NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been opposed to Impeachment on the grounds of not wanting to start a back and forth Impeachment war between the Republicans and Democrats. However, I always stated that I would support Impeachment if a substantive and unquestionable reason for Impeachment arose. The events of the last week have changed my mind: the breaches of this President are now worthy of impeachment. It is time to remove the lone (26%) Ranger.

Now, I know that from all the things Bush has done, the Commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence will just be a comma in a string of long, and incomprehensible (likely made up?) words. However, I beleive that it has more significance than is immediately apparent to America or the world.

As almost all of us are aware, three advisors or members of the President's staff have been subpoenad (amongst them Harriet Miers) in connection with the President's illegal wiretapping program. We are also aware that the Vice President (known henceforth as Fourthbranch) has refused to release documents.

The President has been resisting the subpoenas (cause enough for Contempt of Congress charges), but the pardon-in-all-but-name of Scooter Libby gives him another option. His advisors need no longer worry about telling the truth under oath. He need only pardon them as he has pardoned Scooter Libby for protecting him. Does the President have the right to pardon whomever he chooses? Yes, but that does not mean that he cannot be impeached. The system of checks and balances is now truly imbalanced, as Congressional Oversight is undermined.

Similarly, Fourthbranch is attempting to avoid justice and oversight. This is also an impeachable offense.

Now is the time for Congress to act: Impeach Gonzales, Impeach Cheney, and Impeach Bush. Not on the silly and trumped up charges of H Res. 333, but on charges of Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress. Americans, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them you will not wait. The tide is turning, and we cannot allow this to stand.

Is impeachment time like Peanut Butter Jelly time?

Is impeachment time like Peanut Butter Jelly time?

Well, most of America is hungry for it, so I suppose so.

Americans, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them you will not wait. The tide is turning, and we cannot allow this to stand.

All my Representatives and Senators would take a bullet for Bush.

Is impeachment time like Peanut Butter Jelly time?

Sounds tasty.

Nobody cares.

Kinda a bit late for impeachment though...

Nobody cares.

Also, this guy is right.

The reason the average American doesn't like Bush has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, the wire taps or even the egregious breaches of authority. They don't like Bush because we're losing in Iraq and he isn't stopping the immigrants. Really. They really couldn't give a flying fuck about how we've screwed up Iraqi society and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians; they're just getting bored with the news story and tired of pretending to feel sorry for the families of soldiers, and every time they're slightly inconvenienced by someone who doesn't speak English completely fluently, they get mad at the president for not ordering the national guard to militarize every mile of the border.

Honestly, i just love how Dick isn't a member of the Executive Branch.

Some of his lines are just classic.

Nobody cares.

Isnt that the problem?

I've been opposed to Impeachment on the grounds of not wanting to start a back and forth Impeachment war between the Republicans and Democrats. However, I always stated that I would support Impeachment if a substantive and unquestionable reason for Impeachment arose. The events of the last week have changed my mind: the breaches of this President are now worthy of impeachment. It is time to remove the lone (26%) Ranger.

Now, I know that from all the things Bush has done, the Commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence will just be a comma in a string of long, and incomprehensible (likely made up?) words. However, I beleive that it has more significance than is immediately apparent to America or the world.

As almost all of us are aware, three advisors or members of the President's staff have been subpoenad (amongst them Harriet Miers) in connection with the President's illegal wiretapping program. We are also aware that the Vice President (known henceforth as Fourthbranch) has refused to release documents.

The President has been resisting the subpoenas (cause enough for Contempt of Congress charges), but the pardon-in-all-but-name of Scooter Libby gives him another option. His advisors need no longer worry about telling the truth under oath. He need only pardon them as he has pardoned Scooter Libby for protecting him. Does the President have the right to pardon whomever he chooses? Yes, but that does not mean that he cannot be impeached. The system of checks and balances is now truly imbalanced, as Congressional Oversight is undermined.

Similarly, Fourthbranch is attempting to avoid justice and oversight. This is also an impeachable offense.

Now is the time for Congress to act: Impeach Gonzales, Impeach Cheney, and Impeach Bush. Not on the silly and trumped up charges of H Res. 333, but on charges of Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress. Americans, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them you will not wait. The tide is turning, and we cannot allow this to stand.

