waterboarding is sure as hell illegal under the Geneva conventions. Supreme court all but said the President's in contempt of congress.

Because there's no Constitutional basis for doing so. Because the House of Representatives will never pass articles of impeachment. Because calling for impeachment is nothing but left-wing political masturbation and sour grapes. Turn the page, blue-state losers.


i agree

but i also agree with the people who believe in karma...so lets stay away from calling them blue state losers until they actually lose in november...cuz then we all look like a bunch of dumbass sore losers. and i dont want liberals thinking that way about us.

*rubs chin thoughtfully* I suppose we could remove him on the grounds of mental inability to hold the office. :D

Read the links I provided - most are the same reports that the left has lied to say they proved no WMD's when in fact they said Saddam was more dangerous than we thought.




The policies of Bush helped us avoid a depression. The EVENTS of Katrina, 911 and Corporate scandals each on thier own could have cause a recession or in the case of 911 and the combined hurricanes, a depression. They did not largely because of the policies and actions of President Bush.





Zero. They are in JAIL. Look into it.




Enron Donated to Clinton and Gore also - look into it. Also while you are looking why not investigate which administration actually gave them a Quid pro quo??? Enron was a BIG proponent of the Kyoto protocals, who supported that after taking thier money??? Who did NOT support that and who PROSECUTED them when they broke the law???

Look into it. The left has been LYING to you.






If we really had a surplus, why did the debt go up every year. Either way, since when is that the only economic measurement?? The unemployment rate was going up ever since april of 2000, the GDP fell from a 4.5% to .8% between 1999 and 2001. The stock markets crashed in the first quarter of 2000. Curious, all of that occured BEFORE Bush took office. Look into it.



Did you compare that with the increase in average wages???? I'll take a couple of thousan extra dollars per year income as a trade off for a couple of hundred bucks extra per year in gas.

Either way, tell me, how does the fact that China and India are rapidly increasing their demand for oil mean that Bush is responsible for gas prices?? How do you blame Bush for the price when the environmental left will not allow us to increase the supply??

Higher demand and no corresponding increase in supply means higher prices. It is basic economics.




Agreed, so what laws did he break??




Exactly


Two questions. What economic policies were they that so miraculously saved us, and... are you an upper class snob who gets millions of tax breaks while us normal people get NOTHING AT ALL?

Our tax rates are quite moderate, on a world-wide scale. I wish they would get rid of a bunch of programs at the federal level, however.

The problem right now is that both houses of Congress and the office of President are all dominated by the same party. When Clinton and the Demo's irked the country into voting in a Repub House and Senate, the whole thing ground to a nice, slow, crawl. The best thing, in my opinion, is for the Federal Gov't to be in a good healthy stalemate with neither party controlling the Presidency and Congress. Better yet, we could start voting Independent or third-party. You do vote, right?

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

I do not have the evidence to say yes. Based on the evidence at my disposal, however, he has most certainly committed an impeachment-worthy offense. Specifically, he committed the high crime by violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states explicitly as follows:


. . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .


In this, it certainly appears that President Bush failed with respect to the FISA statute. According to the FISA provision, any wiretapping that occurs on American soil must, by law, be authorized by a special court created by the law. Simply informing select members of the intent to wiretap is not enough to be lawful. Informing the whole damn Congress is not enough to be lawful. To be lawful, they must inform the court and recieve authorization. If they cannot, they must, under statutes created in the Patriot Act at the behest of the Bush administration, recieve retroactive authorization no later than 72 hours after the wiretapping commences.

This does not seem like a hard hurdle to breach, as after all, FISA has rarely turned down a wiretapping request. Furthermore, if that statute is still too restrictive, then there is always the fairly obvious choice of going to Congress and changing the goddamn law. In this, the Bush administration declined to do so. Not only that, they declined to inform the FISA court at all about numerous wiretaps. In that case, barring any information I am not aware of, they have violated the law, and President Bush as head of the administration responsible for this has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Put simply, if being entrapped into lying under oath constitutes an impeachable offense, this constitutes grounds for being drawn and quartered. It is an offense orders of magnitude above and beyond "obstruction of justice"; it is repudiation of the idea that the President needs to execute, and by extension obey, the law itself. Without the respect for the rule of law on the part of the President, how in the name of all that's holy could we call ourselves a true Republic at all?

Miss Hamdan today? All detainees have the rights inherent under the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions. Waterboarding is sure as hell illegal under the Geneva conventions. Supreme court all but said the President's in contempt of congress.


Not relevent. Try again.

Two questions. What economic policies were they that so miraculously saved us, and... are you an upper class snob who gets millions of tax breaks while us normal people get NOTHING AT ALL?

Yet another untruth parroted by the unknowing. “Polly wanna cracker Brwaaaaak tax cuts for the rich Brwaaak Bush is evil Brwaaaaaak”

Try actually looking at the facts first.

Here are a few:

Once all cuts are fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 will save $1,825 per year, according to a Senate Finance Committee staff estimate.

The Treasury Department says 38 million families with children will save an average $1,460, 43 million married couples will save an average of $1,728, and 11 million single mothers will save an average of $772, once all cuts are phased in, a process that will take up to 10 years.

One provision of the law -- the cut of the lowest tax rate to 10 percent -- was made retroactive to January 1, 2001, and taxpayers were sent a rebate to cover that cutback

Miss Hamdan today? All detainees have the rights inherent under the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions. Waterboarding is sure as hell illegal under the Geneva conventions. Supreme court all but said the President's in contempt of congress.
Just another example you have no idea on which you post.

Please show how "all detainees have rights inherent under the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions", specifically how the detainees in question are even covered under said UCMJ and Geneva conventions.

No.

And neither does Congress think so.

In other words; STFU!

I agree with him

um, the real question is, if you want to impeach him, go ahead, try, but I'm sure bush has a whole set of lies, money, more corruption, and simple brute force of having you arrested for challanging his power in the way of anyone trying to do so, like that senator who just a couple weeks ago had his house stormed by secret service. they said he was stealing money. I think he said something bad about The Man. They're comming, are you ready?

Should Bush be impeached?

Yes. He should also be impaled, impeded, imperiled, implicated, imploded, impounded, impoverished, imprecated, impugned and imprisoned.

It is possible to impeach Bush for violations of War Crimes Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) for grave breaches of the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions.

Just another example you have no idea on which you post.

Please show how "all detainees have rights inherent under the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions", specifically how the detainees in question are even covered under said UCMJ and Geneva conventions.

The US has illegally denied POW status to some detainees (those who were members of Taliban armed forces or militias), and they are illegally being denied their rights and protections as enumerated in detail in the Third Geneva Convention.

The remaining detainees have been, AFAIK, denied their rights and protections as enumerated in detail in the Third Geneva Convention because their status as POWs was denied without a proper tribunal. Furthermore, the "illegal combatants" are quite clearly protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention*, customary international law and, where applicable, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. (Note: the United States is not a party to Protocol I, but accepts many of its provisions as part of customary international law.)


Further more, the Convention against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

*Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. International Commit-
tee of the Red Cross: Geneva 1958, p. 51.

He shouldn't be impeached, but he is kinda dumb.

