NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6428325.stm

We all know America is a mess - Clinton gets impeached for cumming on an intern and lying about it, Bush lies about Iraq, WMD, the Sept 11th culprits being Saudi and send thousands of U.S servicemen to their death and he gets re-elected.

Should this idea in Vermont be taken further by Congress?

Well, when you want something done ... I do wish Congress had the intestinal fortitude to start impeachment proceedings, but I quite understand why they won't.

They should've impeached him long, long ago.





Fucklong ago.

Under what grounds? He hasn't done anything wrong. Sure i disagree with the Iraq war but going to war on wrong intel is not illegal, it's just stupid. And even if they had a decent reason the republicans would never allow it.

Just goes to show what an 'Old boys club' American politics is. Robert Mugabe would be proud the level of corruption and lies that have protected Shrub.

Under what grounds? He hasn't done anything wrong. Sure i disagree with the Iraq war but going to war on wrong intel is not illegal, it's just stupid. And even if they had a decent reason the republicans would never allow it.

Fucking an intern and lying about is 'just stupid'. No-one died because of it though did they? Having your cock sucked compared to dodgy relationships with the Taliban and the Bin Ladin family and sending troops to war on a lie do not compare.

Just goes to show what an 'Old boys club' American politics is. Robert Mugabe would be proud the level of corruption and lies that have protected Shrub. He hasn't done anything illegal. Go back to your sociology department in Leeds, please.

He hasn't done anything illegal. Go back to your sociology department in Leeds, please.

America sees itself as above international law so them doing anything 'illegal' is a moot point. Plus I have never been to Leeds or studied sociology. Plus the location 'Engerland' makes almost all your own opinions moot as well.

Well, when you want something done ... I do wish Congress had the intestinal fortitude to start impeachment proceedings, but I quite understand why they won't.
Because they haven't got the balls, the will or the political strength? Because the Democrats have been nothing more than a nuisance or accomplice to the Republicans since the late 70's?

Just goes to show what an 'Old boys club' American politics is. Robert Mugabe would be proud the level of corruption and lies that have protected Shrub.

Blairs as guilty. Odds of him getting his? SFA.

Because they haven't got the balls, the will or the political strength? Because the Democrats have been nothing more than a nuisance or accomplice to the Republicans since the late 70's?

Because they just spent 12 years in the wilderness and want to make sure they hold onto Congress. I don't agree that the two parties have been essentially the same since the late 70's. The convergence is more recent than that, and I still have hopes that the Democrats can find a voice and a message. The Republicans offer nothing except the dismantling of every bit of social progress made in this country since the 1930's.

You can say they're all alike, but the Libertarians don't offer anything beyond "I ain't payin' no damn taxes!" and there isn't anyone else out there. So I'll work with the Democratic Party and try to improve the country as best I can.

Impeaching Bush would feel very, very good, but it's not going to happen, sadly.

America sees itself as above international law so them doing anything 'illegal' is a moot point. Plus I have never been to Leeds or studied sociology. Plus the location 'Engerland' makes almost all your own opinions moot as well.

Prove he broke an international law and you may have a case. But you have to PROVE he broke the law to even begin impeachment proceedings.

Prove he broke an international law and you may have a case. But you have to PROVE he broke the law to even begin impeachment proceedings.

Why international law?

He hasn't done anything illegal. Go back to your sociology department in Leeds, please.
Instead of your council house in Burnley?

Because they just spent 12 years in the wilderness and want to make sure they hold onto Congress.
Which they aren't going to be able to do unless they start pulling together and kicking right-wing ass.
I don't agree that the two parties have been essentially the same since the late 70's. The convergence is more recent than that, and I still have hopes that the Democrats can find a voice and a message.
The golden era of the Democratic party lasted from the 30's to the 60's, at which point they started going downhill and finally died with the election of Jimmy Carter. Since then, they've been a political anachronism.
The Republicans offer nothing except the dismantling of every bit of social progress made in this country since the 1930's.
The Republicans offer a strong, unified government that is willing to do what needs to be done to get things accomplished, and people respond favorably to that.
You can say they're all alike, but the Libertarians don't offer anything beyond "I ain't payin' no damn taxes!" and there isn't anyone else out there. So I'll work with the Democratic Party and try to improve the country as best I can.
I'm not sure why you mention the Libertarians, since they haven't got any more of a prayer than the Greens or any other third party.

Prove he broke an international law and you may have a case. But you have to PROVE he broke the law to even begin impeachment proceedings.

From Article 2 of the UN charter:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

A discussion of the legality of the invasion can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion).

Well, when you want something done ... I do wish Congress had the intestinal fortitude to start impeachment proceedings, but I quite understand why they won't.

Because the democrats aren't dumb.

They know that if they move to impeach Bush, they A.) Don't have the votes, and B.) An impeachment attempt, espescially a failed one, will electrify the right, driving them into an electoral frenzy just before 2008.