You know what...I'll help you. No explanations, I'll just do it. I'll email Marty Meehan, John Kerry and Jabba the Hutt (read: Ted Kennedy) as soon as possible.

EDIT: Whoops. Looks like Meehan's now the Chancellor at ULowell. I'll have to find that other guy...

Nobody cares.

Are you interested in politics, at all?:confused: You know that you're pretending to run a country on here... right!? So you MUST be interested in politics just a little bit? Right!?!?!

Someone's gotta post this.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4536/notagainxo3.jpg

Commuting a sentence or issuing a pardon are not impeachable offenses. Otherwise Bill Clinton would have been impeached and removed from offices considering he commuted more sentences and issued more pardons than Bush has. At least 3 times more. And the things he commuted people for were for crimes far worse than lying to a jury.

Something about it being too late in the Bush presidency to carry out a proper impeachment proceeding.

Commuting a sentence or issuing a pardon are not impeachable offenses. Otherwise Bill Clinton would have been impeached and removed from offices considering he commuted more sentences and issued more pardons than Bush has. At least 3 times more. And the things he commuted people for were for crimes far worse than lying to a jury.

You might try reading a post before replying to it.

All my Representatives and Senators would take a bullet for Bush.

Part of sending emails like this is not just to change minds, but to push the Overton Window. Even if your Senator would rather die than remove Bush from office, by pushing the Overton Window on Impeachment, we move towards having hearings.

Nobody cares.

That's nice. See, that's why we start discussions like this: to make people think about the possibility.

Bush commuted Libby's prison term, but who'll commute our sentence of eight years of bush/cheney?

Commuting a sentence or issuing a pardon are not impeachable offenses. Otherwise Bill Clinton would have been impeached and removed from offices considering he commuted more sentences and issued more pardons than Bush has. At least 3 times more.
When you pardon someone in your own inner circle... On charges of government corruption, where even the president is under suspision... That's obstruction of justice.

So is Bush going to Pardon himself next?

And the things he commuted people for were for crimes far worse than lying to a jury. Did Clinton personally know these people and did these people perhaps did those crimes to personally help Clinton?
No? Then it has nothing to do with it.

And since it's okay to pardon people close to you...

Clinton should have just pardoned himself for Prejury then.

ROFLMAO!!!

There are no grounds for impeachment, there is no majority in the House to bring articles of impeachment, and there is no two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict, so you're stuck with crying and whining in frustration until January 20, 2009. Enjoy wasting your breath :p

ROFLMAO!!!

There are no grounds for impeachment, there is no majority in the House to bring articles of impeachment, and there is no two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict, so you're stuck with crying and whining in frustration until January 20, 2009. Enjoy wasting your breath :p

The only thing you are wrong about is what is in bold.

I don't know what's more depressing; Republicans that care more for the welfare of their party Muppet-in-chief than the welfare of the country, or Democrats that care more about yelling at the Republican Muppet-in-chief than about the country.

I need a drink. :(

I don't know what's more depressing; Republicans that care more for the welfare of their party Muppet-in-chief than the welfare of the country, or Democrats that care more about yelling at the Republican Muppet-in-chief than about the country.

I need a drink. :(

Now that isn't fair, LG. I have been opposed to impeachment for some time now. What changed my mind was the fact that Congressional Oversight has been completely undermined. Moreover, to assert that the Democrats, who have essentially declared that it will be a cold day in hell before they begin impeachment hearings and are focusing on the business of running the country are doing anything else is unfair. I am not (as far as I know) a spokesman for the Democratic Party.

Now that isn't fair, LG. I have been opposed to impeachment for some time now. What changed my mind was the fact that Congressional Oversight has been completely undermined. Moreover, to assert that the Democrats, who have essentially declared that it will be a cold day in hell before they begin impeachment hearings and are focusing on the business of running the country are doing anything else is unfair. I am not (as far as I know) a spokesman for the Democratic Party.