No, because then Cheney would be president and that would be worse.

I've met Cheney. He seems like a nice guy.

well? what do you think?

and if you piked a "for some other reason" option plz tell what your reason is.

He hasn't done anything impeachable so no.

Wow! That must hurt to defend him. :D


He personally pardoned how many Enron execs again?
Look intio it.


He is handing out pardons already?

If he hasn't he will probably pardon dear ol' Kenny Boy at the end of his term....


Having a business degree means nothing.
How many sucsessful businesses did he run?
Zero.

And he traded Sammy Sosa! ;)

No, because then Cheney would be president and that would be worse.

Not a chance. The whole reason why Cheney is able to get away with what he does is because the Vice-Presidency is the Spanish Inquisition of offices: nobody actually expects anything from the man holding the office. The practical effect is that while Bush plays the amiable dunce for the crowd, Cheney gets a free pass to do whatever the hell he wants. If you put him in the Presidency, you neuter his ability to be overtly evil, because you can't do anything covertly for long if you're the President.

Bush lied about worse things than sex. as the saying goes, " Bush Lied Thousands Died". But all clinton lied about was a blow job, :eek:

He hasn't done anything impeachable so no.

So why not let Congress find out? Isn't that the whole idea behind the congressional investigation part?

Bush lied about worse things than sex. as the saying goes, " Bush Lied Thousands Died". But all clinton lied about was a blow job, :eek:

The simple difference is Bush's lie has not been proven. Think how much more difficult it would be to actually obtain evidence of what a person knew and didn't know years ago as opposed to something like, ahem, finding a stained dress. :p

Stupidity isn't a basis for impeachment as much as some would like it to be.

I voted no because there's no proof about his apparent immorality like the huge cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

How about several thousand cases of kidnapping? (since the courts ruled that he didn't have the right to do it, it wasn't law enforcement.)

Over a hundred thousands counts of conspiracy to commit murder. That's what an unprovoked war is.

Failure to faithfully uphold the oath of office. His signing statements constantly indicate that he has no intention of enforcing or obeying laws as written.

Conspiracy to embezzle and launder hudreds of billions of dollars of public funds.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I've met Cheney. He seems like a nice guy.

That's what neighbors always say about serial killers and pedophiles.

Yes. He should also be impaled, impeded, imperiled, implicated, imploded, impounded, impoverished, imprecated, impugned and imprisoned.

I noticed you skipped impregnated. With his stance on abortion and gay marriage I think we should make the effort.

um, the real question is, if you want to impeach him, go ahead, try, but I'm sure bush has a whole set of lies, money, more corruption, and simple brute force of having you arrested for challanging his power in the way of anyone trying to do so, like that senator who just a couple weeks ago had his house stormed by secret service. they said he was stealing money. I think he said something bad about The Man. They're comming, are you ready?

None of that matters in an impeachment hearing. All that matters is do you have enough Congresspeople who want him out. If you have that, you have impeachment.

All the stuff you mentioned only comes into play if the civic authorities try to press criminal charges afterwards.

It's like how OJ was able to get enough legal umph to escape murder charges, but wasn't able to beat a "wrongful death" charge.

No.

And neither does Congress think so.

In other words; STFU!

In still other words, "I'm ashamed of my political allegiance, and desperatly afraid that it might be proven to me that I helped create the horrors that this president has created, so please, please, PLEASE don't make me realize that what I'm so afraid of is actually true."

How about several thousand cases of kidnapping? (since the courts ruled that he didn't have the right to do it, it wasn't law enforcement.)That's not what they ruled. They ruled in on a particular case that Bush could not convene a military tribunal. That just might change.

Over a hundred thousands counts of conspiracy to commit murder. That's what an unprovoked war is.Not even close. The war was authorized and was within the guidelines of the UN resolutions.

Failure to faithfully uphold the oath of office. His signing statements constantly indicate that he has no intention of enforcing or obeying laws as written. In your opinion. I feel he has failed to enforce some laws.... like border enforcement, but certainly not to the level of impeachment.

Conspiracy to embezzle and launder hudreds of billions of dollars of public funds.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Ok, now you're just making shit up.

I don't understand why liberals would want to impeach him.
Because it would mean Cheney would become President, and then he'll invite every Senator who voted to impeach Bush on a hunting trip.:D

If any of you can show me a law that Bush violated then I will support his impeachment. I have never seen any evidence of that. That is the only thing that can get a President impeached....after all.

No, because then Cheney would be president and that would be worse.

Terms of impeachment can include the vice president too. If Democrats take the House and then Dubya-Cheney is impeached then the House Majority Leader will probably be Nancy Pelosi. We'll have removed our worst president ever and installed our first female president ever in one swoop.

Terms of impeachment can include the vice president too. If Democrats take the House and then Dubya-Cheney is impeached then the House Majority Leader will probably be Nancy Pelosi. We'll have removed our worst president ever and installed our first female president ever in one swoop.
Pelosi isn't the House Majority leader.

Nice wishful thinking tho :rolleyes:

Terms of impeachment can include the vice president too. If Democrats take the House and then Dubya-Cheney is impeached then the House Majority Leader will probably be Nancy Pelosi. We'll have removed our worst president ever and installed our first female president ever in one swoop.

You seriously believe that there would be a 2/3 vote to take out both President Bush and Vice President Cheney? To put in Nancy Pelosi as President? That just sounds like the land of oz to me. That is about is likely as a 2/3 vote that praises Al Sharpton as an all American hero.

That's not what they ruled. They ruled in on a particular case that Bush could not convene a military tribunal. That just might change.

How? Is the SC going to hear the case again?


Not even close. The war was authorized and was within the guidelines of the UN resolutions.

But the Downing Street Minutes indicate that he was eager to create this war and lied to Congress to create it. The inaccuracy of many of his statements has long been proven, the minutes prove his intent. Congress may have approved force, but that doesn't mean that Bush wasn't involved in a conspiracy to bring the war about.


In your opinion. I feel he has failed to enforce some laws.... like border enforcement, but certainly not to the level of impeachment.

No, not in my opinion. Take a look at some of his signing statements. He's using them to indicate that he thinks he has the authority not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with. That is a lack of "faithfully executing the office of the president of the united states." His job is to enforce the law, and he's claiming that he doesn't have to if he doesn't feel like it.

Ok, now you're just making shit up.

No bid contracts to companies that his friends and family own stock in is against the law. He's doing it to take tax payer money and put it in the coffers of his friends companies. Try googling "cost plus" and halliburton to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

You seriously believe that there would be a 2/3 vote to take out both President Bush and Vice President Cheney? To put in Nancy Pelosi as President? That just sounds like the land of oz to me. That is about is likely as a 2/3 vote that praises Al Sharpton as an all American hero.

I didn't say it would happen. I just said that's what it would take.

Seriously Barry, I'm glad you're not going for a masters in analysis or poli-sci. With the analytical skills I've seen you display so far I have serious doubts about your ability to even write an acceptable history thesis in the near future.

Pelosi isn't the House Majority leader.

Nice wishful thinking tho :rolleyes:
That's because the Republicans are the majority.
Read it again. She probably would be if the Democrats took the house.

