NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

Because politicians are a bunch of fucking pussies.

Because 1)I doubt Congress would do it and 2)He's gone in just over a year anyway.

Because the US government system means the American people themselves aren't involved in it at all except for elections. One would think that's a good thing but unfortunately the US does not have desirable politicians as you can see. and the American publik is generally dumb.

Nixon to Bush: "Thanks for stealing the spotlight for worst president in american history. Now I have nothing, and they impeached me!"

That's how I'd imangine it.

He's got no intention of leaving office anytime soon. If he were impeached, I've got a feeling he'd find a way around and/or out of it.

and the American publik is generally dumb.

But they're still smarter than random generalizers.

he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?)

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.

he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer

He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free. The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president. Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

he's started an illegal war

Actually, the war was approved by Congress (and by a wide margin, too, I might add). If you are referring to the lack of UN approval, keep in mind that it does not supersede our democracy; the people of this country have the right to decide our foreign policy decisions, not people in Myanmar, China, Russia, France, North Korea, Sudan, Lebanon, etc. We are not influenced by what the rest of the world believes or if it deems our behavior to be "illegal." I could care less.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

Are you suggesting that the Constitution is actually a hologram? Or are you merely surprised every time Bush makes a factually accurate statement?

But they're still smarter than random generalizers.

You haven't been to the US have you

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.



He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free. The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president. Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.



Actually, the war was approved by Congress (and by a wide margin, too, I might add). If you are referring to the lack of UN approval, keep in mind that it does not supersede our democracy; the people of this country have the right to decide our foreign policy decisions, not people in Myanmar, China, Russia, France, North Korea, Sudan, Lebanon, etc. We are not influenced by what the rest of the world believes or if it deems our behavior to be "illegal." I could care less.



Are you suggesting that the Constitution is actually a hologram? Or are you merely surprised every time Bush makes a factually accurate statement?

I glanced at this post and noticed it was generally blindly supporting Bush and ignoring the SEVERE torture (which was spoken about recently by a survivor at an anti-war demo). I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with it.

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.

Yeah, wiretapping innocent civilians is unreasonable. And wiretapping is considered a search.

So you're Batting 0/2.


He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free.

Bullshit.

0/3

The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president.

Well, not publicly, anyway...

0/4

Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

Suspending Habeas Corpus endangers public safety.

0/5

Actually, the war was approved by Congress (and by a wide margin, too, I might add).

Because the president and his lackeys (Or, more accurately, masters) lied to congress.

0/6

We are not influenced by what the rest of the world believes or if it deems our behavior to be "illegal." I could care less.

You'd care more if they had had cut of trade with us, leaving us totally isolated due to our presidents stubborn idiocy.

0/7


Are you suggesting that the Constitution is actually a hologram? Or are you merely surprised every time Bush makes a factually accurate statement?

Now you're being even more intellectually dishonest than usual. You know damn well what he meant.

0/8

All in all: Your pitiful, flag-waving excuses for arguments don't stand up to a light breeze, let alone scrutiny.

Fail/Infinity

you seriously cant blame everything on our president. we do have a congress which makes decisions. and George Bush is no where near the worst president. President James Buchanan Allowed the south to just leave the union, causing Americas bloodiest war. The war in Iraqs purpose was masked, we arent there just to fight terrorism and to liberate the people. But perhaps to stabilize the Middle East, i dont agree with it, it hasnt exactly worked, but that area needs to be stable in order to protect oil, one of the most important substances on earth, its not right, but maybe we should stop listening to the pessimistic media and trust our government.

You haven't been to the US have you

I live there. Frankly, your generalizations are even stupider than you so foolishly claim Americans to be.

Face it, if an illegal regime stole power in your country, you wouldn't be able to do much about it either.

you seriously cant blame everything on our president. we do have a congress which makes decisions.

Which the president promptly ignores.

Well, not publicly, anyway...

0/4


Not that I agree with anything FreedomAndGlory has said conspiracy theories don't really hold up in an argument

ooo looks like this is gonna heat up... I'll leave you guys (and gals) to it :sniper:

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

Are you suggesting that the Constitution is actually a hologram? Or are you merely surprised every time Bush makes a factually accurate statement?

Are you suggesting that the Constitution is damned by God?

I tell you why they haven't impeached him, because once Bush is gone that means Cheney is president for the remainder of the term. I think I'd rather stick with the Bush over Cheney.

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.
Maybe it quotes just "papers" (such as mail) because back in XVIII century there was no phone.

He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free.
Whoa, the terrible Al-Qaida terrorists reveal their secrets if the powerful american soldier says "boo". :rolleyes: Please...

Anyway, I think that Bush jr. has shown the many limits the US Constitution has. Maybe, after 200+ years, it is time to reform it a bit, just to keep it in touch with the present.

Yeah, wiretapping innocent civilians is unreasonable. And wiretapping is considered a search.

So you're Batting 0/2.




Bullshit.

0/3



Well, not publicly, anyway...

0/4



Suspending Habeas Corpus endangers public safety.

0/5



Because the president and his lackeys (Or, more accurately, masters) lied to congress.

0/6



You'd care more if they had had cut of trade with us, leaving us totally isolated due to our presidents stubborn idiocy.

0/7



Now you're being even more intellectually dishonest than usual. You know damn well what he meant.

0/8

All in all: Your pitiful, flag-waving excuses for arguments don't stand up to a light breeze, let alone scrutiny.

Fail/Infinity

All of those 'facts' that you named were completely opinions... whereas your opponent brought up valid points, for or against Bush... you clearly have no argument... you should enroll in the soonest debate class possible you need the training... also Bush never lied, there was certainly a chance that Iraq had illegal weaponry since they broke what, 17 UN sancitons about unrestricted weapons inspector access? That makes me not only assume that they must have had illegal weaponry, why else would hide things? It also gives the UN (and us, since we are part of the UN) the duty, the moral obligation to invade Iraq and depose the regime of a terrible dicatator who also caused the death of thousands of people on an ethnic basis... no one disagrees with UN intervention is Serbia when Serbia 'ethinically cleansed' Kosovo (note, Kosovo was NOT a foreign state at the time, but rather and ethnically diverse province of Serbia)... any other bad arguments?

The war in Iraqs purpose was masked, we arent there just to fight terrorism and to liberate the people. But perhaps to stabilize the Middle East, i dont agree with it, it hasnt exactly worked, but that area needs to be stable in order to protect oil, one of the most important substances on earth, its not right, but maybe we should stop listening to the pessimistic media and trust our government.

The Iraq war to stabalize the Middle East? What part was supposed to do that, the removing the only thing keeping Iran from destabalizing the Middle East (Iraq) or by getting rid of a secular government that was fighting terrorism (because terrorist hated Saddam's secular government too.)

also Bush never lied

The decision to invade Iraq was made before the 9/11 attacks.

any other bad arguments?

You mean other than the ones you just posted?

Everything YOU posted was an opinion as well. It's an OPINION, not a fact, that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator. It's an OPINION that there was a valid suspicion of him having nuclear weapons.

Anyway, I think that Bush jr. has shown the many limits the US Constitution has. Maybe, after 200+ years, it is time to reform it a bit, just to keep it in touch with the present.

The amendment process is a bit too difficult to get anything sensible passed these days. As for a new Constitution, I'm terrified as to what sort of monstrosity people would come up with.

I live there. Frankly, your generalizations are even stupider than you so foolishly claim Americans to be.

Face it, if an illegal regime stole power in your country, you wouldn't be able to do much about it either.

Are you implying that Bush is somehow an illegal regime that stole power? Rather than, say one person with a few executive powers who was voted in twice by the American Citizens under the constricts of the Electoral College?

The decision to invade Iraq was made before the 9/11 attacks.

I'm sure that you can prove this statement.... Facts remember?

Are you implying that Bush is somehow an illegal regime that stole power? Rather than, say one person with a few executive powers who was voted in twice by the American Citizens under the constricts of the Electoral College?

He stole power at least once. He was voted in once by the SUPREME COURT not "American Citizens under the constricts of the electoral college.

I tell you why they haven't impeached him, because once Bush is gone that means Cheney is president for the remainder of the term. I think I'd rather stick with the Bush over Cheney.

You do realize that there is talk of impeaching Cheney, do you not? Or at least there was.

Impeach the lot of them.

Then we get a Pres Pelosi...

Damn.

When the Southern States left the Union it was their Constitutional right to do so. This all changed after Lincoln's oppressive war to centralize the Federal Government. The US Civil War was not about slavery initially (that was a retcon Lincoln sponsored to bolster the morale of the North when the South was handing them their ass before they ran out of supplies. President Bush also retcons his reasons for going to war). All of the bloodshed could have been avoided if the Southern States had been allowed their 'supposedly' Constitutionally protected freedoms. If only the South had won the war we would not now be so oppressed by our own government. Pretty much the Constitution protects whatever the current Federal Government says it protects and not what the founders of the country had intended it to protect. If you are an American and of legal voting age, please change your party affiliation to Republican (at least temporarily through the primary) and then please vote for Ron Paul (if you are unfamiliar with Ron Paul please take a moment to search out what he stands for) in order to restore the Constitution so it can be more than "just a goddamn piece of paper" again. Thank you.

He stole power at least once. He was voted in once by the SUPREME COURT not "American Citizens under the constricts of the electoral college.

I'd rather see him convicted on something that is more readily apparent.

Such as his wire-tapping actually being declared a felony. Which it has.

Oh god I can't wait till his time in office is over, I'm debating moving to Canada, I have dual citizenship. I wish he would just curl up in a hole and rot. D:

Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

Then why didn't the administration use that as their arguement? As I recall, AG Gonzalez argued that habeus corpus could be suspended because although the Constitution bars abridging the right, it didn't specifically grant it in the first place.

I'd rather see him convicted on something that is more readily apparent.

Such as his wire-tapping actually being declared a felony. Which it has.

As long as Cheney goes down with him. It would be no good if Bush went and we were stuck with President Cheney.

*shudders*

factually accurate statement?

How do you know that God actually damned the Constitution? It's not god-damned then.

... also Bush never lied, there was certainly a chance that Iraq had illegal weaponry since they broke what, 17 UN sancitons about unrestricted weapons inspector access? That makes me not only assume that they must have had illegal weaponry, why else would hide things? It also gives the UN (and us, since we are part of the UN) the duty, the moral obligation to invade Iraq and depose the regime of a terrible dicatator who also caused the death of thousands of people on an ethnic basis... no one disagrees with UN intervention is Serbia when Serbia 'ethinically cleansed' Kosovo (note, Kosovo was NOT a foreign state at the time, but rather and ethnically diverse province of Serbia)... any other bad arguments?

The UN ultimately didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Namely because the UN inspectors found:

NO WEAPONS

Not to mention the UN secretariat and various prominent UN member state governments knew what would happen if Saddam where suddenly removed (i.e Sectarian violence, Destabilisation of the region, Increase in terrorism).

Take a look at the UN charter, also. In it, there is no clause detailing that the organisation has a duty to invade and depose leaders of sovereign nations.

He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free. The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president. Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

I demand to know what enemy we are up against now that we have not faced in the past?
The Chinese? I think a war with China would be all over the news, that can't be it.
Russians? Again, big name, so unlikely
Well it can't be terrorists because that would mean you are proposing terrorists didn't start appearing until George W Bush took office. Are you blaming Bush for creating terrorism against the US?

As long as Cheney goes down with him. It would be no good if Bush went and we were stuck with President Cheney.

*shudders*

Please, don't even joke about that.

Why hasn't Bush been impeached?

Because the Democrat's leadership was tragically born sans spine.

How do you know that God actually damned the Constitution? It's not god-damned then.

God talks to Bush, didn't you know that? Clearly some deity spoke to him and told Bush that the Constitution is damned and that Bush no longer needs to follow it.

Either that or Bush is a (insert expletive here) and doesn't like following rules that are in his way.