An impeachment attempt, espescially a failed one, will electrify the right, driving them into an electoral frenzy just before 2008.
Or it could give them a chance to demonstrate some political muscle and courage, while giving them a public spectacle through which to attack Bush (and, with the aid of a few generalizations, Republicans in general) and create a rallying point for the Democratic party.

He hasn't done anything illegal.

He implemented a system of wiretaps that violated the Constitution. That's illegal. And, to add insult to injury, he violated the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution. So, he lied under oath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6428325.stm

We all know America is a mess - Clinton gets impeached for cumming on an intern and lying about it, Bush lies about Iraq, WMD, the Sept 11th culprits being Saudi and send thousands of U.S servicemen to their death and he gets re-elected.

Should this idea in Vermont be taken further by Congress?

No because Congress authorized the war and thus made things legal for Bush to launch his invasion of Iraq. Sorry but there is absolutely no merit to this.

Because the democrats aren't dumb.

They know that if they move to impeach Bush, they A.) Don't have the votes, and B.) An impeachment attempt, espescially a failed one, will electrify the right, driving them into an electoral frenzy just before 2008.

Or it could give them a chance to demonstrate some political muscle and courage, while giving them a public spectacle through which to attack Bush (and, with the aid of a few generalizations, Republicans in general) and create a rallying point for the Democratic party.

I agree with Andaluciae. Sorry, Fiddlebottoms, but these days, the gentler gamester is the sooner winner. In fact, they could make a point of not impeaching him. "Sure, we could have brought impeach proceding against the President but we felt that governing the country was more important. We didn't go after him the way the Republicans went after President Clinton, even though we could have made a better case that President Bush had committed more serious crimes than Clinton." That could work.

Fucking an intern and lying about is 'just stupid'. No-one died because of it though did they?

I don't know. How many Iraqis died during Operation Desert Fox that was launched to kick this off the front page? I do not think we actually got a count on that.

He hasn't done anything illegal. Go back to your sociology department in Leeds, please.

I agree.

Prove he broke an international law and you may have a case. But you have to PROVE he broke the law to even begin impeachment proceedings.

Prove that he broke US Law. That is all that is required for Impeachment. Since he hasn't....

Because the democrats aren't dumb.

They know that if they move to impeach Bush, they A.) Don't have the votes, and B.) An impeachment attempt, espescially a failed one, will electrify the right, driving them into an electoral frenzy just before 2008.

Much like what happened after the failed conviction of President Clinton.

He implemented a system of wiretaps that violated the Constitution. That's illegal. And, to add insult to injury, he violated the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution. So, he lied under oath.

Now prove that it violated the Law of the United States.

Now prove that it violated the Law of the United States.

This just in! Wiretaps that violate the law do not actually violate the law! Honestly Corny, I expected better of you than to make a claim that unbelievably stupid.

This just in! Wiretaps that violate the law do not actually violate the law! Honestly Corny, I expected better of you than to make a claim that unbelievably stupid.

:rolleyes:

Prove that it actually violates US Law and then you'll have a case. Congress can not prove it without admiting that past presidents (Billy boy included) violated the same law. So go on and prove that Bush violated the law. Once its proven, take away the pensions of all the living past presidents who have done the samething.

:rolleyes:

Prove that it actually violates US Law and then you'll have a case. Congress can not prove it without admiting that past presidents (Billy boy included) violated the same law. So go on and prove that Bush violated the law. Once its proven, take away the pensions of all the living past presidents who have done the samething.

I've explained it before, many, many times. Wiretaps on suspected foreign intelligence agents require a FISA warrant. These wiretaps went ahead without the warrant, and thus violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Unless you want to claim that violating a law is not illegal, you've just lost.

:rolleyes:

Prove that it actually violates US Law and then you'll have a case. Congress can not prove it without admiting that past presidents (Billy boy included) violated the same law. So go on and prove that Bush violated the law. Once its proven, take away the pensions of all the living past presidents who have done the samething.

Rulings are typically not applied retroactively.

It wouldn't be retroactive in Bush's case, if he is still doing it. Otherwise, it might be too late.

I don't need Bush impeached. It would be a waste of time and money, and would really prove nothing. Congress should get to work in earnest undoing the damage done to the United States by the Bush Administration, both at home and abroad. On September 12th, nearly every country on earth stood beside us, including those notorious surrender-monkeys the French and those deceitful pseudo-allies, the Germans, and we were glad of their support and sympathy. Since then we've gone from avenging a terrorist attack to avenging a purported plot against the President's father, sold with faulty intelligence to a frightened Congress. I hope Congress has recovered enough of itself to begin the work of repairing this country. Time will remove George W. Bush from office soon enough and history will judge him. That's enough for me.

I've explained it before, many, many times. Wiretaps on suspected foreign intelligence agents require a FISA warrant.