With analytical skills like that I can see why you're a conservative.

Terms of impeachment can include the vice president too. If Democrats take the House and then Dubya-Cheney is impeached then the House Majority Leader will probably be Nancy Pelosi. We'll have removed our worst president ever and installed our first female president ever in one swoop.

Dream on. Dream until your dreams come true.

But the Downing Street Minutes indicate that he was eager to create this war and lied to Congress to create it. The inaccuracy of many of his statements has long been proven, the minutes prove his intent.





No bid contracts to companies that his friends and family own stock in is against the law..

Show me one specific instance where you have proof that the president lied under oath and I will support impeachment.

Show me one example of how these "minutes" proved that he lied.

Show me the law about the now bid contract and then show me an example of the no bid contract.

You can't. You can only make charges without evidence.

I didn't say it would happen. I just said that's what it would take.

Seriously Barry, I'm glad you're not going for a masters in analysis or poli-sci. With the analytical skills I've seen you display so far I have serious doubts about your ability to even write an acceptable history thesis in the near future.

Once again, I use facts, the opposition uses insults. Here's how it usualy goes ..

me: fact
liberal: fact
me: fact
liberal: insult
me: fact
liberal: irrelevant to the thread fact
me: fact
liberal: insult

time and time again this pattern holds true

How? Is the SC going to here the case again?
Congress could specifically give Bush the authority to convine military tribunals

But the Downing Street Minutes indicate that he was eager to create this war and lied to Congress to create it. The inaccuracy of many of his statements has long been proven, the minutes prove his intent. Congress may have approved force, but that doesn't mean that Bush wasn't involved in a conspiracy to bring the war about.
It has not been proven that he "lied" about anything. There was no conspiricy. Saddam did have WMD's... we gave them to him.



Yes, your opinion. Sorry if you don't like it.. or you feel like your opinion should have more weight than someone elses....

[quote=New Domici]No bid contracts to companies that his friends and family own stock in is against the law. He's doing it to take tax payer money and put it in the coffers of his friends companies. Try googling "cost plus" and halliburton to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Again, you're just making shit up.

I admit that Bush has done some questionable things... but to have to make stuff up in an attempt to justify impeachment? Can't you do any better than that?

With analytical skills like that I can see why you're a conservative.

see?

So why not let Congress find out? Isn't that the whole idea behind the congressional investigation part?

Obviously there's nothing to investigate since everything was done on the up and up and that Congress already knew what was going on.

Show me one specific instance where you have proof that the president lied under oath and I will support impeachment.

Show me one example of how these "minutes" proved that he lied.

He said that he didn't want to go to war. The minutes indicated that he had intended to start a war with Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. He carefully crafted his speeches to indicate that Hussein and Bil Laden worked together "Al-queda/Hussein, Hussein/Al-queda, there's no difference." Dick Cheney said outright "we won a victory over the forces behind 9/11." Those statements were lies designed to manilpulate the people into a war that it would not otherwise have consented to.

The oath he lied under was when he swore to faithfully execute and defend the office of the president. He has shown a distinct lack of fidelity. Not that the oath bit is that important, since the above bit establishes the conspiracy.

Show me the law about the now bid contract and then show me an example of the no bid contract.

You can't. You can only make charges without evidence.

Journalists still count as sources. If you're going for a history masters you should still understand that. Unless you can show me where this guy has proven unreliable in the past, he's a valid source. Also, the first result on a google search for "no-bid contracts"

Donahue: Yes, federal law requires bidding on contracts, but there are exceptions. For example, no-bid contracts are allowed if only one company has the technical ability to do the work requested by the government. In the months prior to the invasion of Iraq, everybody thought Saddam Hussein would torch his oil fields, just as he did in Kuwait in 1991. So, the Army awarded a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary to extinguish the fires and rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. The Army and Halliburton justified the exclusion of competitors from bidding by claiming KBR was the only company with the technical expertise to extinguish oil fires. But a Bush administration official later admitted that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, he determined that two other companies, Bechtel Group ands Fluor Corp., were also capable of handling oil fires. Bechtel executives were surprised to learn that the Pentagon claimed KBR had extinguished oil fires in Kuwait in 1991. In fact, it was Bechtel that managed the entire firefighting contract, proving that KBR is not uniquely qualified to handle oil fires. Also, Bechtel had subcontracted alot of the firefighting work in Kuwait to smaller companies. So, there were certainly other companies with the technical know-how that could have bid on the contract awarded to KBR. Rep. Henry Waxman, who has investigated Halliburton's contracts, concluded that Bechtel was more qualified than KBR to handle the work.

He said that he didn't want to go to war. The minutes indicated that he had intended to start a war with Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. He carefully crafted his speeches to indicate that Hussein and Bil Laden worked together "Al-queda/Hussein, Hussein/Al-queda, there's no difference." Dick Cheney said outright "we won a victory over the forces behind 9/11." Those statements were lies designed to manilpulate the people into a war that it would not otherwise have consented to.


Aren't the Presidential Daily Briefs still locked up under "National Security?" The same for Cheneys "meeting" with the energy company people?

He said that he didn't want to go to war. The minutes indicated that he had intended to start a war with Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
this is no conspiracy, US policy was regime change in Iraq dating back to 1998. That does not mean we want to it means we have to. Absurd.
He carefully crafted his speeches to indicate that Hussein and Bil Laden worked together "Al-queda/Hussein, Hussein/Al-queda, there's no difference."never heard him make the comparison Dick Cheney said outright "we won a victory over the forces behind 9/11." he said that after we killed terrorists in Iraq.Al-queda terrorists.Those statements were lies designed to manilpulate the people into a war that it would not otherwise have consented to. then why was regime change in Iraq our official policy since Bush was the Governor of Texas

The oath he lied under was when he swore to faithfully execute and defend the office of the president. He has shown a distinct lack of fidelity. Not that the oath bit is that important, since the above bit establishes the conspiracy.
that claim does not hold up under legal review. Lying under oath requires that you lie when taking the oath about prior statements/actions. Any claim about an oath of office being a lie is foolish.



Journalists still count as sources. If you're going for a history masters you should still understand that. Unless you can show me where this guy has proven unreliable in the past, he's a valid source. Also, the first result on a google search for "no-bid contracts"

He does not mention that the other companies could not accomplish other tasks that we would have needed to them above and boyond putting out "oil fires". This passage is out of context and not very relavent.

Aren't the Presidential Daily Briefs still locked up under "National Security?" The same for Cheneys "meeting" with the energy company people?

I'm talking about the Downing Street Minutes. What Tim Russert called "the now famous Downing Street Memo." Famous even though none of the major news outlets made a story out of it. It was British officials discussing what to do about the fact that America was determined to go to war in Iraq.

Aren't the Presidential Daily Briefs still locked up under "National Security?" The same for Cheneys "meeting" with the energy company people?

Congress got all of the intelligence information on Iraq that the President did. You want to impeach over daily briefings being classifed to the general public? And a meeting with oil executives? This is simply unreal. And it is why Congress will not and cannot impeach.

He does not mention that the other companies could not accomplish other tasks that we would have needed to them above and boyond putting out "oil fires". This passage is out of context and not very relavent.