Even if Bush gets convicted of a crime, he probably would not be removed from office, look at the President Clinton fiasco. And think of the costs! Tax payers money would go to pay for the court hearings and the research. I shudder to think of the complaints from people about there money going to waste.
No matter how bad everyone think the president is, he should not be impeached. My personal opinion

At this point, it would do absolutely nothing constructive to impeach him. Let's try and remember that impeachment does not mean removal from office here.

Remember how long the process took with Clinton? How stupid America looked/felt as a people that Starr dicked around and got *nothing* done for months while he aired the dirty laundry of the nation?

By no means do I wish to imply that getting your knob polished in the Big O Office is on the same level of bastard-ry and rampant douche baggery that, say, refusing to take into account the spirit of the Constitution and masking yourself with the letter of a purposely "frame-work only" document would be. Or maybe stomping all over the ability of the United States to have comfortable foreign policy with any nation without them being concerned that Dubya is going to walk less softly and carry a much bigger stick in their own backyards.

My point is more that America's time and resources might be better spent concentrating on the next election, and making sure the government put into effect begins rectifying the errors of this, at best, lame duck administration. Face it, folks, Dubyah's days are numbered, and while he will do everything he can to make his territorial pissing into a lasting stain on the trouser legs of America, time is running out, and the chance of a new day approaches.

Vote! Dang it! *grumble*


~KALLISTI~


/me recedes back into lurk-ery.

When the Southern States left the Union it was their Constitutional right to do so. This all changed after Lincoln's oppressive war to centralize the Federal Government. The US Civil War was not about slavery initially (that was a retcon Lincoln sponsored to bolster the morale of the North when the South was handing them their ass before they ran out of supplies. President Bush also retcons his reasons for going to war).


Umm... no. First off, the South fired the first shots. Thus it was the north being instigated by the South into the war. Secondly, the South were the ones who were making the hoop-la about Slavery. Lincoln was very vocal about choosing a unified union over abolition of slavery. If the option were available, he would have easily chosen to allow the South to keep its slaves. Believe it or not, but the Abolitionist movement wasn't a very strong force in politics, and although very vocal, and having quite a few numbers, there were far many more who agreed with Lincoln on a unified United States over abolishing slavery.

The reason why he eventually emancipated the slaves was purely a political move, done so to gain support from Britain and France, whom had already abolished slavery, and garnishing support to cut off ties with the South. Whom allowed slavery. And for the most part, it worked.

The south was kicking ass in the beginning, however Lee's major mistake was going on the offensive. Simply put, he didn't have the men to spare that the north did, and although the North lost many more men, they could afford to do so much more than the south.


All of the bloodshed could have been avoided if the Southern States had been allowed their 'supposedly' Constitutionally protected freedoms.

Out of curiosity, where exactly is this stated as a freedom in the Constitution? Or even implied so? Just out of curiosity.


If only the South had won the war we would not now be so oppressed by our own government.

Oppressed my ass. There are massive abuses of civil rights, yes, but the vast majority is not oppressed. Especially the South, more specifically the Bible Belt, who have had power for the six years and running. Doesn't mean we should ignore the abuses of power put forth on a relatively small minority(As it is a dangerous precedent to allow, and forgoes the ideals of the Bill of Rights), but quite frankly, I doubt that you, yourself, are oppressed.


Pretty much the Constitution protects whatever the current Federal Government says it protects and not what the founders of the country had intended it to protect.

Don't get me started on what the founding fathers wanted to protect. Slavery was very much protected in the original Constitution. Want to vote? Better be a white male who owns land. What about the Senate? Sorry, you can't vote for them. Want to cast a ballot for president? Alright, but chances are it's not going to matter and your representative is going to vote for whoever the hell he wants. Not to mention that the SCOTUS has virtually no power, and have no power to decide whether there is a violation of rights of citizens. And SO many more.


If you are an American and of legal voting age, please change your party affiliation to Republican (at least temporarily through the primary) and then please vote for Ron Paul (if you are unfamiliar with Ron Paul please take a moment to search out what he stands for) in order to restore the Constitution so it can be more than "just a goddamn piece of paper" again. Thank you.

The Constitution should not be restored to it's "original" glory. It is meant to be fluid, changing with times and cultural views. That is quite frankly the greatest thing about the document: It can be changed with the times. With new views on human rights, so can the Constitution Change. Infact, the only piece that should NOT be changed(Perhaps elaborated on, but not changed) is the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, in it's original form, would not pass into today's world, for many reasons(First and foremost was it's allowance of slavery).

God talks to Bush, didn't you know that? Clearly some deity spoke to him and told Bush that the Constitution is damned and that Bush no longer needs to follow it.

Either that or Bush is a (insert expletive here) and doesn't like following rules that are in his way.


Guess which theory I'm going with...

You do realize that there is talk of impeaching Cheney, do you not? Or at least there was.

Impeach the lot of them.

Then we get a Pres Pelosi...

Damn.I didn't actually. I keep fairly up to date on US affairs, but not that much.

Nixon to Bush: "Thanks for stealing the spotlight for worst president in american history. Now I have nothing, and they impeached me!"

That's how I'd imangine it.

You know, Nixon was a jackass and all, but he wasnt really a BAD president.

We've had FAR worse presidents during the 1800's. Van Bueren springs to mind, he was a jackass AND crazy.

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer Bill of rights don't apply to non-US citizens, he's started an illegal war Only illegal to the UN, which laws are not triable in the US, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called You're crititcizing him over it and you don't even know what it is or what its called? Also, where has he done this to US citizens?, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now. Dosn't count if you can't remember =/

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper". Where is this statement? I've never heard it before.

So why hasn't he been impeached? Because theres less evidence then what Clinton was impeached on

And don't think I think Bush is the greatest thing that walks the earth, I don't , as hardly any of his policy is able to be passed due to the failure of relations with the press and failure to get the message out. Better then Clinton though :)

Uhm?

He didn't lie about a bj in the oval office?

Oh, and on the subject of the 'illigality' of the Iraq War...
I believe that technically UN nations were REQUIRED to intervene in Iraq when Saddam refused to allow inspectors in as per the UN-dealy after the first Iraq War. Problem is I cant find anything about said post-war dealy (it wasnt a treaty if I recall, but a 'resolution' or something like that.)
I may be mistaken of course, but if anybody could find the text of said UN-resolution-treaty-thingummy-dealy I'd appreciate it :P

I glanced at this post and noticed it was generally blindly supporting Bush

Is there any support for the President that you don't consider "blind"?

and ignoring the SEVERE torture (which was spoken about recently by a survivor at an anti-war demo).

Talk about "blind support." A speaker at an anti-war demo :rolleyes:

And I'm sure the "torture" was "SEVERE". Yep, I'll bet they cut off a few fingers, used hot branding irons him, then stuffed him into the ol' Iron Maiden.

I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with it.

You already did, pal. Good job.

Political expediency.

The democrats realize that the one way that the Republican base can be rallied is if they are made to feel that they are under attack, and the only real way to pull that off would be impeach Bush and Cheney.

So why hasn't he been impeached?

The only form of "impeachment" President Retard'd fucking understand would be a lynch mob and a noose -and even then, he'd probably assume it was all some kind of party in his honour.

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.



He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free. The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president. Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.



Actually, the war was approved by Congress (and by a wide margin, too, I might add). If you are referring to the lack of UN approval, keep in mind that it does not supersede our democracy; the people of this country have the right to decide our foreign policy decisions, not people in Myanmar, China, Russia, France, North Korea, Sudan, Lebanon, etc. We are not influenced by what the rest of the world believes or if it deems our behavior to be "illegal." I could care less.



Are you suggesting that the Constitution is actually a hologram? Or are you merely surprised every time Bush makes a factually accurate statement?


Well stated.

The left-wing gasbags who jabber about "impeachment" are nothing but sore losers who are still trying to undo the 2000 election. And in typical leftist form: by trying to get some body other than the voting public to reverse the decision of the voting public.

President Bush will never be impeached because there is no majority in the House of Representatives that will support articles of impeachment, still less a 2/3 majority in the Senate to vote to convict. Everyone knows it. So those who whine "Impeach him!" are just making noise for the benefit of their fellow sore losers.

Well stated.

The left-wing gasbags who jabber about "impeachment" are nothing but sore losers who are still trying to undo the 2000 election. And in typical leftist form: by trying to get some body other than the voting public to reverse the decision of the voting public.

President Bush will never be impeached because there is no majority in the House of Representatives that will support articles of impeachment, still less a 2/3 majority in the Senate to vote to convict. Everyone knows it. So those who whine "Impeach him!" are just making noise for the benefit of their fellow sore losers.

51% of Americans support impeachment.

Congratulations, you're in the angry minority that thinks it's in the majority. It's like the moral majority.

Because politicians are a bunch of fucking pussies.

Who puts the pols in positions of power?

The President has not committed any high crimes or misdeamors. We believe the President is doing the very best job he can in a time of war.

The President has not committed any high crimes or misdeamors. We believe the President is doing the very best job he can in a time of war.

This coming from someone named after Bush's mouthpiece... :rolleyes:

The President has not committed any high crimes or misdeamors. We believe the President is doing the very best job he can in a time of war.

Congress declared war? :eek:

Truthfully Bush hasn't done anything illegal by US law or at least enough to get him impeached (the only law that matters for US impeachment)

1. Iraq War: Yeh it's probably illegal by international law but Congress declared war so as far as they can do it's as legal as it gets. He can't get impeached for not handling the war well.

2. Wiretaps: Illegal by US law, quite possibly, I'm not going to get into that debate but you there are a lot more ambigous uses of US law that could get Presidents impeached. It's arguable that the Vietnam War was illegal by US law but nobody got impeached for that, same with CIA assisnations and coup detats (sp?) across the world so wiretaps isn't enough for impeachment.

3. I hate Bush (in fancier language): Just because you hate a President isn't enough to get him impeached. I hate Bush and I count down the days until he leaves office but it's not enough for me to go out and get him impeached.

Then remember one more things in the 200 years of American history there have only been 2 impeachment trials and they have been as much for political reasons as actual things commited. Johnson got impeached because he dared to like the South after the Civil War and Clinton got impeached because the Republicans had been looking to get rid of him since they got Congress. Maybe if the Dems had gotten the majority in 02 he might have been impeached but at this point it's useless.

Final thought: If you successfully impeach Bush you know who becomes President? Dick Cheney, and that can only be worse.

Well stated.

The left-wing gasbags who jabber about "impeachment" are nothing but sore losers who are still trying to undo the 2000 election. And in typical leftist form: by trying to get some body other than the voting public to reverse the decision of the voting public.

President Bush will never be impeached because there is no majority in the House of Representatives that will support articles of impeachment, still less a 2/3 majority in the Senate to vote to convict. Everyone knows it. So those who whine "Impeach him!" are just making noise for the benefit of their fellow sore losers.

No, I'm well over that. I don't give a damn about the 2000 elections.

I do, however, give a damn about several abuses of power, and out right illegal behavior.

Illegal wiretapping anyone?

Truthfully Bush hasn't done anything illegal by US law or at least enough to get him impeached (the only law that matters for US impeachment)

1. Iraq War: Yeh it's probably illegal by international law but Congress declared war so as far as they can do it's as legal as it gets. He can't get impeached for not handling the war well.

2. Wiretaps: Illegal by US law, quite possibly, I'm not going to get into that debate but you there are a lot more ambigous uses of US law that could get Presidents impeached. It's arguable that the Vietnam War was illegal by US law but nobody got impeached for that, same with CIA assisnations and coup detats (sp?) across the world so wiretaps isn't enough for impeachment.

3. I hate Bush (in fancier language): Just because you hate a President isn't enough to get him impeached. I hate Bush and I count down the days until he leaves office but it's not enough for me to go out and get him impeached.