Perhaps not. Perhaps this is just a pretext to drink. :)

Perhaps not. Perhaps this is just a pretext to drink. :)

You need a pretext? :p

Perhaps not. Perhaps this is just a pretext to drink. :)

I didn't think lunatics needed a pretext to do anything...

Something about it being too late in the Bush presidency to carry out a proper impeachment proceeding.

What did Libby do?

What did Libby do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

Desperate Measures is quite right. The grounds for the consideration by congress of articles impeachment are quite easily defined.

1. Most ready at hand are the numerous violations of the FISA laws which were put into place precisely because a government overly concerned with internal security and secrecy had been routinely spying on American citizens, often times for reasons that had little or no connection to national security interests. It has been stated repeatedly that the president was aware of and authorized these violations of US law.

2. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A of the US legal code says:
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Moreover:

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

The Legal Code defines torture as:

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;...

Thus, it is not unreasonable to determine that the determination of the president and the vice president to advocate the application of "stress positions" and activities such as waterboarding may well fall into these categories.


3. The Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory, clearly define a war of aggression as a grave international crime. The supremecy clause of the U.S. Constituion make ratified treaties the equivilent of US law, requiring the compliance of our citizens and especially our elected and appointed representatives.

So while you may be right about Bush commuting Libby's sentence (and I don't entirely agree) it is waaaay down on the list of egregious violations of the US law that should merit impeachment proceedings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

Yeah, that doesn't answer my question.

Yeah, that doesn't answer my question.

Lied under oath, basically.

Lied under oath, basically.

Is that it? That's not a particularly major offense. What did he lie about?

Is that it? That's not a particularly major offense. What did he lie about?

It's a huge offense. It's why Clinton was impeached.

You need a pretext? :p

Well to be fair, I was more attacking republcan and democrat congressmen. But it seems that election jitters are knocking sense into quite a few of them. But the most annoying ones: The ones that blindly defend the President, and the ones that continue to press for investigations, hold press conferences and otherwise waste government time when they have no intention of following through with actual legislation(all bluster) continue to get all the press time.

They are like the fat woman from the trailer park with curlers in her hair who always gets interviewed after the tornado. *nod*

So I shall have some rum. But rest assured, no offense was meant to anybody. Not even the fat woman. :)

I didn't think lunatics needed a pretext to do anything...

That's exactly what I want you to think. :)

It's a huge offense. It's why Clinton was impeached.

Yeah, but he didn't go to jail even for a day, did he?

Yeah, but he didn't go to jail even for a day, did he?

He wasn't convicted.

Yeah, but he didn't go to jail even for a day, did he?

I can't.... I can't! I CAN'T! I CAN'T! I CAN'T!

I can't.... I can't! I CAN'T! I CAN'T! I CAN'T!

Sure you can. :)

That's exactly what I want you to think. :)

I'm beginning to understand...

All this time you have been more goofball than lunatic.

Gens Romae

The White House was attempting to discredit a vocal critic (former US Amasador Joseph Wilson) of apparently fabricated pretexts that had been created to justify the US assault on Iraq and as a part of that effort, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, possibly acting on behalf of the Vice President, leaked the name of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, who was married to Wilson to a number of journalists who were known to be cooperative with the white house.

Unfortunately, Plame's identity was classified and thus legally restricted information - the subsequent investigation of where the leak came from provided an opportunity for Libby to lie (or perjure) himself in front of a federal grand jury. He was subsequently convicted of of this crime and given a sentence that was largely regarded by most US legal experts as within the expected parameters.

Gens Romae

The White House was attempting to discredit a vocal critic (former US Amasador Joseph Wilson) of apparently fabricated pretexts that had been created to justify the US assault on Iraq and as a part of that effort, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, possibly acting on behalf of the Vice President, leaked the name of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, who was married to Wilson to a number of journalists who were known to be cooperative with the white house.

Unfortunately, Plame's identity was classified and thus legally restricted information - the subsequent investigation of where the leak came from provided an opportunity for Libby to lie (or perjure) himself in front of a federal grand jury. He was subsequently convicted of of this crime and given a sentence that was largely regarded by most US legal experts as within the expected parameters.

Whoa. Good job.

I'm beginning to understand...

All this time you have been more goofball than lunatic.