He mentions that the Army and the Administration claimed that the other companies couldn't do it, but later an administration admitted that it wasn't true. I did not take anything out of context. I copied and pasted, then bolded the part that you're saying didn't exist.

[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]But a Bush administration official later admitted that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, he determined that two other companies, Bechtel Group ands Fluor Corp., were also capable of handling oil fires. Bechtel executives were surprised to learn that the Pentagon claimed KBR had extinguished oil fires in Kuwait in 1991. In fact, it was Bechtel that managed the entire firefighting contract,[QUOTE=Barrygoldwater]

That's the part I bolded, did not take out of context, and for some reason, you seem not to have seen, because you're saying that he forgot to mention the opposite.

I'm talking about the Downing Street Minutes. What Tim Russert called "the now famous Downing Street Memo." Famous even though none of the major news outlets made a story out of it. It was British officials discussing what to do about the fact that America was determined to go to war in Iraq.

What we were "determined to" do was stated by Congress in 1998. Regime change. Bush said from the get go that Iraq would face a war if they did not follow the security council resolutions. You are getting caught up in the semantics of a President saying that he did not enjoy having to go to war. To make the claim that in 2002 Bush was saying that he would not go to war in Iraq is dishonest.

I'm talking about the Downing Street Minutes. What Tim Russert called "the now famous Downing Street Memo." Famous even though none of the major news outlets made a story out of it. It was British officials discussing what to do about the fact that America was determined to go to war in Iraq.

I understand. However, the PDB's would answer questions as the Intelligence reports and the information he received. When the 9/11 report came out; I stopped reading it as the people commented they couldn't get access to the PDBs as it involved "National Security"

It was felt they too would damage his claims for war......

He mentions that the Army and the Administration claimed that the other companies couldn't do it, but later an administration admitted that it wasn't true. .

But you cannot prove that they knew that it was not true at the time.

Congress got all of the intelligence information on Iraq that the President did. You want to impeach over daily briefings being classifed to the general public? And a meeting with oil executives? This is simply unreal. And it is why Congress will not and cannot impeach.

Congress doesn't get intelligence. Only certain members.

The shrub made claims about Intelligence. The PDBs would show what he was given. They were denied to the 9/11 commission.

I understand. However, the PDB's would answer questions as the Intelligence reports and the information he received. When the 9/11 report came out; I stopped reading it as the people commented they couldn't get access to the PDBs as it involved "National Security"

It was felt they too would damage his claims for war......

None of this has to do with grounds for impeachment. For Gods sake, now the President has to declassify security briefings to avoid getting impeached? Declassifiying them would be dangerous to national security.

Congress doesn't get intelligence. Only certain members.

President Bush made claims about Intelligence. The PDBs would show what he was given. They were denied to the 9/11 commission.
Hello? Congress has two seperate committees just for intelligence. Every member of Congress can sit in on those meetings and participate in the executive sessions. Once again, you cannot impeach a President for not releasing declassifying is daily briefings.That is just crazy. if you seriously believe that Congress would even dream of trying that then I don't know what to tell you.

Congress doesn't get intelligence. Only certain members.

The members that mattered. :rolleyes:

Stupidity isn't a basis for impeachment as much as some would like it to be.

I voted no because there's no proof about his apparent immorality like the huge cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress.
We need a no confidence recall amendment to The Constitution so that we can recall presidents if they end up being as stupid as Bush and if they keep appointing extremely incompetent people in important positions.

Congress got all of the intelligence information on Iraq that the President did. You want to impeach over daily briefings being classifed to the general public? And a meeting with oil executives? This is simply unreal. And it is why Congress will not and cannot impeach.

That simply isn't true. Congress got what the president gave them, and what he wanted them to see.

What we were "determined to" do was stated by Congress in 1998. Regime change. Bush said from the get go that Iraq would face a war if they did not follow the security council resolutions. You are getting caught up in the semantics of a President saying that he did not enjoy having to go to war. To make the claim that in 2002 Bush was saying that he would not go to war in Iraq is dishonest.

But when Saddam agreed to all the security council resolutions Bush still insisted on war.

The members that mattered. :rolleyes:

Hey the apologist appears!

So have the PDB's been released?

But when Saddam agreed to all the security council resolutions Bush still insisted on war.

Only after Saddam violated them yet again.

And Berry. If the dems take over in 2006, Pelosi already has plans to launch investigations for impeachment based on nothing at all.

Once again, I use facts, the opposition uses insults. Here's how it usualy goes ..

me: fact
liberal: fact
me: fact
liberal: insult
me: fact
liberal: irrelevant to the thread fact
me: fact
liberal: insult

time and time again this pattern holds true

No you don't. You use that special brand of ignorance and irrelevance that marks most conservative argument these days.

Take your statement about the NY Times giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy. You relied on ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "Aid and Comfort" (perhaps yours, perhaps the percieved ingornance of your audience) to argue that what the Times did counts as treason.

You don't use logical arguments. It is not an insult to tell you so. If you think your arguments are logical I really do have serious doubts about your ability to present a thesis that will earn you a masters degree. If you presented this stile of logic an analysis in a paper to any of my professors you would have been laughed at.

No you don't. You use that special brand of ignorance and irrelevance that marks most conservative argument these days.

Take your statement about the NY Times giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy. You relied on ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "Aid and Comfort" (perhaps yours, perhaps the percieved ingornance of your audience) to argue that what the Times did counts as treason.

You don't use logical arguments. It is not an insult to tell you so. If you think your arguments are logical I really do have serious doubts about your ability to present a thesis that will earn you a masters degree. If you presented this stile of logic an analysis in a paper to any of my professors you would have been laughed at.

And you use statements like the above to distract yourself and the others on this forum from the facts that I have presented about a "possible" Bush impeachment. Not only has there been no valid evidence Presented that the President broke a single law, but a 2/3 vote for removal is out of the question. How many Senators do you believe would seriously vote to Impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney?

see?

Well, you took the quote out of context there. See? that's something you do, not your opponents.

The guy had misread my post. He used a condescending tone to tell me that I had overlooked the fact that Nancy Pelosi isn't in fact the House Majority Leader when my post was about what could happen if the Democrats became the majority party.

Sorry Barry. You're pinning that tale (bad pun intended) on the wrong donkey.

And you use statements like the above to distract yourself and the others on this forum from the facts that I have presented about a "possible" Bush impeachment. Not only has there been no valid evidence Presented that the President broke a single law, but a 2/3 vote for removal is out of the question. How many Senators do you believe would seriously vote to Impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney?

The extreme left would but no moderate would.

That simply isn't true. Congress got what the president gave them, and what he wanted them to see.

Congressional committees got to interview the actual intelligence, military, and regional experts. I was at two of the hearings. You can even see them going on right now on Cspan. You ever see those committee hearings?

But when Saddam agreed to all the security council resolutions Bush still insisted on war.

That never happened though. Hussein never followed the more than 12 resolutions that he consistantly openly violated. He had WMD's, he hid them illegally, and he violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire.

I said no, for some other reason.

The reason being he has not done anything to legally merit it.