Then remember one more things in the 200 years of American history there have only been 2 impeachment trials and they have been as much for political reasons as actual things commited. Johnson got impeached because he dared to like the South after the Civil War and Clinton got impeached because the Republicans had been looking to get rid of him since they got Congress. Maybe if the Dems had gotten the majority in 02 he might have been impeached but at this point it's useless.

Final thought: If you successfully impeach Bush you know who becomes President? Dick Cheney, and that can only be worse.

Actually, technically speaking, you don't have to be convicted of anything to be impeached.

He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free.
So are you saying that if it isn't physical it doesn't count? That psychological torture isn't torture simply because it doesn't (directly) affect their body?

That said, however, I think the issue is more so that it's without trial. If this was only done to convicted terrorists that'd be one thing, but a "suspected terrorist" isn't necessarily an actual terrorist... granted, being convicted of a crime isn't a 100% guarantee either, but torturing someone whom was given a fair trial is different from torturing someone whom was imprisoned without a trial, which from what I've heard is the case at the Guantanamo bay base.

Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it."
It's not JUST the direct habeas corpus mentions; it's also how OTHER things mentioned in the Constitution are affected by habeas corpus...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8BqvJO5t4k

That same point is made starting 5 minutes and 25 seconds into that video.



EDIT: Personally I find it contradictory that "the majority" of Americans, after having voted Bush in for a second term AFTER seeing what he did in the first are supposedly the same "majority" that is against Bush now...

Final thought: If you successfully impeach Bush you know who becomes President? Dick Cheney, and that can only be worse.

Not a good reason to keep him.

Cheney probably has done enough to get himself impeached as well.

Then the cons would start having heart attacks as the Speaker is next in line! :D

Congress declared war? :eek:

I am equally surprised.

The last time we declared war was WWII.

So what is the correct definition of what's going on?

Not a good reason to keep him.

Cheney probably has done enough to get himself impeached as well.

Then the cons would start having heart attacks as the Speaker is next in line! :DAmerica is so rigid and hierarchical in its powerstructures. It's just like a military organisation. Seriously, why not just dissolve the presidency and have an election. What's so damn special about having elections the same bloody time every four years, and then having the presidency swap hands on the same date every four years. It's like the collective US government has an obessive-compulsive disorder.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".



i don't seem to remember him saying that. but it is in fact truth. why should we base everything we do today off of a document that was written over 200 years ago. all the constitution serves as today is a document for people to pick and choose what they want to follow and how to interpret it.

Because
...
2)He's gone in just over a year anyway.

i hope this will be a valid excuse when i admit on national tv to committing multiple serious felonies a day over a period of years

Not a good reason to keep him.

Cheney probably has done enough to get himself impeached as well.

Then the cons would start having heart attacks as the Speaker is next in line! :D

i don't think Hillary would allow that. she has her mind set on being the first female president i don't think she will let speaker of the house Pelosi to take that away from her ;)

Why hasn't the President been impeached? Because there's no point in bringing charges because the GOP doesn't care about facts or charges, they just care about keeping their corrupt power. Better to show how out of touch they are by letting them continue to obstruct common sense laws and continue the failed occupation of Iraq.

Why hasn't the President been impeached? Because there's no point in bringing charges because the GOP doesn't care about facts or charges, they just care about keeping their corrupt power. Better to show how out of touch they are by letting them continue to obstruct common sense laws and continue the failed occupation of Iraq.

i don't know, it might be worthwhile to bring the charges even knowing the fascists won't stand for it to actually work. that way they are required to have a public trial, and then vote to acquit in the face of the openly aired evidence.

Actually, the Constituion is more than a piece of paper. The paper is, ultimately, just a recording of the constitution. If the original copy of the Constitution were destroyed in a fire, it would not suddenly be void. The Constitution is a set of ideas, a document of political philosphy codified into the ultimate law of the United States.

i don't know, it might be worthwhile to bring the charges even knowing the fascists won't stand for it to actually work. that way they are required to have a public trial, and then vote to acquit in the face of the openly aired evidence.

As if the Dems have the balls to do that. =/

As if the Dems have the balls to do that. =/

yup, that's the key stumbling block in all of this. fuckheads don't realize that their lack of cojones is actually fucking them over at the time they have an excellent chance to destroy their opposition utterly for a generation or more.

Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

Niiiice selective redaction there.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Are we being invaded? Am I to understand there's a rebellion going on and no one asked if I wanted to join in?

I'll ask you again, why do you hate freedom?

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

President Cheney.

Q.E.D.

Keep in mind just impeaching someone doesn't make them leave. Clinton was impeached, but the Senate did not vote for him to leave office. The House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (US Constitution, I, ii). It is the Senate's job to try all impeachments (US Constitution, I, iii).
The president may be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (US Constitution, II, iv). Although some may say he betrayed the voters, Bush cannot really be accused of treason, so that's out. There's probably a close cousin of bribery occurring in Washington ("We've decided the company that contributed $20 million to our campaign doesn't have to pay taxes" kind of thing), but that still probably would hold up. So, the only thing left are "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I don't know enough about law to say if Bush personally committed any of these.

President Cheney.

Q.E.D.

You can kick 'em both out, you know.

So, the only thing left are "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I don't know enough about law to say if Bush personally committed any of these.

he admitted on national teevee to committing thousands of felonies, each one of which is punishable by up to five years in the slammer. i think that pretty clearly counts.

You can kick 'em both out, you know.

especially since cheney has also publicly admitted to serially violating the law

But they're still smarter than random generalizers.

This post contains 100% of your recomended daily dosage of irony!

For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

First up Treason.

"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Opinions aside and wacky conspiracy theories too, Bush has never actively conspired to cause great harm to this nation. Osama flew those planes at us because he hated our support for Israel, something not unique to Bush.

Next Bribery.

Bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given alters the behavior of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person.

No one has caught Bush taking money to do stuff. His cohorts have, but he personally has not been caught taking money or gifts.

Finally there is the 'impeachable offense', which is whatever the House considers is one. If we reflect the House with the American Public at large:

(Of course then there is that poll commissioned by an 'Impeach Bush' organization but done by an impartial third party.)

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

President Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and most people jump straight to nukes and germs. Saddam demolished buildings, impeded inspectors, did everything he could to hide his nuclear weapons program. There is an account of a suspected biological weapons factory that was being inspected when suddenly a convoy of tanker trucks drove away from the site at high speed just before inspectors were allowed to enter.

An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual-use biological agents to Iraq during the mid-1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens.

Anyone who has taken a microbiology class knows it is bleeding easy to grow these bacteria, especially anthrax (Bacillus Cereus, a commonly used laboratory germ is a relative of Anthrax and is commonly used as a stand-in for Anthrax). The hard part is weaponizing it. Which is probably what Saddam was up to when he bought those germs.

As for chemical weapons, ask the Kurds whether they exist. Or ask the Iranians. Both will tell you Saddam used his Sarin gas on whomever he wanted. During both Gulf Wars our troops had gas masks when we attacked Saddam's forces, but yet Saddam never used the gas. Only after the second one did we find out that his Sarin gas never had the stabilizing agent necessary for long-term storage. And after we destroyed his infrastructure, he never had any 'good' gas to use.

So Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was trying to impede the UN from discovering it has weapons of mass destruction. With UN Resolutions 660, 678, 1441 being impeded, continued human rights violations from Saddam's Sons raping and pillaging to the Kurds, some can argue it was enough justification.

he admitted on national teevee to committing thousands of felonies, each one of which is punishable by up to five years in the slammer. i think that pretty clearly counts.

What felonies?

First up Treason.



Opinions aside and wacky conspiracy theories too, Bush has never actively conspired to cause great harm to this nation. Osama flew those planes at us because he hated our support for Israel, something not unique to Bush.

Next Bribery.



No one has caught Bush taking money to do stuff. His cohorts have, but he personally has not been caught taking money or gifts.

Finally there is the 'impeachable offense', which is whatever the House considers is one. If we reflect the House with the American Public at large:

(Of course then there is that poll commissioned by an 'Impeach Bush' organization but done by an impartial third party.)



President Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and most people jump straight to nukes and germs. Saddam demolished buildings, impeded inspectors, did everything he could to hide his nuclear weapons program. There is an account of a suspected biological weapons factory that was being inspected when suddenly a convoy of tanker trucks drove away from the site at high speed just before inspectors were allowed to enter.



Anyone who has taken a microbiology class knows it is bleeding easy to grow these bacteria, especially anthrax (Bacillus Cereus, a commonly used laboratory germ is a relative of Anthrax and is commonly used as a stand-in for Anthrax). The hard part is weaponizing it. Which is probably what Saddam was up to when he bought those germs.

As for chemical weapons, ask the Kurds whether they exist. Or ask the Iranians. Both will tell you Saddam used his Sarin gas on whomever he wanted. During both Gulf Wars our troops had gas masks when we attacked Saddam's forces, but yet Saddam never used the gas. Only after the second one did we find out that his Sarin gas never had the stabilizing agent necessary for long-term storage. And after we destroyed his infrastructure, he never had any 'good' gas to use.

So Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was trying to impede the UN from discovering it has weapons of mass destruction. With UN Resolutions 660, 678, 1441 being impeded, continued human rights violations from Saddam's Sons raping and pillaging to the Kurds, some can argue it was enough justification.

If this is true, then why did they not release the evidence?

If this is true, then why did they not release the evidence?

They did. :confused:

So Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was trying to impede the UN from discovering it has weapons of mass destruction. With UN Resolutions 660, 678, 1441 being impeded, continued human rights violations from Saddam's Sons raping and pillaging to the Kurds, some can argue it was enough justification.
A funny story (not in a ha-ha way, but in a way that you would expect with this thread): the UN and the coalition are still looking for the WMDs. I guess they couldn't get enough of a consensus to stop, or they just never bothered to ask, but people are still looking at satellite pictures and collecting data to find them.

EDIT: Sorry, I can't find the article I read this in. It was in the Washington Post, I believe in May or June. If anyone can find a link, please give it.

They did. :confused:

Source?*

And if it's not a non-biased source with conclusive evidence that they had working WMDs at time of invasion, don't bother.

A funny story (not in a ha-ha way, but in a way that you would expect with this thread): the UN and the coalition are still looking for the WMDs. I guess they couldn't get enough of a consensus to stop, or they just never bothered to ask, but people are still looking at satellite pictures and collecting data to find them.

Well they found what was left of the Sarin and Mustard Gas. At the time, most of the American public supported war. Then after it started becoming an occupation, people got pissed off. Then for some reason, all of you whiners, didn't vote against Bush.

I remember asking my friend who was very vocal about impeaching Bush if he voted, and he said he forgot. Get out and vote! It isn't that hard. If you are really lazy, get a mail-in ballot.

Source?*

And if it's not a non-biased source with conclusive evidence, don't bother.

Kurds and Iranians will tell you both that they were gassed by Saddam. This is probably not being disputed.

As for the Bioweapons the Gulf War Veterans Association's Link is dead, and the Senate Banking Committee's search is broken, but I got it from Wikipedia. It was under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#U.S._economic_aid_to_Iraq .

Kurds and Iranians will tell you both that they were gassed by Saddam. This is probably not being disputed.

As for the Bioweapons the Gulf War Veterans Association's Link is dead, and the Senate Banking Committee's search is broken, but I got it from Wikipedia. It was under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#U.S._economic_aid_to_Iraq .

AT TIME OF INVASION, not during the Gulf War.

AT TIME OF INVASION, not during the Gulf War.

There was only suspicion that he continued to have Weapons of Mass Destruction at time of the 2003 Invasion. The warhawks argued that this suspicion and knowledge that he had used them in the past along with his continued interference with UN weapons inspectors was enough to justify enough of a national security threat.

I was one of the people who marched against the war.