Just on Tuesdays. :)

Commuting a sentence or issuing a pardon are not impeachable offenses. Otherwise Bill Clinton would have been impeached and removed from offices considering he commuted more sentences and issued more pardons than Bush has. At least 3 times more. And the things he commuted people for were for crimes far worse than lying to a jury.

I don't know what school you went to, but the ones I went to taught me that 114 times three is not 140.

cant they just wait til they are out of office and indict them(Bush, Foutrhbranch, Rummy, Gonzo) as common criminals?

No, it is not "now impeachment time." It has been impeachment time for far too long.

Also, this guy is right.

The reason the average American doesn't like Bush has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, the wire taps or even the egregious breaches of authority. They don't like Bush because we're losing in Iraq and he isn't stopping the immigrants. Really. They really couldn't give a flying fuck about how we've screwed up Iraqi society and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians; they're just getting bored with the news story and tired of pretending to feel sorry for the families of soldiers, and every time they're slightly inconvenienced by someone who doesn't speak English completely fluently, they get mad at the president for not ordering the national guard to militarize every mile of the border.

Quoted For (Sad) Truth. :(

Bush has about a year and half left, and you're just now thinking about impeachment?

Honey, that train left the station, arrived at the other station de-boarded it's passenger and is now in storage for the winter.

Bush has about a year and half left, and you're just now thinking about impeachment?

Honey, that train left the station, arrived at the other station de-boarded it's passenger and is now in storage for the winter.

I'm doing it because it is the duty of all Americans to defend the system of justice, not because I beleive it will remove the President in a manner that will turn back the clock.

I'm doing it because it is the duty of all Americans to defend the system of justice, not because I beleive it will remove the President in a manner that will turn back the clock.

The president has the explicit check on the Judicial branch of granting pardons and commutations.

Its in the Constitution, and theres nothing you can do about it.

The president has the explicit check on the Judicial branch of granting pardons and commutations.

Its in the Constitution, and theres nothing you can do about it.

Sure I can. I can see him impeached.

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty"

James Madison - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

ZOMG! Yer absolutely right! Bush invaded Iraq without any authorization!
Now wait, congress approved it.

But he lied!
Well no, he acted on faulty intel. That microprocessor maker is going to pay!

He pardoned Libby!
Libby was convicted of lying about a crime that never took place. If the leak was a crime then the leaker (Dick Armitage, and there was no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward) would have been charged and likely convicted. Thing is that he wasn't and neither was Libby or anyone else. There shouldn't have even been an investigation to begin with. Just like there shouldn't have even been an investigation with Clinton. When you convict someone for lying during the investigation when no actual crime took place then it is wrong. If no one is convicted for what's being investigated then it's likely no crime took place.

The Scooter Libby commuting was indeed a blip on the radar, but there's plenty of reasons to get that bastard out of office.

From a "big picture" standpoint: Bush has shown that he cares nothing for the American People by consistently turning his back on them in the interests of pandering to his cronies. One example: the death of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Remember that?)

Now, if it was a little backwoods jerkwater in the middle of the Rust Belt, I could possibly see my way clear to understand why it took over a week to get anything like help to the people of the city. But New Orleans is a major seaport and tourist destination. It is a large, populous CITY. The Bush Administration turned their collective back on it and let people die. Even the cops gave up and it was in a state of anarchy for nearly a month after Katrina hit.

To me, that *alone* begs for an ouster.

As for Iraq: we had no legitimate reason to go there in the first place. Our business was in Afghanistan, rounding up the Taliban (aka religious Nazis, no hyperbole) and Al Qaeda. Iraq was a war of choice; Bush wanted to impress his Daddy by coming home with his would-be assassin's head on a silver platter. It was a family vendetta and he spent and is spending billions of our tax dollars in the pursuit of that. No, I don't want to impeach Bush because he's losing the Iraq War. I want to 86 him and his cronies because we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

Furthermore...I don't want to see it stop with impeachment. I want to see Bush and Cheney dragged before the World Court in Den Haag and charged with war crimes. But that can come later. Let's concentrate on the first step: High Crimes and Misdemeanours.