Also, while he is not the best president we have ever had, neither is he the worst.

I'm disappointed in some of his decisions but I back others. Basically I'm neutralish with only a slight leaning in his favor.

And you use statements like the above to distract yourself and the others on this forum from the facts that I have presented about a "possible" Bush impeachment. Not only has there been no valid evidence Presented that the President broke a single law, but a 2/3 vote for removal is out of the question. How many Senators do you believe would seriously vote to Impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney?

A. You brought up the points to which I was responding. The distraction is yours.
B. The OP was not about a possible impeachment, but an advisable, or desirable impeachment. It's "should he?" not "would he?"
C. I've presented it, but your responses only seem to indicate that you haven't read it, or don't understand it. I really can't respect your analysis when I show you an article and put in bold print the part that says that another company was able to do the job that was not put up for bid, and in fact had done the job in '91 when Bush said that it was done by Halliburton, but for some reason your response is that the article I showed you said is that "they didn't mention that no other company could do the job." It did mention that the Bush administraion said that, and then one of it's members admited that they knew that. If this is how you and Epsilon demonstrate your capacity for analysis then I can't be faulted for your being easily distracted.

That never happened though. Hussein never followed the more than 12 resolutions that he consistantly openly violated. He had WMD's, he hid them illegally, and he violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire.

It did happen. Bush's response to the press when the asked him about the news of Hussein "agreeing to all of the UN's demands" he said "it's a ploy."

And now even Bush admits that Husseing "probably did not have weapons of mass destruction."

No. You cannot impeach a president because he isn't doing well. According to the COnstitution, a president is impeachable for (and I am not sure about the exact quote) "high crimes and misdemeanors." Bush has commited niether. While I personally do not agree with him on many things, I don't want to use the impeachment process as a political tool.

While some amy argue that Bush has commited crimes, he hasn't done anything any other president has done. And if you would impeach Bush for what he has done, then most crisis-time presidents would need to be impeached.

Jefferson went to war without the consent of Congress.
Jackson did not abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court at the time.
Lincoln took away the Habeas Corpus right and the president doesn't ahve the right to do that. I can go on and on.

And notice that all of these presidents are remembered as some of the best presidents of the US.

Anyway, Bush should not be impeached because he simply does not qualify for impeachment.

The OP was not about a possible impeachment, but an advisable, or desirable impeachment. It's "should he?" not "would he?"
.

The reason why he will not be impeached and removed from office is because nothing her merited it. Your article by one journalist that leaves out key facts ( such as that the inability of the other companies to carry out other major tasks took them out of the bidding process) is simply not very relavent.

It did happen. Bush's response to the press when the asked him about the news of Hussein "agreeing to all of the UN's demands" he said "it's a ploy."

Which it was.

And now even Bush admits that Husseing "probably did not have weapons of mass destruction."

Probably didn't have them does not mean he didn't have them.

It did happen. Bush's response to the press when the asked him about the news of Hussein "agreeing to all of the UN's demands" he said "it's a ploy."

And now even Bush admits that Husseing "probably did not have weapons of mass destruction."

Thats right. It was a ploy. he had been saying that for years. Hussein had been claiming to be meeing all U.N. demand even as he was systematicly decieving the inspecters.

Bush said "probably" not. Many Democrats have said "he did not".
Yet we have found more than 500 chemical warhead munitions. And who was it that was lying?

I think it is funny that in our poll 48% of respondents believe that Bush should be impeached for being "up to no good" or "dumb" , niether of which are factors for impeachment. Shows alot about those people.

Same shit, different day.

The reason why he will not be impeached and removed from office is because nothing her merited it. Your article by one journalist that leaves out key facts ( such as that the inability of the other companies to carry out other major tasks took them out of the bidding process) is simply not very relavent.

:headbang: How many times do I have to tell you Barry? It addressed that "fact." It indicated that it wasn't true. Couldn't possibly be true. With this I can safely say that you are incapable of analysis and only employ the sort of hunt and paste research that people like Anne Coulter use. If you can't disprove it, ignore it. If it's shoved in your face deny it.

Thats right. It was a ploy. he had been saying that for years. Hussein had been claiming to be meeing all U.N. demand even as he was systematicly decieving the inspecters.

Bush said "probably" not. Many Democrats have said "he did not".
Yet we have found more than 500 chemical warhead munitions. And who was it that was lying?

The Defense Dept. itself said that that was pre-91 stuff (you know, the stuff we gave him) that had already degraded. It wasn't weapons of mass. It was garbage. Both as material resource and as Republican talking point.

:headbang: How many times do I have to tell you Barry? It addressed that "fact." It indicated that it wasn't true. Couldn't possibly be true.

The article ignores the fact that tasks other than oil fires were major considerations. Also, what organization does "Jim Donahue" work for?

I think it is funny that in our poll 48% of respondents believe that Bush should be impeached for being "up to no good" or "dumb" , niether of which are factors for impeachment. Shows alot about those people.

My sentiment exactly. Part of the greater mistake people always make of seeing something they don't like and immediately jumping to, "FIRE HIM, KICK HIM OUT, KILL 'IM!" :rolleyes: We must follow due processs or people will start turning the law into hysteria. I don't want Bush in office but I have no illusions about feasibly impeaching him...yet.

Which it was.
Yes. Brilliant ploy. Do everything that we tell him. I guess we should just go around arresting random people in the street because they're only not commiting crimes as a ploy to keep from getting arrested.


Probably didn't have them does not mean he didn't have them.
In this context. It certainly does.

The Defense Dept. itself said that that was pre-91 stuff (you know, the stuff we gave him) that had already degraded. It wasn't weapons of mass. It was garbage. Both as material resource and as Republican talking point.
First of all, the UN Resolutions banned "pre-91 stuff" too. Second, Sarin gas is a WMD after it degrades as well. A drop will kill you. That is why the army is still trying to destroy some of the stuff that we manufacted in the 1950's. Denying reality does not change reality.

Yes. Brilliant ploy. Do everything that we tell him. I guess we should just go around arresting random people in the street because they're only not commiting crimes as a ploy to keep from getting arrested.

Wrong oh N.D. He didn't do all that we told him to do. He did half and half. He didn't fully comply. That's the key. He didn't fully comply.

In this context. It certainly does.

No it doesn't.

Yes. Brilliant ploy. Do everything that we tell him. I guess we should just go around arresting random people in the street because they're only not commiting crimes as a ploy to keep from getting arrested.


In this context. It certainly does.

Random people on the street do not decieve weapons inspectors, cheat on oil for food deals, shoot down planes in no-fly zones, break cease-fires, and kill thousands of their own people through brutal police suppression. Generally speaking I am not for arresting random people on the street. I am for ending regimes like Hussein's and replacing them with Democracies.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/donahue.html

If that is the Jim Donahue that wrote your article then you just blew any credibility that you once had. HE IS A LIBERAL ACTIVIST OPINION COLUMNIST! That is not a source! Should I start throwing "facts" at you that come from Sean Hannity?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/donahue.html

If that is the Jim Donahue that wrote your article then you just blew any credibility that you once had. HE IS A LIBERAL ACTIVIST OPINION COLUMNIST! That is not a source! Should I start throwing "facts" at you that come from Sean Hannity?