There was only suspicion that he continued to have Weapons of Mass Destruction at time of the 2003 Invasion. The warhawks argued that this suspicion and knowledge that he had used them in the past along with his continued interference with UN weapons inspectors was enough to justify enough of a national security threat.

I was one of the people who marched against the war.

M'kay, because that is what Bush needs to vindicate himself. Without proof of the weapons, he had no justification for his premise.

This post contains 100% of your recomended daily dosage of irony!

Actually, it's not a generalization, so it's not ironic. It appears to be a generalization, but anyone with half a mind can tell it's clearly targeted at a single person.

M'kay, because that is what Bush needs to vindicate himself. Without proof of the weapons, he had no justification for his premise.

Well I think he may have actually believed there were WMDs and wasn't purposely misleading the public. But is having a bad premise to start a war an impeachable crime? Is it that we hate him for lying to us, or do we hate that the war isn't going so well?

The reason we bombed Kosovo was that they didn't accept peace talks. They had a history of human rights violations. The Republicans in Congress bitched and moaned about the fact that only NATO approved this and the UN disagreed, Clinton's lack of an exit strategy, poor planning etc. But ultimately, the war went well for us and the issue was dropped.

Where to begin...

Bush knew he was lying. He fired CIA Chiefs that didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. Since he lied to the American public about the reason for the war, wouldn't such a thing be known as fraud? As well, impeaching Bush now, while somewhat like closing the barn door after the horse has left, would still send a message to Bush's backers and others like him that this sort of illegal and immoral activity is not to be tolerated! Not impeaching him because he only has a year left is like not jailing bank robbers because they have already spent the money!

As for the WMDs, of course he knew Saddam had them, the USA sold him most of the chemicals he used to create them! "Saddam has WMD and we have the receipts to prove it!" C'mon people, the USA put him in power and remained his ally through most of his genocidal activities, including his attacking Iran. But he then attacks Kuwait and they get up in arms? :confused: More likely the cause had more to do with Saddam's decision to switch his currency from US Dollar backed to Euro backed, forcing the US to actually pay cash for all the oil they bought from him. Since the US is currently pushing the Iraqi leaders hard to get a sweet-heart deal put through for the oil companies, I wonder what this war has more to do with, freedom or oil?

Also, telling Saddam he had to prove he didn't have WMD to stave off the attack from the US put Iraq in an impossible position. How do you prove a negative? "I don't have them anymore." "Prove it!" "How? I can't show you that I don't have them because I DON'T HAVE THEM!!" Of course, considering that Bush is from the State where proof of innocence is NOT enough to get you a retrial when you are on death row, we shouldn't be surprised, should we? It was just a nice little trick to get everyone on his side, although anyone that actually THOUGHT about it for more then a commercial break would have seen through it... :rolleyes:

"They found what was left of the Sarin and Mustard gas." Yes, they did. The odd shell here and there, lying in forgotten holes from the Iran-Iraq war. Over twenty years ago! Since those gases have a much shorter shelf life then that, they were useless, even if the rusted and corroded shells could have been fired in the first place! Yup, those stockpiles were really worth going to war over and killing thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis over. :mp5: I know I feel safer now.

"Bush has never actively conspired to cause great harm to this nation." Really? So you honestly believe that not one, not two, but three different airliners, spaced hours apart, hit three different targets with the last being one of the most heavily defended areas on the planet with NO response until well after the fact? And somehow Osama arranged for this to happen? Wow! That guy is GOOD!! And all from a cave in Afghanistan! It's a wonder that he hasn't stormed the shores! He should be unstoppable if he arranged all that!

"No one has caught Bush taking money to do stuff. His cohorts have, but he personally has not been caught taking money or gifts." You know, whatever else Nixon was, at least he was man enough to take responsibility. "The buck stops here." He may not have used it, but he seemed to live it. While it seems the buck, in the Bush Administration, stops anywhere but here! More of his appointees and underlings have been indicted, charged or convicted the the last THREE presidents, but does anyone blame the leader? Does anyone take to task the man that is SUPPOSED to be in charge? "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law." -Louis D. Brandeis, lawyer, judge, and writer (1856-1941)

I say Impeach the Criminals!

What felonies?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

He hasnt been impeached, because its idiots like you who spearhead the impeachment effort.

Seriously, why does every Bush policiy have an autocratic-arbitrary definition too it? Wiretapping came with the patriot act, which was.....ratified by congress. Illegal war? Congress authorized the use of force. The constitution? Well....I think its made of paper.

Im just saying this "zOMg bsuh sux!!1" thing gets old after 6 years. If your mad at his policies at least have the balls too include the congressional support which ratified the bills into law.

Wiretapping came with the patriot act, which was.....ratified by congress.

no, it didn't. please try to keep up.

yup, that's the key stumbling block in all of this. fuckheads don't realize that their lack of cojones is actually fucking them over at the time they have an excellent chance to destroy their opposition utterly for a generation or more.
Seriously, not even the Republicans know how close they are to losing it all, sad to say if the Democrats knew how they could easily crush the Republicans at their own game.

It'll be the death of the entire Neo-conservative* movement.
*AKA Diet-Fascism.

Well they found what was left of the Sarin and Mustard Gas. At the time, most of the American public supported war. Then after it started becoming an occupation, people got pissed off. Then for some reason, all of you whiners, didn't vote against Bush.

I remember asking my friend who was very vocal about impeaching Bush if he voted, and he said he forgot. Get out and vote! It isn't that hard. If you are really lazy, get a mail-in ballot.

No, they have found weapons that have been buried and forgotten for over ten years. Thus far, we have found little, if any, actual evidence that he was pursuing WMD programs when we invaded. All that exists is pretty much conjecture on what he probably did, but no real hard evidence that he actually was doing that(As far as WMDs and us enterring the Iraq war for them). A fifteen year old shell, found buried for what is probably fifteen years on the side of the road, whose chemical compounds have already broken down.

Yeah, that's some great evidence.

no, it didn't. please try to keep up.

Infact, even if Congress were to have allowed, short of an Amendment to the Constitution specifically allowing it, such activity is blatantly unconstitutional, illegal(As even the President needs a court order allowing him to wire tap, and for good reason), and flies in the face of everything we stand for.

So basically, he has committed an illegal and unconstitutional act, which can be construed as almost treasonous, depending on how you want to define treason(Such as, him violating the Constitution is violating our Country, thus committing an act of treason against our Country).

As well, Impeachment in the case of Bush is not exactly the same as what happened with Clinton. Blow job<Committing felonies. If you haven't noticed, Bush has completely destroyed our credibility through out the world. How many people are in the "Coalition of Willing" these days? Some piddly ass country who has a population of 20, and a bunch of people who have already started pulling their asses out, if not being completely pulled out already, of this quagmire called Iraq. We have lost support. And quite frankly, Rummy and Bush screwed everything up from the start so greatly, that they themselves have made "victory" impossible.

As well, Impeachment in the case of Bush is not exactly the same as what happened with Clinton. Blow job<Committing felonies.

But when you lie about that blow job under oath, its perjury, which is a felony.

two words: President Cheney. But that would be a little redundant now wouldn't it?

But when you lie about that blow job under oath, its perjury, which is a felony.

Well no shit.

But it shouldn't really have been an issue to begin with.

Not saying that he should have lied, or that it was the right thing to do, but quite frankly the Republicans were fishing for something to make him look bad, and acted completely childish in their actions.

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

cause he is a twit and is a puppet....cheney needs to go back to hell were he belongs,bush is his puppet.

But when you lie about that blow job under oath, its perjury, which is a felony.

only if it is on a matter material to the case/investigation. please people, look things up before talking about them.

two words: President Cheney.

like he wouldn't down on on equivalent charges himself. and, as long as we are talking fantasyland where somebody actually stands up and does something, then he gets locked up fo war crimes and crimes against humanity (along with essentially everyone else in the administration).

Don't the taxpayers have to pay for all of this? It's not worth for half a year earlier.

Furthermore, Bush is only the distraction. The more eyes on him, the less there are to watch Cheney do whatever the hell he does... what is that, anyway?

Why hasn't George Bush been impeached?

Until we destroy the ring of power, he is invunerable.

So are you saying that if it isn't physical it
EDIT: Personally I find it contradictory that "the majority" of Americans, after having voted Bush in for a second term AFTER seeing what he did in the first are supposedly the same "majority" that is against Bush now...

I support Bush myself... but I have noticed the exact same thing, so many people complained somuch about even be3fore his re-election, and eh got re-elected? most people can only blame themselves if they don't like it....

Seriously, not even the Republicans know how close they are to losing it all, sad to say if the Democrats knew how they could easily crush the Republicans at their own game.

It'll be the death of the entire Neo-conservative* movement.
*AKA Diet-Fascism.

Diet Fascism? That is perhaps the best example of terrible historical analysis that I have ever seen, and being a History major... I have seen quite a bit....

I support Bush myself... but I have noticed the exact same thing, so many people complained somuch about even be3fore his re-election, and eh got re-elected? most people can only blame themselves if they don't like it....

Well, when given the choice between a raving idiot who they hate, and complete moron they despise, there isn't much choice, really.

Until we destroy the ring of power, he is invunerable.

Ring of Power??
(http://photos21.flickr.com/38500929_088e347992_m.jpg)

:D

EDIT: Personally I find it contradictory that "the majority" of Americans, after having voted Bush in for a second term AFTER seeing what he did in the first are supposedly the same "majority" that is against Bush now...

I actually respect (though I disagree with) those 30-35% of the people that voted for Bush and still support him. I have no respect for that 15-20% that voted for him and a couple months later said they didn't think he was doing a good job. How could that many people be so stupid?

Ring of Power??
(http://photos21.flickr.com/38500929_088e347992_m.jpg)

:D

Truly, that pretzel was a little soldier of justice. If only he had been allowed to complete his mission, the world might be a better place today. *sheds a tear*

The real problem is blind patriotism.

Bills were rushed through congress with no debate, decisions were made with no thought and an agenda was followed with no dissent.

All this excused under the 'with us or against us' principle. Anyone who disagreed with the Executive Office was termed a traitor, a coward, an appeaser or simply: unpatriotic.

There's the American flags on all cars, in all porches, the chants of USA USA USA, the 'American Way' is blindly followed through educational propaganda and well as blithely assumed by all forms of media from cinema to TV to press. Is there any other reasonable country that has a day in the class led by the Pledge of Allegiance or similar? Is there any other country that would not be embarrassed by the ending of Independence Day?

Americans are convinced they are a bright shining light of the world, it's an underlying assumption that, despite low periods such as now or the post-Vietnam era, can easily be revived.

America should remember that it may have a duty to lead the world but it does not have a right.

It's belief in this right that leads people to blindly follow and re-elect an Executive who embodies the America is Always Right™ attitude.

That's why he won't be impeached, because he was allowed to do what he did by the American people, who should know better than to fall under the spell of patriotism. We should all, and I mean globally, still believe in the basic ideal of America while maintaining deep reservations about the execution of those ideals.

Anyway, back to comedy.

But when you lie about that blow job under oath, its perjury, which is a felony.

It's only perjury if it's relevant. Since Clinton's sexual infidelities had jack shit to do with Whitewater, it wasn't perjury.

President Cheney.

Q.E.D.

Let me put it this way. The list of things that Cheney has done that do not meet the requirements for impeachment is probably shorter than the things that he's done that do.

It's only perjury if it's relevant. Since Clinton's sexual infidelities had jack shit to do with Whitewater, it wasn't perjury.

Since when does perjery discriminate against relevence?

Any lies are subject to perjery.

Since when does perjery discriminate against relevence?

Since forever. Seriously, this is basic.

Since forever. Seriously, this is basic.

In actuality, you're not even suppost to ask irrelevant questions. For instance, if you are on trial, for, say, murder, and the lawer asks you if got a blow job, the judge would probably uphold an objection on the matter as being irrelevant. That sort of thing, no?