Not if you are already at war with said country. That is the crux of the problem.

Not if you are already at war with said country. That is the crux of the problem.

You were at war with Europe recently?

I don't need Bush impeached. It would be a waste of time and money, and would really prove nothing. Congress should get to work in earnest undoing the damage done to the United States by the Bush Administration, both at home and abroad. On September 12th, nearly every country on earth stood beside us, including those notorious surrender-monkeys the French and those deceitful pseudo-allies, the Germans, and we were glad of their support and sympathy. Since then we've gone from avenging a terrorist attack to avenging a purported plot against the President's father, sold with faulty intelligence to a frightened Congress. I hope Congress has recovered enough of itself to begin the work of repairing this country. Time will remove George W. Bush from office soon enough and history will judge him. That's enough for me.

I with everything but the first. The first thing on the list for Congress to do is to show that they care about the rule of law more than they care about political gamesmanship, which is really what the impeachment proceedings are about. By impeaching Clinton and not impeaching Bush, we've effectively made the case that both the crime of violating the Constitution and the punishment thereof are subject to the whims of the legislature, rather than any abject consideration for the violation done to the Constitution itself.

Not if you are already at war with said country. That is the crux of the problem.

I just checked, and I found no provision.

I just checked, and I found no provision.

I believe he is about to play the "war powers of the Presidency" card. Nevermind that the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer case systematically demolished that argument over 50 years before Corneliu ever made it.

Not if you are already at war with said country.

this is not true twice. that's nearly impressive.

http://www.nevadaobserver.com/TNO%20Reference%20Page%20File/Thomas%20Nast%20Cartoons/11%20The%20Boss%20Still%20Has%20the%20Reins.jpg

basically what I'm saying is Bush isn't the one breaking international law the American people are by voting and supporting him as such the fact that court is the arm of the people comes to bare yet again (in other words it doesn't matter what he’s done he’s still innocent)

I just thought I’d show it in an arty way

http://www.nevadaobserver.com/TNO%20Reference%20Page%20File/Thomas%20Nast%20Cartoons/11%20The%20Boss%20Still%20Has%20the%20Reins.jpg

basically what I'm saying is Bush isn't the one breaking international law the American people are by voting and supporting him as such the fact that court is the arm of the people comes to bare yet again (in other words it doesn't matter what he’s done he’s still innocent)

I just thought I’d show it in an arty way

Ah, William Marcy Tweed. At least with Boss Tweed, you knew where you stood. He never had his underlings out a CIA agent's identity, I betcha. :D

I agree with Andaluciae. Sorry, Fiddlebottoms, but these days, the gentler gamester is the sooner winner. In fact, they could make a point of not impeaching him. "Sure, we could have brought impeach proceding against the President but we felt that governing the country was more important. We didn't go after him the way the Republicans went after President Clinton, even though we could have made a better case that President Bush had committed more serious crimes than Clinton." That could work.

I believe Speaker Pelosi has said something much to that effect.

I agree with Andaluciae. Sorry, Fiddlebottoms, but these days, the gentler gamester is the sooner winner.
The gentle touch never works, if you want the people to do something, you have to grab them by the throat and drag them along with you.
In fact, they could make a point of not impeaching him. "Sure, we could have brought impeach proceding against the President but we felt that governing the country was more important. We didn't go after him the way the Republicans went after President Clinton, even though we could have made a better case that President Bush had committed more serious crimes than Clinton." That could work.
Important non-binding resolutions, you mean.

The gentle touch never works, if you want the people to do something, you have to grab them by the throat and drag them along with you.

Important non-binding resolutions, you mean.

I feel sorry for you if you think that the only way to get people to do something is by violence. We've tried violence in Iraq, how's that working out for us?

I think the non-binding resolution was a waste of time, too, except that it made some people in Congress feel better and gave them material for election campaign sound-bites. No, I think passing meaningful legislation, revising that abomination, the Military Commissions Act, making sure the administration doesn't gut social programs as part of its smoke-and-mirrors "look, we're balancing the budget!" act, these are the real work Congress needs to get on with.

Look, we'll never get Bush to commit to doing anything but slogging it out in Iraq. He's already said that the exit strategy will be the concern of a future president. We just need to make sure that he does as little damage domestically as possible, and that the soldiers who survive his war are treated equitably, as are the widows and orphans he creates with it.

I feel sorry for you if you think that the only way to get people to do something is by violence. We've tried violence in Iraq, how's that working out for us?
I'd say it is fairly obvious that I didn't mean literal violence, I'm not crazy enough to suggest that Nancy Pelosi start calling hits on Republican Senators.
I meant that the Democrats need to take charge, be aggressive and get their base excited at the prospect of a Democrat controlled government. At their core, humans are heard animals, they want to be lead, and if all the Democrats can offer is good-feelings and damage-control, they'll fall back away again.