If you can show me where he has actually said something untrue then I'll admit that he's not a source. That's why I mentioned it before. Take a look at the post again. I challenged you impeach my source.

You have thrown Sean Hannity's garbage at me (the 500 WMD nonsense), and I immediatly debunked it. But I debunked it with information, not "I don't like your source" whiny-baby nonsense.

Also, you should look for some of this yourself. It has taken up until now for you to resort to arguing that you don't approve of the source, when you've not shown me a single source, nor a valid analysis of any information that I have given you. That tells me that you're not trying to engage in debate or even looking to share information. You're trying to show that you're capable of resisting all manner of information without changing your mind.

I have shown you again and again where your analysis has proven faulty. Until I see something better from you Barry I'm going to just classify you as another Corneliu.

FYI, your namesake would be spinning in his grave to see such mindless partisanship being displayed by someone appealing to his memory.

Random people on the street do not decieve weapons inspectors, cheat on oil for food deals, shoot down planes in no-fly zones, break cease-fires, and kill thousands of their own people through brutal police suppression. Generally speaking I am not for arresting random people on the street. I am for ending regimes like Hussein's and replacing them with Democracies.

And in this case you're in favor of replacing them with Anarchies masquerading as Islamic Republics.

I myself am quite pro-bush, but that issue aside, it's nice to see that even those who aren't pro-bush can accept the fact that he IS the president, and there is no viable reason to impeach him, as he hasn't done anything illegal!

I myself am quite pro-bush, but that issue aside, it's nice to see that even those who aren't pro-bush can accept the fact that he IS the president, and there is no viable reason to impeach him, as he hasn't done anything illegal!

At least they haven't proven it yet. Gotta have due process otherwise anytime people disagree with a president they'll chant IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

Yes. He should also be impaled, impeded, imperiled, implicated, imploded, impounded, impoverished, imprecated, impugned and imprisoned.


All because people like you have lied through your teeth about him.:rolleyes:

And in this case you're in favor of replacing them with Anarchies masquerading as Islamic Republics.


Right, No way an Arab can participate in a democracy ---- right???:rolleyes:


What a racist statement.

The Defense Dept. itself said that that was pre-91 stuff (you know, the stuff we gave him) that had already degraded. It wasn't weapons of mass. It was garbage. Both as material resource and as Republican talking point.



Correction. ONE person in the defense department said so.


Either way it is irrelevent. What weapons did you think Bush and the UN were talking about him proving he destroyed????

No you don't. You use that special brand of ignorance and irrelevance that marks most conservative argument these days.

Take your statement about the NY Times giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy. You relied on ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "Aid and Comfort" (perhaps yours, perhaps the percieved ingornance of your audience) to argue that what the Times did counts as treason.

You don't use logical arguments. It is not an insult to tell you so. If you think your arguments are logical I really do have serious doubts about your ability to present a thesis that will earn you a masters degree. If you presented this stile of logic an analysis in a paper to any of my professors you would have been laughed at.


Let me ask you --- how about SPYING for the enemy. The New York Times has repeatedly revealed LEGAL but secret methods and passed that classified information to the enemy. They are the De-Facto intelligence agency of Al-Qaida. The leakers are literally traitors and the NYT is absolutely aiding the enemy in acquiring knowledge they can use to harm us and to avoid harm themselves.

Let me ask you --- how about SPYING for the enemy. The New York Times has repeatedly revealed LEGAL but secret methods and passed that classified information to the enemy. They are the De-Facto intelligence agency of Al-Qaida. The leakers are literally traitors and the NYT is absolutely aiding the enemy in acquiring knowledge they can use to harm us and to avoid harm themselves.

psst: They'll think you're a right wing lunatic that is part of the vast right wing conspiracy for saying something like this.

hell Yeah..!!!

Indeed

Indeed

For what? He's done nothing impeachable.

That simply isn't true. Congress got what the president gave them, and what he wanted them to see.

Then explain how Bill Clinton reached the same conclusion???? Bush was not even the nominee yet when he said essentially the same thing Bush did regarding WMD's and removing Saddam.

Hell the CIA chief that Clinton appointed told Bush that WMD's were "a slam dunk."

But it turns out they were correct anyway there have been TONS of WMD's found. Not just degraded weapons either.

But it turns out they were correct anyway there have been TONS of WMD's found. Not just degraded weapons either.

What have they found that wasn't degraded?

In still other words, "I'm ashamed of my political allegiance, and desperatly afraid that it might be proven to me that I helped create the horrors that this president has created, so please, please, PLEASE don't make me realize that what I'm so afraid of is actually true."


Just what horrors exactly are you referring to???


Cutting the rate of violent death in Iraq from an average of 50,000 per month to around 2,000??? (and nearly all of those at the hands of the very terrorists we are trying to find and prevent from killing innocents????)

Perhaps you resent the freeing of @ 50 MILLION people?????

Or perhaps you liked what happened in Cambodia's killing fields when the left succeeded in helping the N. Vietnamese to drive us out of Vietnam. (2 MILLION deaths can be laid at the feet of the left).


Maybe you resent the economic growth of rather historic proportions that have resulted from his policies.

Or perhaps you are so caught up in an irrational hatred of the President that the TRUTH plays no part in your ethical makeup.:upyours:

Maybe you resent the economic growth of rather historic proportions that have resulted from his policies.

Incase you don't realize it.....the president has no control over the economy. He just takes the credit or the blame.

What have they found that wasn't degraded?


Binary Sarin gas. Read the ISG report (aka the Duelfer report) - the one that the left keeps lying about when they say we found no WMD's.

Yes the VERY SAME report that they keep pointing to, says that Iraq was more dangerous than we anticipated and that we indeed did find WMD's. I posted a link earlier in the thread. Look at annex "F" of the report.

Incase you don't realize it.....the president has no control over the economy. He just takes the credit or the blame.


That is not true. Although he certainly is not omnipotent, there are things that a President can do that makes it easier for businesses to succeed.

The current President did exactly that - and the businesses of America responded.

Just so you know, this is what I do for a living.

That is not true. Although he certainly is not omnipotent, there are things that a President can do that makes it easier for businesses to succeed.

The current President did exactly that - and the businesses of America responded.

Just so you know, this is what I do for a living.

And the people who have studied economics or know anything baout economics will tell you differently. The President does not control the economy.

And the people who have studied economics or know anything baout economics will tell you differently. The President does not control the economy.


Um, I AM an Economist. I also did not say he controlled the economy, he CAN however have a significant impact on it.


Also, here is the link to my post to the DUelfer report that detailed SOME of the weapons found.

There is much more out there since this came out, it just is not getting reported.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11262991&postcount=27



I also want to make clear that I am uncomfortable defending this President, he most certainly has made many mistakes. However, I refuse to let lies and half truths be told without a challenge from the truth.

Um, I AM an Economist. I also did not say he controlled the economy, he CAN however have a significant impact on it.

And I'm a Government and Political Affairs major as well as a history major. The only thing that he can control is taxes.

Also, here is the link to my post to the DUelfer report that detailed SOME of the weapons found.