In actuality, you're not even suppost to ask irrelevant questions. For instance, if you are on trial, for, say, murder, and the lawer asks you if got a blow job, the judge would probably uphold an objection on the matter as being irrelevant. That sort of thing, no?

From what I know, yes.

We've had FAR worse presidents during the 1800's. Van Bueren springs to mind, he was a jackass AND crazy.

I take offense! I'm related to Van Bueren.

because the empeachment proccess is broken.

as indeed it has been crippled as long as the attourny general is a presidential appointee. and the executive can get away with classifying any and all evidence of their malfiesance at their unimpaired whim.

and enough of the rest of elected officials have been bought and paid for by the corporate mafia that is the real soverignty that has usurped the political proccess.

=^^=
.../\...

The Constitution (obviously) does not mention wire-tapping. Since the practice does not involve searching or seizing someone's possessions, it cannot be classified as an infringement upon one's constitutional rights. Indeed, the fourth amendment only mentions the right of people to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches. So you're batting 0/2 on that one.

By that logic, since the Constitution does not stipulate the suspects must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, presumption of guilt would not violate their Constitutional rights.

In other words, the logic is retarded. Which is why the Supreme Court of the United States decided that you are wrong via Katz v. United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States


He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free. The abuses at places such as Abu Ghraib may have crossed the line, yet they were not endorsed by the president. Furthermore, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless...the public safety may require it." We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

First, as noted elsewhere, that's a hell of a redaction. Unless there's some kind of invasion or rebellion I missed in the news, you've just taken the phrase and inverted the actual meaning of it.

Second, just in case you missed the memo, people did some digging on what is and is not allowed by this administration. And you know what they found? They found that we have put people to death for war crimes for exactly what is allowed in Guantanamo. In point of fact, the very term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a word-for-word translation of the German phrase used to describe what the fucking Nazis used to do. I kid you not:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html


Actually, the war was approved by Congress (and by a wide margin, too, I might add). If you are referring to the lack of UN approval, keep in mind that it does not supersede our democracy; the people of this country have the right to decide our foreign policy decisions, not people in Myanmar, China, Russia, France, North Korea, Sudan, Lebanon, etc. We are not influenced by what the rest of the world believes or if it deems our behavior to be "illegal." I could care less.


Well, you're the Constitutional literalist, not me, so far be it for me to force you to adhere to the Constitutional standards you were just a moment ago using to defend Bush with:


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

I'm sure you already know, but that is a power granted to Congress, not the executive. Last I heard, there had been no war declared on Al Queda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, Democrats, or any other bogeyman of the Republican party. As such, a literalist like you must certainly see the war as being illegal, because it was carried out and executed without a declaration from the legislative.

I don't believe the argument, but then again, I'm not the one using selectively narrow interpretations of the Constitution.

********************************************************

As a side note, I'd like to say that those of you who are talking about the practical problems of impeachment, namely the fact that we remove President Bush maybe a half a year early if it started today and had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding politically, are missing the point. The point isn't that we are trying to remove the man from office; that's merely a side benefit. The real purpose behind impeachment is to punish those who transgress the Constitution and rebuke future officeholders from following in their footsteps. If we (or perhaps I should bow to political reality and say "when we") allow President Bush to get out of office without any kind of condemnation, rebuke, or punishment, we have effectively said to every future President "Do as you will, Constitution be damned, because we don't mind". I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say I find that to be the most dangerous possible thing you could say to a person with as much power as the President.

And as for President Cheney, allow me respond glibly, two-foldly, and succinctly: First, there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests we can't impeach them both at the same time. Second, Cheney's like a vampire: he works best when hidden from the spotlight. Force him into the office of the Presidency where he has to do things in public, and he will wither and burn in a crucible of his own making.

Second, just in case you missed the memo, people did some digging on what is and is not allowed by this administration. And you know what they found? They found that we have put people to death for war crimes for exactly what is allowed in Guantanamo. In point of fact, the very term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a word-for-word translation of the German phrase used to describe what the fucking Nazis used to do. I kid you not:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

Do you realise that you are condemning techniques of interrogation based largely on the name of said technique... would our 'enhanced interrogation' be more morally righteous if it did not happen to share the relative meaning that some other people put to an interrogation practice in the past, indeed, would it become something that we could rejoice in if we called it, oh I don't know... Super Fun Happy interrogation techniques? Or perhaps does a coincidental translingual name similarity not really matter that much in the end?

Do you realise that you are condemning techniques of interrogation based largely on the name of said technique... would our 'enhanced interrogation' be more morally righteous if it did not happen to share the relative meaning that some other people put to an interrogation practice in the past, indeed, would it become something that we could rejoice in if we called it, oh I don't know... Super Fun Happy interrogation techniques? Or perhaps does a coincidental translingual name similarity not really matter that much in the end?

I'm thinking that FoG is someones puppet. I have a few ideas on who, but I'm guessing whomever it is is probably going for satirical affect, and that that particular statement was one that is meant to show how "extreme" he truly is.

Or he is an idiot.

Either one works.

Anyway, you're right, it's not really wording that matters.

I'm thinking that FoG is someones puppet. I have a few ideas on who, but I'm guessing whomever it is is probably going for satirical affect, and that that particular statement was one that is meant to show how "extreme" he truly is.

Or he is an idiot.

Either one works.

Anyway, you're right, it's not really wording that matters.

Popular opinion holds that F.A.G. is MeansToAnEnd trying to be the UberBushevik for whatever shallow attention he can draw to himself. And his denials of being the same person just isn't good enough a dismissal given the recent admission of the Kimchiteers and their multiple account names.

He has encouraged coercive interrogation techniques which result in no lasting physical damage. These can hardly be qualified as torture as they are mostly psychological in nature and are generally pain-free.

And that makes it okay? I could completely mess you up mentally and it would be fine by you? I look forward to training you to seize when I clap my hands together.

We are embroiled in a war against a fiendish enemy who seeks to ruthlessly slaughter as many American civilians as possible -- I'd say that qualifies as necessary to prevent in order to provide for the public safety.

They're not doing a very good job of it are they? And the idea of terrorism isn't to kill as many people as possible (unless you have no idea what you're doing). Fear is a weapon that is fuelled by and fuels death, it doesn't usually cause it.

If this was only done to convicted terrorists that'd be one thing, but a "suspected terrorist" isn't necessarily an actual terrorist... granted, being convicted of a crime isn't a 100% guarantee either, but torturing someone whom was given a fair trial is different from torturing someone whom was imprisoned without a trial, which from what I've heard is the case at the Guantanamo bay base.

GUARD: Ummm.... we're sorry about what happened... you're free to go.... you understand right?... good man... taking one for the team. *pats on the back*
PRISONER: *twitch*

Terrorist = Anyone who disagrees with US imperialist foreign policy.

Do you realise that you are condemning techniques of interrogation based largely on the name of said technique... would our 'enhanced interrogation' be more morally righteous if it did not happen to share the relative meaning that some other people put to an interrogation practice in the past, indeed, would it become something that we could rejoice in if we called it, oh I don't know... Super Fun Happy interrogation techniques? Or perhaps does a coincidental translingual name similarity not really matter that much in the end?

Since you apparently can't read the article, I will cut and paste the relevant questions and answers from the article for you:

Question 1: What were "enhanced interrogation techniques" to the Nazis?

4. The sharpening can consist of the following, among other things, according to circumstances:

simplest rations (bread and water)
hard bed
dark cell
deprivation of sleep
exhaustion exercises
but also the resort to blows with a stick (in case of more than 20 blows, a doctor must be present)

Question 2: How does this compare with our treatment of prisoners?

Freezing prisoners to near-death, repeated beatings, long forced-standing, waterboarding, cold showers in air-conditioned rooms, stress positions [Arrest mit Verschaerfung], withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end - all these have occurred at US detention camps under the command of president George W. Bush. Over a hundred documented deaths have occurred in these interrogation sessions. The Pentagon itself has conceded homocide by torture in multiple cases.

And here:

The hands were tied together closely with a cord on the back of the prisoner, raised then the body and hung the cord to a hook, which was attached into two meters height in a tree, so that the feet in air hung. The whole body weight rested thus at the joints bent to the rear. The minimum period of hanging up was a half hour. To remain there three hours hung up, was pretty often. This punishment was carried out at least twice weekly.

That is the description from a prisoner at Abu Ghraib, and this:

Dreadful pain in the shoulders and wrists were the results of this treatment. Only laboriously the lung could be supplied with the necessary oxygen. The heart worked in a racing speed. From all pores the sweat penetrated.

Is from a prisoner at Dachau

Question 3: How does the defense of these tactics compare with the Nazi's defense during their respective war crime's tribunals?

In deciding the degree of punishment, the Court found it decisive that the defendants had inflicted serious physical and mental suffering on their victims, and did not find sufficient reason for a mitigation of the punishment in accordance with the provisions laid down in Art. 5 of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945. The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivance of superiors in rank or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes.

And further here:

As extenuating circumstances, Bruns had pleaded various incidents in which he had helped Norwegians, Schubert had pleaded difficulties at home, and Clemens had pointed to several hundred interrogations during which he had treated prisoners humanely.

The Court did not regard any of the above-mentioned circumstances as a sufficient reason for mitigating the punishment and found it necessary to act with the utmost severity. Each of the defendants was responsible for a series of incidents of torture, every one of which could, according to Art. 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Provisional Decree of 4th May, 1945, be punished by the death sentence.

And here:

(c) That the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement.

So, in case you also can't follow the logic, let me make plain what should already have been plain: it isn't just the name that's similar. It's the actions taken. And the justification of those actions. The only difference is that in one case, we rightfully put people to death for them. In the other, we seem to have some people dead-set on defending the indefensible.

Popular opinion holds that F.A.G. is MeansToAnEnd trying to be the UberBushevik for whatever shallow attention he can draw to himself. And his denials of being the same person just isn't good enough a dismissal given the recent admission of the Kimchiteers and their multiple account names.

You know, I do get the MTAE vibe off of him quite a bit. Only problem I see with it this postulation is that MTAE has been put on DoS status, if memory recalls.

You know, I do get the MTAE vibe off of him quite a bit. Only problem I see with it this postulation is that MTAE has been put on DoS status, if memory recalls.

Didn't hear anything about him being DoSsed, and even then it's not difficult to get a new IP.

i hope this will be a valid excuse when i admit on national tv to committing multiple serious felonies a day over a period of years
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't let him off the hook one little bit, but I doubt that Congress would want to spend all their time and energy drumming up a 2/3 majority for impeachment when it'll be November by the time they manage to do that.

So, in case you also can't follow the logic, let me make plain what should already have been plain: it isn't just the name that's similar. It's the actions taken. And the justification of those actions. The only difference is that in one case, we rightfully put people to death for them. In the other, we seem to have some people dead-set on defending the indefensible.

there is an additional difference. the bush admin counts several things among its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that even the nazis thought were too awful to use.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't let him off the hook one little bit, but I doubt that Congress would want to spend all their time and energy drumming up a 2/3 majority for impeachment when it'll be November by the time they manage to do that.

its not like they are going to accomplish anything else anyways.

and the conviction is unnecessary for the benefits of impeachment to work. in fact, it'll work better if the fascists vote to acquit. let's put the repub obstructionism to good use. let them tie their entire party to mr. 25% and to illegal activities and to torture. nothing would make me happier than to watch them electorally destroy themselves in a useless attempt to protect their dreams of dictatorship.

Yeah, wiretapping innocent civilians is unreasonable. And wiretapping is considered a search.
So you're Batting 0/2.