There is much more out there since this came out, it just is not getting reported.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11262991&postcount=27

Thanks

I also want to make clear that I am uncomfortable defending this President, he most certainly has made many mistakes. However, I refuse to let lies and half truths be told without a challenge from the truth.

I'm glad.

No, because unless you want Dick Cheney to rule the country,:mad: , it is a stupid move to impeach him. Also despite how gratifying it may be to impeach them both we will still end up with a Neo-Con. in control of the Executive Branch and just end up sending the government into complete chaos. It is better to put the fool in control of the government than the Fascist in disguise. It really comes down to a lesser of two evils argument, which would you rather have control the government, Bush, or Cheney *shudders at thought*.

No, because unless you want Dick Cheney to rule the country,:mad: , it is a stupid move to impeach him. Also despite how gratifying it may be to impeach them both we will still end up with a Neo-Con. in control of the Executive Branch and just end up sending the government into complete chaos. It is better to put the fool in control of the government than the Fascist in disguise. It really comes down to a lesser of two evils argument, which would you rather have control the government, Bush, or Cheney *shudders at thought*.

Don't you just love little lefties who have limited vocabulary and have to resort to name calling and accusations to make a point?

Incase you don't realize it.....the president has no control over the economy. He just takes the credit or the blame.

So you are saying the President has no effect on it?

And I'm a Government and Political Affairs major as well as a history major. The only thing that he can control is taxes.

He can affect more than that, the regulatory atmosphere, Foriegn policy can have an enormous effect also (Carter ushering in the Oil Embargo, the current Iraq war etc.)

Also, many programs have long term effects, like education, infrastructure improvements, taxes and trade agreements.

Again, a large portion of the things that affect our economy are not under his control, but he can have a real impact on how things are going.

In my modeling programs, there are literally thousands of variables, and the President can have some effect on roughly a third of them (a guess - I have not actually counted them).



Thanks

No problem.



I'm glad.

Thank YOU.

He can affect more than that, the regulatory atmosphere, Foriegn policy can have an enormous effect also (Carter ushering in the Oil Embargo, the current Iraq war etc.)

Also, many programs have long term effects, like education, infrastructure improvements, taxes and trade agreements.

Again, a large portion of the things that affect our economy are not under his control, but he can have a real impact on how things are going.

Lets compromise and say that everything affects the economy? :D

That never happened though. Hussein never followed the more than 12 resolutions that he consistantly openly violated. He had WMD's, he hid them illegally, and he violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire.
The UN, David Kay, and Charlie Duelfer could not find any WMD. Bush admitted that fact. Case closed.

I am still waiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11269965&postcount=296)for you to provide details of the supposed violation of the ceasefire agreement.

The UN, David Kay, and Charlie Duelfer could not find any WMD. Bush admitted that fact. Case closed.

I am still waiting for you to provide details of the supposed violation of the ceasefire agreement.

Why? Everytime someone points it all out to you, you ignore it. What's the point?

Lets compromise and say that everything affects the economy? :D


Actually, that is not all that far from the truth!

Don't you just love little lefties who have limited vocabulary and have to resort to name calling and accusations to make a point?

Kind of like the righties who bring of Clinton over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as a justification for the wrongs commited by the right.

Don't you just love little lefties who have limited vocabulary and have to resort to name calling and accusations to make a point?

Ha, oh wait I thought that you just called me a "Lefty." Hm, it seems you did, well I suppose if calling me a "Lefty" makes you feel better about yourself...

Kind of like the righties who bring of Clinton over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as a justification for the wrongs commited by the right.

See? Both sides do it. :D Its nothing new.

Ha, oh wait I thought that you just called me a "Lefty." Hm, it seems you did, well I suppose if calling me a "Lefty" makes you feel better about yourself...

How about cute little troll who has to use name calling and accusations with no bases in reality work for you better?

Why? Everytime someone points it all out to you, you ignore it. What's the point?

Ok what cease fire is that?

See? Both sides do it. :D Its nothing new.

Ok I admit to chuckling. ;)

Ok I admit to chuckling. ;)

I believe in doing the opposite of what someone else is doing for the most part. in otherwords, take the opposite side of something to keep the other side in the spotlight.

No...I don't think the people who want Bush impeached want his approval rating to soar 15-20% as a result of the process as it did when the Clinton debacle occured in 1998. Hell, it moved me from a lukewarm Clinton supporter to a full-blown Clintonista by the time it was over...

See? Both sides do it. :D Its nothing new.

Quite true; and chances are that it will continue this way.

Quite true; and chances are that it will continue this way.

At least Life will never get dull.

much as i'd like to say yes...

he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment

At least Life will never get dull.

True, it does keep things interesting, and we'll never run out of things to debate:D .

True, it does keep things interesting, and we'll never run out of things to debate:D .

Amen to that! :)

The UN, David Kay, and Charlie Duelfer could not find any WMD. Bush admitted that fact. Case closed.

I am still waiting for you to provide details of the supposed violation of the ceasefire agreement.


This is simply not true, but don't take my word for it.

Read the Duelfer report - the WHOLE thing not just the parts that the Democrats, the Left and the Press want you to know about.

Here is an interesting portion:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html


Duelfer also said there is "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMD's were moved to Syria.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

We also have the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force on record as saying that he personally supervised 56 jumbo jet flights of WMD's to Syria.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

I am still waiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11269965&postcount=296)for you to provide details of the supposed violation of the ceasefire agreement.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/11/iraq/

Case closed.




Yes it is, so quit lying.

Case closed.




Yes it is, so quit lying.

I told him that many times. He hasn't gotten the hint yet. Be prepared though for long drawn out responses with no basis of facts or very little of it in them.

I told him that many times. He hasn't gotten the hint yet. Be prepared though for long drawn out responses with no basis of facts or very little of it in them.

Sad thing is, the lies are halfway around the world before truth gets it's shoes on.

Sad thing is, the lies are halfway around the world before truth gets it's shoes on.

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth.

President George W. Bush should, by trial of Congress, be impeached, and by trial by Senate, be convicted of that impeachment.

Let me preface by reminding the reader of the terms of impeachment. While the Constitution makes it very clear that the President must be impeached "for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (Article II, Section IV, US Constitution)," there exist other, de facto conditions for conviction of Impeachment, that are held as principles of general consensus by American lawmakers, if not by the law itself. For example, in the impeachment process of WJ Clinton, while he openly admitted to the Senate and the American public of his wrongdoing (tantamount to a guilty plea in a civil trial) he was not convicted for impeachment. This is because it is generally agreed that impeachment is inherently undemocratic; the office of the President is filled by the decision of the public, and removing him is a decision made by a select few, in this case, the Senate. Hence, the crimes of the President must not be simply letter-for-letter fulfillment of the terms of the Impeachment clause of the Constitution, but the actions of the President must directly threaten the democratic process in the United States.

That being said, let me continue with the President's impeachment.

I. FOR VIOLATION OF THE 1978 FISA ACT WITHOUT REMOTELY DECENT CAUSE

The 1978 FISA Act makes it explicity, inarguable, incontravertibly clear that, in 100% of all circumstances anywhere in the jurisdication of the United States, the Congress, acting through an arm called the FISA courts, is the ONLY body that may allow surveillance of foreign nationals or international bodies, or to grant surveillance warrants for American citizens.