Bullshit.
0/3

Well, not publicly, anyway...
0/4

Suspending Habeas Corpus endangers public safety.
0/5

Because the president and his lackeys (Or, more accurately, masters) lied to congress.
0/6

You'd care more if they had had cut of trade with us, leaving us totally isolated due to our presidents stubborn idiocy.
0/7

Now you're being even more intellectually dishonest than usual. You know damn well what he meant.
0/8

All in all: Your pitiful, flag-waving excuses for arguments don't stand up to a light breeze, let alone scrutiny.
Fail/Infinity

*stands up and applauds*

Well, when given the choice between a raving idiot who they hate, and complete moron they despise, there isn't much choice, really.
...and which candidates were you suggesting fit into which categories?

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

His term would be over before the process was finished.

Because the American people, are, by and large, incompetent ignoramuses and proud of it, while a significant minority are willfully evil.

Because the American people, are, by and large, incompetent ignoramuses and proud of it, while a significant minority are willfully evil.

Hey! I as an American am mostly just stoned and trying to get the hell out of here and get to Ireland. I'm not evil and I am not proud of being an ignoramus.


Wait...

Hey! I as an American am mostly just stoned and trying to get the hell out of here and get to Ireland. I'm not evil and I am not proud of being an ignoramus.


Wait...

I'm America too, and Ireland is the worst country in Western Europe.

I'm America too, and Ireland is the worst country in Western Europe.

i'm sorry

I'm America too, and Ireland is the worst country in Western Europe.

Haha, you reinforce his point.. I'm American too XD

Haha, you reinforce his point.. I'm American too XD

Then why are you claiming to be British in other threads?

Because the American people, are, by and large, incompetent ignoramuses and proud of it, while a significant minority are willfully evil.

Are you really that ignorant?

Because there is nothing, in truth, to impeach him for.

Because the Dems are weak

Because there is nothing, in truth, to impeach him for.

Congress can impeach him for something as general as a lack of faith. High crimes and misdemeanors was worded ambiguously on purpose.

Are you really that ignorant?

Nothing ignorant about it. We're the richest, most productive country in the world, yet we're something like 34th in healthcare.
Now, I understand, most Americans are too ignorant and their minds too unaccustomed to actually being required to think to imagine anything different, but this is not true for a significant proportion of the population, who either lie to themselves about the situation of the country and world or callously ignore it. I call that evil.
Democracy has failed in this country, and President Mitt Romney will be the final proof of that.

Because there is nothing, in truth, to impeach him for.

Wiretapping.

Nothing ignorant about it. We're the richest, most productive country in the world, yet we're something like 34th in healthcare.
Now, I understand, most Americans are too ignorant and their minds too unaccustomed to actually being required to think to imagine anything different, but this is not true for a significant proportion of the population, who either lie to themselves about the situation of the country and world or callously ignore it. I call that evil.
Democracy has failed in this country, and President Mitt Romney will be the final proof of that.

Or maybe the problem is the fact that only idiots run for office.

And don't even joke about that last part.

Because there is nothing, in truth, to impeach him for.

Besides lying to the American people, running illegal wiretapping, and being an all-around nutcase.

Or maybe the problem is the fact that only idiots run for office.
This may come as a shock to and the rest of the "look how cynical about politicians, aren't I cool?" crowd, but decently principled people run for office all the time (Kucinich and Gavel for example). They never get elected, and they rarely get nominated. In the rare occurrence that they do make it into high office, they are marginalized by a media hostile to idealism and change. The politicians are giving the people what they want.

And don't even joke about that last part.
He's the only one with a prayer.

1. he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?),
2. he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer,
3. he's started an illegal war,
4. he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called,

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

1. Sorry to inform you but "wire tapping" has been going on from the White House / CIA for the last 30+ years.
2. O really? Please tell me where
3. See #2 and please explain how it is an Illegal war (no such thing)
4. I highly doubt that. Can you show me where he did that?

Link please for all your facts or they are just some kid that heard something on the radio and ran with it.

You must present FACTS not HYPE from the media; today’s children are a bunch of morons! :headbang::headbang:

1. Sorry to inform you but "wire tapping" has been going on from the White House / CIA for the last 30+ years.
Not the same. They went through FISA. He did not.

2. O really? Please tell me where
Guantanamo.

1. Sorry to inform you but "wire tapping" has been going on from the White House / CIA for the last 30+ years.
This is more or less true.
2. O really? Please tell me where
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1852661.htm
3. See #2 and please explain how it is an Illegal war (no such thing)
Really? According to the UN Charter, which the US is signatory too, this war was illegal. Keep in mind, the constitution says that the treaties the United States signs are second only to the constitution itself in determining legality.
4. I highly doubt that. Can you show me where he did that?
See above article.
Link please for all your facts or they are just some kid that heard something on the radio and ran with it.

Actually, one is far more likely to hear some of your drivel on the radio than his.

The reason Mr. Bush hasn't been impeached is simple. He hasn't done anything wrong. :)

Shall we take the rest of your rant on a point by point basis? o_O

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?),...

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific mention of wiretapping one way or the other. Given the fact that the Constitution was written about 100 years or so before the invention of the telephone that would be rather prescient on the part of the Founders. :D

But it *is* interesting that you don't think foreign terrorists don't deserve to be spied upon. Your tenderness on their behalf is duly noted even if no one in authority in Europe shares it. ^_~

...he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer,...

Yeah, look how much access to lawyers FDR gave German POWS in WWII! :rolleyes:

For that matter, I note with interest that prisoners in Guatanamo tend to leave with gains in weight and are given better treatment than ordinary prisoners in New York, LA and Chicago. A definition of "torture" that includes better treatment than Paris Hilton got is a very *liberal* one indeed. ^O^

...he's started an illegal war,

No he hasn't. Congress gave him he goahead. And Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. Do you want to impeach Hillary Clinton as well? No? Then I guess you don't consider this particular charge to be serious. :)



he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right

Then, with all due respect, don't you think you should take the time to look it up and know what you are talking about before you post? o_O Knowing what you are talking about is a conservative notion but if enough of you leftists took the time to do it you might become a bit more persuasive and a bit better informed.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

I'm sure that somewhere there is indeed an alternate universe where this statement is something other than fiction. :rolleyes:

In the meantime may I take the time to welcome you to *this* universe where nothing of the sort ever happened? :D


So why hasn't he been impeached?

Because "Wah! Wah! Wah! He won an election that we Democrats wanted to win!" Wah! Wah! Wah!" (Which is the real reason you libs spend your lives babbling about impeachment! ^O^) just doesn't cut it as grounds for impeachment. :)

Sucks to be a leftist! ^_~

The reason Mr. Bush hasn't been impeached is simple. He hasn't done anything wrong. :)

Shall we take the rest of your rant on a point by point basis? o_O



Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific mention of wiretapping one way or the other. Given the fact that the Constitution was written about 100 years or so before the invention of the telephone that would be rather prescient on the part of the Founders. :D

But it *is* interesting that you don't think foreign terrorists don't deserve to be spied upon. Your tenderness on their behalf is duly noted even if no one in authority in Europe shares it. ^_~



Yeah, look how much access to lawyers FDR gave German POWS in WWII! :rolleyes:

For that matter, I note with interest that prisoners in Guatanamo tend to leave with gains in weight and are given better treatment than ordinary prisoners in New York, LA and Chicago. A definition of "torture" that includes better treatment than Paris Hilton got is a very *liberal* one indeed. ^O^



No he hasn't. Congress gave him he goahead. And Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. Do you want to impeach Hillary Clinton as well? No? Then I guess you don't consider this particular charge to be serious. :)





Then, with all due respect, don't you think you should take the time to look it up and know what you are talking about before you post? o_O Knowing what you are talking about is a conservative notion but if enough of you leftists took the time to do it you might become a bit more persuasive and a bit better informed.



I'm sure that somewhere there is indeed an alternate universe where this statement is something other than fiction. :rolleyes:

In the meantime may I take the time to welcome you to *this* universe where nothing of the sort ever happened? :D




Because "Wah! Wah! Wah! He won an election that we Democrats wanted to win!" Wah! Wah! Wah!" (Which is the real reason you libs spend your lives babbling about impeachment! ^O^) just doesn't cut it as grounds for impeachment. :)

Sucks to be a leftist! ^_~
I tried to read your response but found it stupid. Are you just gloating or are these arguments in your mind?

I tried to read your response but found it stupid. Are you just gloating or are these arguments in your mind?
He's a typical American. Best rationalizers in the world.

The reason Mr. Bush hasn't been impeached is simple. He hasn't done anything wrong. :)

Are you that delusional? He:

1. Started an illegal, unjust war.
2. Lied to the American people to start said war.
3. Failed to react to the report that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack within the United States.
4. Eroded our civil liberties at an almost unprecedented level.
5. Started giving religions money in the form of "faith-based" programs.
6. Fought an investigation of 9/11 and refused to turn over documents.
7. Totally ignored congress.
8. Censored the media (If I remember right, they are now banned from showing flag-draped coffins.)


Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific mention of wiretapping one way or the other.

No shit, sherlock. It does, however, cover search and seizure, and wiretaps are considered to be a kind of search.

Given the fact that the Constitution was written about 100 years or so before the invention of the telephone that would be rather prescient on the part of the Founders. :D


So you admit that your argument is garbage?

But it *is* interesting that you don't think foreign terrorists don't deserve to be spied upon. Your tenderness on their behalf is duly noted even if no one in authority in Europe shares it. ^_~

Now you're just lying. What we think is that the intelligence agencies shouldn't have unrestricted power to spy on whoever they want.

Yeah, look how much access to lawyers FDR gave German POWS in WWII! :rolleyes:

You'll notice, however, he treated them as POWs, not "Enemy Combatants".

For that matter, I note with interest that prisoners in Guatanamo tend to leave with gains in weight and are given better treatment than ordinary prisoners in New York, LA and Chicago. A definition of "torture" that includes better treatment than Paris Hilton got is a very *liberal* one indeed. ^O^

Man, can you type this stuff with a straight face?

No he hasn't. Congress gave him he goahead. And Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. Do you want to impeach Hillary Clinton as well? No? Then I guess you don't consider this particular charge to be serious. :)


I wouldn't mind impeaching Hillary Clinton.


Then, with all due respect, don't you think you should take the time to look it up and know what you are talking about before you post? o_O Knowing what you are talking about is a conservative notion but if enough of you leftists took the time to do it you might become a bit more persuasive and a bit better informed.

THE IRONY! IT BURNS!



I'm sure that somewhere there is indeed an alternate universe where this statement is something other than fiction. :rolleyes:


Speaking of alternate universes, do you live in that world where the media is run by evil zionist liberals, everything is Bill Clinton's fault and Christianity is the best thing since sliced bread?



Because "Wah! Wah! Wah! He won an stole that we Democrats wanted to win!" Wah! Wah! Wah!"

There we go. That's a bit more honest. Provided we're talking about the 2000 one. Maybe the 2004 one too.

(Which is the real reason you libs spend your lives babbling about impeachment! ^O^) just doesn't cut it as grounds for impeachment. :)


Maybe we want to impeach him because he's a criminal.


Sucks to be a leftist! ^_~

Sucks to be both ignorant and arrogant. Bad combination.

And those stupid text smilies are even more annoying than the gun smilies.

This may come as a shock to and the rest of the "look how cynical about politicians, aren't I cool?" crowd, but decently principled people run for office all the time (Kucinich and Gavel for example). They never get elected, and they rarely get nominated. In the rare occurrence that they do make it into high office, they are marginalized by a media hostile to idealism and change. The politicians are giving the people what they want.


Bah. I'm not cynical towards politicians because it's cool, but because they have rarely proven themselves to be trustworthy individuals.

The problem with Kucinich and Gavel are, of course, not that they're moral or principled, but the fact that their principles are simply too radical for most Americans to support.

He's a typical American. Best rationalizers in the world.

Can we cut out the America-bashing?

Is this some new fad? "Look at me bash Americans, look at how cool I am!"

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures;12820783]I tried to read your response.../QUOTE]

Don't worry. Literacy is an acquired skill and doubtless you will improve with both time and practice. :)

Look at Multiland! He typed a whole post by himself and, apart from not knowing what he was talking about *by his own account*, he was actually about as coherent as any liberal can be. Doubtless he too will improve with time! ^_~

To keep it simple enough even for *you* let us merely note the fact that the only reasons Democrats want to impeach President Bush is that they are crybaby losers rather than because he did anything wrong. :)

Hope that helps! ^_~

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures;12820783]I tried to read your response.../QUOTE]

Don't worry. Literacy is an acquired skill and doubtless you will improve with both time and practice. :)

Look at Multiland! He typed a whole post by himself and, apart from not knowing what he was talking about *by his own account*, he was actually about as coherent as any liberal can be. Doubtless he too will improve with time! ^_~

To keep it simple enough even for *you* let us merely note the fact that the only reasons Democrats want to impeach President Bush is that they are crybaby losers rather than because he did anything wrong. :)

Hope that helps! ^_~

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

I think we can all agree this is a good idea. Let's just stop responding to him and hope he goes away.

Sucks to be both ignorant and arrogant. Bad combination.

Well, for other people.
The only two times a president has been impeached, it has been for silly reasons (actually just one silly reason, the Congress didn't like him). I think Democrats are more cautious, and will only do impeaching if Bush does something blatantly illegal. Unfortunately, there is enough of a group effort to do illegal things in the White House, it's hard to say that something is entirely his fault, or he planned to do this illegal thing himself.

Well, for other people.
The only two times a president has been impeached, it has been for silly reasons (actually just one silly reason, the Congress didn't like him). I think Democrats are more cautious, and will only do impeaching if Bush does something blatantly illegal. Unfortunately, there is enough of a group effort to do illegal things in the White House, it's hard to say that something is entirely his fault, or he planned to do this illegal thing himself.

I'm hardly ignorant or arrogant. Well, maybe a little arrogant.

He did do something blatantly illegal. He was elected in an election in which tens of thousands of people were illegally prohibited from voting, and he was the one who started the illegal wiretapping program.

Bah. I'm not cynical towards politicians because it's cool, but because they have rarely proven themselves to be trustworthy individuals.
This is true.
The problem with Kucinich and Gavel are, of course, not that they're moral or principled, but the fact that their principles are simply too radical for most Americans to support.
And that is exactly my point! The fact that Kucinich and Gavel are considered radical is evidence of the ignorance and complacency of the American people.
The fact that Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani aren't laughed out of the campaign is evidence of the subtle evil of a significant minority.
Can we cut out the America-bashing?

Is this some new fad? "Look at me bash Americans, look at how cool I am!"
If you knew my politics, you'd know that I would love nothing more than to be able to love my country.

If you knew my politics, you'd know that I would love nothing more than to be able to love my country.

The only thing I have ever seen in relation to this is you bashing Americans.

I'm fine with bashing the government, or bashing the voting habits of certain groups, or stuff like that. But you seem to make massive generalizations about America as a whole. I object to that generalization just as I would object to a generalization like "Woman are stupid."

Not the same. They went through FISA. He did not.


Guantanamo.

Wire tap is a wire tap weather it is from the CIA / White house or not. ever heard of Carnivore?

Sorry there was no Torture at Gitmo


like i said before which you failed to do this time to is present FACTS not media HYPE. a way to present with FACTS is to present links.

Congress can impeach him for something as general as a lack of faith. High crimes and misdemeanors was worded ambiguously on purpose.

http://www.space-rockets.com/photo/congress.jpg

We find your lack of faith disturbing....

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/2d4/811/2d4811f4-cc24-4eb3-9947-811871a31837

Don't worry. Literacy is an acquired skill and doubtless you will improve with both time and practice. :)

Look at Multiland! He typed a whole post by himself and, apart from not knowing what he was talking about *by his own account*, he was actually about as coherent as any liberal can be. Doubtless he too will improve with time! ^_~

To keep it simple enough even for *you* let us merely note the fact that the only reasons Democrats want to impeach President Bush is that they are crybaby losers rather than because he did anything wrong. :)

Hope that helps! ^_~
I tried again to read your response but still cannot get past the stupid. What are you saying? Is it that your responses are literary? I caught a word in there that resembled "literary". Do you view posting here as a creative writing assignment?

1. This is more or less true.

2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1852661.htm

3. Really? According to the UN Charter, which the US is signatory too, this war was illegal. Keep in mind, the constitution says that the treaties the United States signs are second only to the constitution itself in determining legality.

4. See above article.

Actually, one is far more likely to hear some of your drivel on the radio than his.

1. Thank you
2. <snip from your article> the US Court of Appeals ruled the law that Congress passed (it doesn't say Bush) last year took away the rights of the prisoners at the US military base in Cuba
3. Please present me with a LINK to where it says that this was is illegal.
4. Please see #3

Mine is not drivel mine is fact cuz i WAS there and still am.

Bah. I'm not cynical towards politicians because it's cool, but because they have rarely proven themselves to be trustworthy individuals.

The problem with Kucinich and Gavel are, of course, not that they're moral or principled, but the fact that their principles are simply too radical for most Americans to support.

I have NEVER met a politicians that told the truth, all an election is, is a competition to prove who the best liar is. That is all. Both sides, heck even the Independents do this. Shoot even the politicians in the UN do the same.

Say one thing does another.....

Are you that delusional? He:

1. Started an illegal, unjust war.
2. Lied to the American people to start said war.
3. Failed to react to the report that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack within the United States.
4. Eroded our civil liberties at an almost unprecedented level.
5. Started giving religions money in the form of "faith-based" programs.
6. Fought an investigation of 9/11 and refused to turn over documents.
7. Totally ignored congress.
8. Censored the media (If I remember right, they are now banned from showing flag-draped coffins.) .

1. Yes, yes! Saddam and Bin Ladin are the *essence* of everything you liberals love and stand for. How *dare* President Bush do anything against Saddam and Bin Ladin. :rolleyes:

But since Hillary voted for the war then you are obliged to call for the impeachment of Senator Clinton as well if you really believe the war is wrong. :D

2. See #1

3. Yes, yes! In precisely the same way FDR failed to react to reports that the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor. Clearly you liberals wish to dig up FDR's body to impeach him, right? :)

4. "eroded our civil liberties"? Dude, get real! The President hasn't even done as much as Woodrow Wilson or FDR are did during their wars. Come back when your complaints are real. :p

5. Actually that happened under President Clinton as well. Quick! Let's see you go pull Hillary's househusband into court to impeach him! Don't want to do that? Then I guess you know this claim is bogus as well. :D

6. Interesting resort to fiction but nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision making that illegal even were that true. :)

7. Nowhere in the Constitution is ignoring Congress illegal. Given the corruption of Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein perhaps that's just as well. But who knows? Maybe if Nancy Pelosi stomps her foot and threatens to run away from home maybe she'll get some attention. :D

8. So you think the families of dead people don't have a right to privacy? Shows what *your* supposed belief in civil liberty is worth! :P


Now let's cover your responses. ^_^





No shit, sherlock. It does, however, cover search and seizure, and wiretaps are considered to be a kind of search.



So you admit that your argument is garbage?



Now you're just lying. What we think is that the intelligence agencies shouldn't have unrestricted power to spy on whoever they want.



You'll notice, however, he treated them as POWs, not "Enemy Combatants".



Man, can you type this stuff with a straight face?

I wouldn't mind impeaching Hillary Clinton.




THE IRONY! IT BURNS!



1. But foreign terrorists are still *foreign* terrorists and as such are subject to wiretapping and all other manners of search.

2 .I do indeed admit that *your* arguements are garbage. ^_^

3. See? You *are* tender on behalf of terrorists if you are opposed to spies acting like spies in time of war. Thanks for conceding the point. ^-^

4. You'll notice that German soldiers wore uniforms and as such were *entitled* to be treated as soldiers rather than enemy combatants. If we executed everyone as Guantanamo we would be within our rights to do so because they fall outside the legal protection of the Geneva Convention.

5. One cannot but laugh at leftists while typing given their inane dialogue. Thank you for asking. ^_^

6. If you really want to impeach Hillary then let's see you get off your duff and try it. ^_~

7. [Watches Zarakon get burned by irony!]. :eek:

8. "There we go. That's a bit more honest. Provided we're talking about the 2000 one. Maybe the 2004 one too."

Precisely. All libs believe that elections are mere formalities prior to their coronation and the idea that people might actually *vote* against them should be made illegal. Such is the way the lib mind works. :rolleyes:



9. "Maybe we want to impeach him because he's a criminal."

And maybe Nancy Pelosi is actually a guy in drag too. Not likely though. ^o^



10. "Sucks to be both ignorant and arrogant. Bad combination."

That's why you libs lose so many debates. ^_^

11. "And those stupid text smilies are even more annoying than the gun"

Mundanes often say that. Thank you for playing! :)

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?


Hello,
(1) I believe wiretapping was limited to international communications involving terror suspects. Wiretapping suspected enemies is nothing new and it has been done by previous administrations.
(2) Re torture - There has been a lot of accusations but few solid facts. Who! Where! When! etc.
(3) Don't believe that that Bush called constution "Just a goddam piece of paper." Please provide source for your information. If this is true then it must be out of context!

People like to "Bash" Bush but the occasional fact is nice!

I tried again to read your response but still cannot get past the stupid.

People with poor reading comprehension often have self-esteem issues as well. Don't worry. We don't expect much of libs. Just keep trying! ^_^

*reads the whole thread.*
*notes the bickering and personal attacks going back and forth*

and this Gentlemen and Ladies... is why GW Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

Wire tap is a wire tap weather it is from the CIA / White house or not. ever heard of Carnivore?

No shit. However, everyone else went through the correct legal channels. Bush did not. That is why his wiretapping was illegal.

Since most people seem painfully unaware as to what habeas corpus is, I will try to explain it to you. Habeas corpus is a means by which people accused of a crime and taken into custody can seek relief if their imprisonment is not just. It requires that you be brought before a court to determine if imprisonment is just. Habeas corpus is mentioned in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, where it states that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

It has been suspended the times in the history of the United States, during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the War on Terror. It has always been suspended by the President (yes, Abraham Lincoln did what George Bush did...), which has caused controversy a the power is mentioned in Article 1, which defines the legislative branch. Abraham Lincoln suspended it in response to rebellions taking place across the country. Grant suspended it to take action against the Ku Klux Klan.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order curtailing the right of non-citizens accused of connections with terrorism to seek a writ of habeas corpus, certainly an expected response after the largest attack on the United States.

Now that I'm done with that little history, I'll answer the question of the topic: Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? The answer is because there is no legal basis. Despite what you may have heard from raving people on CNN or MSNBC or Air America Radio, there just isn't. If we impeached every member of the government who violated the Constitution, then mercy, mercy, we wouldn't have a government. Just food for thought, what do you think happens when the Supreme Court decides against things? They rule that actions are unconstitutional. Think FDR and court packing...

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order curtailing the right of non-citizens accused of connections with terrorism to seek a writ of habeas corpus, certainly an expected response after the largest attack on the United States.

Largest attack my ass. What the hell was the Civil War?

Largest attack my ass. What the hell was the Civil War?

a war. war =|= attack.

a war. war =|= attack.

And Fort Sumter was just an Olympic Ceremony?

Since most people seem painfully unaware as to what habeas corpus is, I will try to explain it to you. Habeas corpus is a means by which people accused of a crime and taken into custody can seek relief if their imprisonment is not just. It requires that you be brought before a court to determine if imprisonment is just. Habeas corpus is mentioned in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, where it states that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

It has been suspended the times in the history of the United States, during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the War on Terror. It has always been suspended by the President (yes, Abraham Lincoln did what George Bush did...), which has caused controversy a the power is mentioned in Article 1, which defines the legislative branch. Abraham Lincoln suspended it in response to rebellions taking place across the country. Grant suspended it to take action against the Ku Klux Klan.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order curtailing the right of non-citizens accused of connections with terrorism to seek a writ of habeas corpus, certainly an expected response after the largest attack on the United States.