However, earlier this year, it came out that orders, originating at the top echelons of the executive branch, had been given to the NSA to create a database of phone records, if not literal recordings, of certain foreign nationals living in the United States, and of all American citizens subscribing to those phone companies that cooperated with this program. No warrant was sought, but memos were secured from Alberto Gonzales assuring the President (falsely) that the program was legal, as in, the appropriate fall-men were set up to protect the President.

This program is a direct attempt by the chief of the Executive Branch to override the checks and balances gauranteed by the Constitution and, in so doing, violated federal law (the FISA Act), and, as is implicit in violation of checks and balances, damaged the democratic process in the United States. For this, he must be impeached.

II. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND FOR ENCOURAGING SUBORDINATES TO DECIEVE CONGRESS IN REGARDS TO THE IRAQ INVASION OF 2003

Shortly after recieving orders from above to read a report to the United Nations Security Council stating that Iraq was already in possession of nuclear weapons, then-Defense Secretary Colin Powell reportedly threw the report up in the air and said, paraphrased, "I can't read this, this is bullshit" (expletive in original).

That being said, an infamous document today known as the "Downing Street Memo," available in complete text at www.afterdowningstreet.org, contains a written correspondance between President Bush and the UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly stating that it was in the interest of both nations to distort or forge intelligence on Iraq's capability to develop or deploy weapons of mass destruction to increase popular support for a ground invasion. This document contains several statements that were later made to Congress non verbatum, such as the claims that solid and reliable intelligence had located portable bacteriological laboratory-trucks circling around Iraq, as well as silos and warehouses where weapons-grade fissile material and vials filled with bacteriological weapons were being stored. None of that was true.

Also, implied connections between Saddan Hussein and Al Qaeda were reported to be embellished, the truth being rather contrary to what underlings of the current Washington administration had released. In fact, it was well-known in intelligence circles that Hussen and bin Laden were at odds in that Hussein governed the only Middle Eastern nation other than Israel that did not comprehensively integrate the Koran into common law). However, statements by the President, the Vice President, and subordinates of both men are directly contrary to known intelligence.

These statements are tantamount to treason in that they lead directly to the needless deaths of American young in Iraq, which continue to this day, and in that they constitute deliberate, open deception of Congress, the crime for which WJ Clinton was impeached in 1998, and overstepped the bounds of the executive branch by trying to provide rationale for war, which only Congress may declare. For this, GW Bush must be impeached.

III. FOR DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF THE US SENATE REGARDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF

During an investigation relating to confessions made by toppled GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the President stated to official investigators, an arm of the US Congress, that he could not recall ever having had met Jack Abramoff.

Photos of the President and Mr. Abramoff are available online at these sites:
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/bush_abramoff_together1.jpg
http://www.humorgazette.com/images?D=D
http://www.macalester.edu/macdems/uploaded_images/BushAbramoff-753525.jpg

A story posted by the USA Today paper, dated 6/26/06, states clearly that lobbyist Jack Abramoff, with associate Grover Norquist, traded enormous sums of money, much of which was funneled into Norquist's tax-exempt group, for face time with the President. It also outlines several very blunt, incontravertible email statements on the matter between Abramoff and Norquist, as well as the President's media expert, Karl Rove. The Senate concluded beyond a doubt that they had met at least once, starting in 2001. They also show the use of American aboriginal tribal donations used to solicit access to the President, on numerous occasions.

Abramoff's lawyers were not available for comment.

For this, flagrant deception of the Congress, and attempting to pass off deliberate deception as forgetfulness, thereby impeding the judicial process, in violation of the checks and balances of the Constitution in its stated purpose of preventing the Senate's judicial arm from executing the law, the President has threatened American democracy, and must be impeached.

IV. FOR VIOLATION OF FOREIGN TREATIES RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, IN THE ETERNAL DETENTION OF HUMAN BEINGS AT THE GUANTANAMO BASE IN CUBA, AS WELL AS FOR SECRET PROGRAMS OF RENDITION

The orders for this well-known internment camp came directly from the top of the executive branch.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision at the end of June of this year, ruled that the President had overstepped his executive privilege in ordering the interned prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to be tried by military tribunal, rather than in civil court or through appropriate channels of extradition.

He has also ordered, taking the place of powers granted explicitly to the Judicial Branch, multiple foreign nationsl to be transferred from American custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to secret facilities, mainly in Eastern Europe, Egypt, and other American allies in northern Africa, where they were tortured, as well as for allowing conditions that qualify beyond a doubt as torture to proceed unimpeded at Guantanamo Bay. The Constitution makes it quite clear that treaties ratified by the Congress are the law of the land wherever the United States has jurisdiction, and this program not only oversteps the reach of the executive branch, it violates dozens of international laws regarding extradition and bans on torture. The deliberate manipulation of the intelligence committee through hand-picked underlings constitutes an incontravertible violation of executive privilege in its usurpation of the powers of Congress to enforce the law, or of the Judicial branch to evaluate the law.

For all these things, the President MUST BE IMPEACHED.

The evidence is inarguable and incontravertible.

Chris Ray
impromptu ambassador for
the American Civil Liberties Untion
and the Center for Constitutional Rights

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/11/iraq/
Unacceptable trivia. This is an article from 1996, and does not provide the US with an excuse to invade Iraq in 2003.

Try again.

Edit: Please note that No-Fly Zones (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)were not endorsed by the UN.

Yes it is, so quit lying.
You are calling me a liar? Then you are calling Hans Blix, David Kay, Charlie Duelfer, and George Bush a liar as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50

I told him that many times. He hasn't gotten the hint yet. Be prepared though for long drawn out responses with no basis of facts or very little of it in them.
Quit trolling. :p

Chew on some of your Popcorn (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181).

Unacceptable trivia. This is an article from 1996, and does not provide the US with an excuse to invade Iraq in 2003.

Try again.

Edit: Please note that No-Fly Zones were not endorsed by the UN.
Yep... post something that CH doesn't like, and it becomes "unacceptable trivia."

:rolleyes:

Yep... post something that CH doesn't like, and it becomes "unacceptable trivia."

:rolleyes:
The US did NOT go to war against Iraq because of a ceasefire violation.

Prove otherwise. :D

The US did NOT go to war against Iraq because of a ceasefire violation.

Prove otherwise. :D
That wasn't the point. The point was that Iraq violated the cease fire agreement.
You said you were still waiting for details about the
supposed violation of the ceasefire agreement

When just one example is posted, you change your tune to the non-argument about what the US did or did not go to war because.

That wasn't the point. The point was that Iraq violated the cease fire agreement.
Actually, since the No-Fly Zones were not recognized by the UN, there was no violation of the ceasefire according to some pundits, who also claimed that Iraq never ceded their sovereign right to defend their air space.

You said you were still waiting for details about the

When just one example is posted, you change your tune to the non-argument about what the US did or did not go to war because.
It is not an "non argument", whereby your rebuttal is.

Bush should not be impeached. His entire administration should be impeached.