Now that I'm done with that little history, I'll answer the question of the topic: Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? The answer is because there is no legal basis. Despite what you may have heard from raving people on CNN or MSNBC or Air America Radio, there just isn't. If we impeached every member of the government who violated the Constitution, then mercy, mercy, we wouldn't have a government. Just food for thought, what do you think happens when the Supreme Court decides against things? They rule that actions are unconstitutional. Think FDR and court packing...

I asked this earlier of someone else and got ignored, so I'll pose the question to you: Why then was this not the administration's arguement? Their position (as stated by the AG) is that the Constitution, although it specifically prohibits any law that abridges habeus corpus, does not actually grant that right. Personally, I don't buy your arguement any more than I bought Gonzalez's, but let's pretend you were actually right about this. Wouldn't it have made more sense to argue that conditions required suspension of habeus corpus rather than argueing that habeus corpus doesn't exist?

I believe wiretapping was limited to international communications involving terror suspects.

that's nice. but over here in realityland, this is not actually the case.

And Fort Sumter was just an Olympic Ceremony?

No, Fort Sumter is in the South. It was a cotillion. :D

that's nice. but over here in realityland, this is not actually the case.


It was terror suspects abroad calling people in the US, who may or may not be terror suspects.

I asked this earlier of someone else and got ignored, so I'll pose the question to you: Why then was this not the administration's arguement? Their position (as stated by the AG) is that the Constitution, although it specifically prohibits any law that abridges habeus corpus, does not actually grant that right. Personally, I don't buy your arguement any more than I bought Gonzalez's, but let's pretend you were actually right about this. Wouldn't it have made more sense to argue that conditions required suspension of habeus corpus rather than argueing that habeus corpus doesn't exist?

So basically not only do we have a nepotistic and borderline corrupt administration running the country into the ground, they're also too lazy to come up with the proper excuses and justifications for their rampancy.

Take a look at Darth Cheney setting himself up with the "The Vice Presidency is part of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive oh wait I claim Executive Privilege so you don't have to see who I brought to the Energy Task Force" as the brightest example of this dullness in imagination.

It was terror suspects abroad calling people in the US, who may or may not be terror suspects.

no, it wasn't. jeebus f. cristof, this shit was openly acknowledged and even slightly discussed on the fucking teevee.

no, it wasn't. jeebus f. cristof, this shit was openly acknowledged and even slightly discussed on the fucking teevee.

Oh yeah?! The adminstration lied about everything else so why should we trust them on this? I got you there, liberal-boy!

Oh yeah?! The adminstration lied about everything else so why should we trust them on this? I got you there, liberal-boy!

damn, that's a good point. fuck, what if they are lying about the illegal stuff they admit to doing?

damn, that's a good point. fuck, what if they are lying about the illegal stuff they admit to doing?

OMFG! :eek: What if they're really paragons of virtue and are just trying to make us think they're amoral and self-serving? We are through the looking-glass, people! Black is white, up is down!

I asked this earlier of someone else and got ignored, so I'll pose the question to you: Why then was this not the administration's arguement? Their position (as stated by the AG) is that the Constitution, although it specifically prohibits any law that abridges habeus corpus, does not actually grant that right. Personally, I don't buy your arguement any more than I bought Gonzalez's, but let's pretend you were actually right about this. Wouldn't it have made more sense to argue that conditions required suspension of habeus corpus rather than argueing that habeus corpus doesn't exist?

Absolutly, that would clearly be the better way to argue it. Then again, I never accused the administration of having an over abundance of common sense. ;)

George Bush hasn't been impeached simply because he is bringing more people's attention to the government than any other president. He is making people want to be aware of what is going on, even if it's in a negative aspect. He improves the government's ratings.

WOW 13 pages and no real facts from either side. GG

I believe the the real reason that W hasn't been impeached is, simply, that he hasn't had sex with an intern.

maybe if he hooked up with an intern and a cohiba

WOW 13 pages and no real facts from either side. GG

dude, i posted a link to the actual punishments written into the law that bush admitted on national tv to willfully and flagrantly violating thousands of times. what sort of facts are you looking for?

I mean, ffs, he's blatantly ignored the constitution (wiretapping anyone?), he's encouraged torture and imprisonment without charge or trial and without any access to a lawyer, he's started an illegal war, he's ripped up that habeus corpus thing or whatever it's called, and he's done whatever else I can't remember right now.

Oh and remember he publicly called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper".

So why hasn't he been impeached?

Although he has done some really stupid things, he hasn't done anything illegal.

Most of your list is iffy, and the war isn't illegal. He can send troops (if congress approves the budget, which somehow they did) without congress "declaring war", just like the Vietnam war.

he hasn't done anything illegal.

fucking christ, pay attention

Beloved Dear Leader hasn't been impeached because he's been skirting the technicalities. Bill Clinton was harped up on a technicality (lying under oath) while Dear Leader hasn't committed any technical fouls.

Darth Cheney? That's another story entirely.

Darth Cheney? That's another story entirely.

No he didn't! Executive privilege says so!

Let me ask you something. Why wasn't Bill Clinton impeached? Sexual Harassment, Perjury, and giving the North Koreans billions of dollars and a nuclear power plant. As for the wasr in Iraq that technicaly isn't a war, it's an operation. And the president has the right to start an opereration. Wiretaps were made for the defence of the nation, and to save lives. Habeus Corpus is the right to a trial, and has nothing to do with wiretaps. And I don't ever recall Bush insulting the constitution. But, Hillary Clinton proposed getting rid of the constitution, and replaceing it with the UN charter.

Let me ask you something. Why wasn't Bill Clinton impeached? Sexual Harassment, Perjury, and giving the North Koreans billions of dollars and a nuclear power plant. As for the wasr in Iraq that technicaly isn't a war, it's an operation. And the president has the right to start an opereration. Wiretaps were made for the defence of the nation, and to save lives. Habeus Corpus is the right to a trial, and has nothing to do with wiretaps. And I don't ever recall Bush insulting the constitution. But, Hillary Clinton proposed getting rid of the constitution, and replaceing it with the UN charter.

Clinton was impeached. He simply wasn't convicted and removed from office. Impeachment refers to the process itself, not simply the conviction and removal.

Let me ask you something. Why wasn't Bill Clinton impeached? Sexual Harassment, Perjury, and giving the North Koreans billions of dollars and a nuclear power plant. As for the wasr in Iraq that technicaly isn't a war, it's an operation. And the president has the right to start an opereration.


Firstly, you *might* have case for two of those, however not for perjury. Perjury involves lying about material issues, not about irrelevent questions.


Wiretaps were made for the defence of the nation, and to save lives.

Still requires a court order, which El Bushio went to great lengths to not do.


Habeus Corpus is the right to a trial, and has nothing to do with wiretaps. And I don't ever recall Bush insulting the constitution.


No, but it has a lot to do with the Fifth Amendment.


But, Hillary Clinton proposed getting rid of the constitution, and replaceing it with the UN charter.

Source. I'm not asking a question for a source on this, I am demanding it. This sounds far to absurd. And still, the defense of "But she did this" is kindergarten at best, and doesn't work in the real world. You seem to think that all democrats, or liberals, seem to be rallying behind Clinton, which I can assure you is not the case.

Bcause corporation or rather say business it's just business

You can kick 'em both out, you know.

*Sigh* the fact remains that you have to remove one before the other meaning. That if you remove Cheney first Pelosi (thank god) doesnt become VP, instead Bush is allowed to choose a new VP. Thats how Ford became VP during Noxon's term when his previous VP resigned following some nasty allegations. If you do Bush first (not that it would work anyway but...) then you have a President Cheney (*shudders*), now I'm honestly unsure if he would be able to appoint a new VP but still party lines wouldnt allow for the necessary 2/3 majority in the Senate to get hm out of office, sorry but I think the GOP would be able to scrounge 34 Senators votes in such a movement.

Quite honestly, this whole fiasco just underscores why I dislike the way the US government is operated as Congress cannot force new elections for a new Head of State, or dissolve the current Congress to allow for the people to switch their mandate. As such once a US President enters his second term he is able to do a hell of a lot without consulting Congress, or even caring what they think. Now you can say what you want but I personally think that the US has too strong of an executive.

So to round this out I dont think it would do any good to try to impeach either Bush or Cheney because it will end up going no where and they only have one year left they cant do too much more damage, right? *Slaps face* Oh, S**t they still have one year left, where will we conduct "operations" next; god help us!

*Sigh* the fact remains that you have to remove one before the other meaning. That if you remove Cheney first Pelosi (thank god) doesnt become VP, instead Bush is allowed to choose a new VP. Thats how Ford became VP during Noxon's term when his previous VP resigned following some nasty allegations. If you do Bush first (not that it would work anyway but...) then you have a President Cheney (*shudders*), now I'm honestly unsure if he would be able to appoint a new VP but still party lines wouldnt allow for the necessary 2/3 majority in the Senate to get hm out of office, sorry but I think the GOP would be able to scrounge 34 Senators votes in such a movement.

Quite honestly, this whole fiasco just underscores why I dislike the way the US government is operated as Congress cannot force new elections for a new Head of State, or dissolve the current Congress to allow for the people to switch their mandate. As such once a US President enters his second term he is able to do a hell of a lot without consulting Congress, or even caring what they think. Now you can say what you want but I personally think that the US has too strong of an executive.

So to round this out I dont think it would do any good to try to impeach either Bush or Cheney because it will end up going no where and they only have one year left they cant do too much more damage, right? *Slaps face* Oh, S**t they still have one year left, where will we conduct "operations" next; god help us!

I don't know...

Project Mayhem time?? :p

I don't know...

Project Mayhem time??

Or, perhaps, we could impeach them at the same time? Nothing against that, as far as I can see.

The only thing I have ever seen in relation to this is you bashing Americans.

I'm fine with bashing the government, or bashing the voting habits of certain groups, or stuff like that. But you seem to make massive generalizations about America as a whole. I object to that generalization just as I would object to a generalization like "Woman are stupid."
The differance of course being that there is no evidence that women are stupider than men, while there is a tremendous amount of evidence available showing that Americans are far more ignorant, apathetic and uncaring than others in developed countries.

No one wants Cheney to be President.

Cheney being VP essentially makes Bush impeachment-proof.

Or, perhaps, we could impeach them at the same time? Nothing against that, as far as I can see.

I dont think you would have time for that, quite honestly, and seriously I think we'll just have to tolerate them for the year that they have left. Now we have to hope that the next fool we elect will do less damage. Politicians suck.

No one wants Cheney to be President.

Cheney being VP essentially makes Bush impeachment-proof.

God damn, that was their plan all along!

God damn, that was their plan all along!

It is finally clear to me!

No one wants Cheney to be President.

Cheney being VP essentially makes Bush impeachment-proof.

easily avoided. impeach cheney first, and then don't approve whoever bush nominates for vp.

Spiro Agnew got picked off before Tricky Dick seppukued himself out of office.

Why not aim for Cheney first then go for Beloved Dear Leader?

easily avoided. impeach cheney first, and then don't approve whoever bush nominates for vp.

Damn, never thought of that. So what's their (Congress's) excuse?

Damn, never thought of that. So what's their (Congress's) excuse?

Impeaching Bush isn't politically convenient.

You have to understand, they don't feel the moral indignation that you and I feel. The vast majority have, at this point, lost the part of their humanity that allows them to feel such emotions.

Impeaching Bush isn't politically convenient.

You have to understand, they don't feel the moral indignation that you and I feel. The vast majority have, at this point, lost the part of their humanity that allows them to feel such emotions.

Then again, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be politicians, would they? :p