ZOMG! Yer absolutely right! Bush invaded Iraq without any authorization!
Now wait, congress approved it.

But he lied!
Well no, he acted on faulty intel. That microprocessor maker is going to pay!

He pardoned Libby!
Libby was convicted of lying about a crime that never took place. If the leak was a crime then the leaker (Dick Armitage, and there was no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward) would have been charged and likely convicted. Thing is that he wasn't and neither was Libby or anyone else. There shouldn't have even been an investigation to begin with. Just like there shouldn't have even been an investigation with Clinton. When you convict someone for lying during the investigation when no actual crime took place then it is wrong. If no one is convicted for what's being investigated then it's likely no crime took place.


If you seriously beleive that then you are a moron.

The Scooter Libby commuting was indeed a blip on the radar, but there's plenty of reasons to get that bastard out of office.

From a "big picture" standpoint: Bush has shown that he cares nothing for the American People by consistently turning his back on them in the interests of pandering to his cronies. One example: the death of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Remember that?)

Now, if it was a little backwoods jerkwater in the middle of the Rust Belt, I could possibly see my way clear to understand why it took over a week to get anything like help to the people of the city. But New Orleans is a major seaport and tourist destination. It is a large, populous CITY. The Bush Administration turned their collective back on it and let people die. Even the cops gave up and it was in a state of anarchy for nearly a month after Katrina hit.

To me, that *alone* begs for an ouster.

As for Iraq: we had no legitimate reason to go there in the first place. Our business was in Afghanistan, rounding up the Taliban (aka religious Nazis, no hyperbole) and Al Qaeda. Iraq was a war of choice; Bush wanted to impress his Daddy by coming home with his would-be assassin's head on a silver platter. It was a family vendetta and he spent and is spending billions of our tax dollars in the pursuit of that. No, I don't want to impeach Bush because he's losing the Iraq War. I want to 86 him and his cronies because we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

Furthermore...I don't want to see it stop with impeachment. I want to see Bush and Cheney dragged before the World Court in Den Haag and charged with war crimes. But that can come later. Let's concentrate on the first step: High Crimes and Misdemeanours.


The thing is that Katrina and Iraq, while galling, included nothing that qualified as a High Crime or Misdemeanor. Now, wiretaps, Plamegate, AGgate, and the Libby pardon all may contain impeachable offenses, but only the pardon is certainly impeachable.

But he lied!
Well no, he acted on faulty intel. That microprocessor maker is going to pay!

He may or may not have known that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I honestly don't think it would have mattered. He used this "faulty intelligence" either knowing it was false, or not knowing but also not caring if it was true, because it gave him an excuse.

Furthermore...I don't want to see it stop with impeachment. I want to see Bush and Cheney dragged before the World Court in Den Haag and charged with war crimes. But that can come later. Let's concentrate on the first step: High Crimes and Misdemeanours.

While this would be a good thing, the US accepted a law that allows them to invade the Netherlands if a US citizen is ever tried in the Hague. Strangely enough, the Netherlands and the US are both members of NATO, whose statute (among other things) states that any and all memberstates will come to the aid of any other memberstate if that state is under attack. Putting the US in the awkward (sp?) position where they are treaty bound to help defend the Netherlands against the invading US forces.

Who's willing to bet me money that they actually would help us poor dutchies out in that case ?....yeah, i wasn't expecting anyone to take me up on that....

Why isn't there better control on how pardons are given out?

Why isn't there better control on how pardons are given out?

There is a very good control on how pardons are given out: It's called impeachment. Really, really. If the President pardons a person in a situation like this, James Madison himself states that impeachment is the solution.

So, Clinton can get impeached for being a liberal and getting a BJ, but Bush can't for all those aforementioned things?

There is a very good control on how pardons are given out: It's called impeachment. Really, really. If the President pardons a person in a situation like this, James Madison himself states that impeachment is the solution.

That seems to be rather dodgy. Impeachment with conviction would be such a rarity nowadays thanks to partisanship that having the power to pardon people can be abused to almost no end.

That seems to be rather dodge. Impeachment with conviction would be such a rarity nowadays thanks to partisanship that having the power to pardon people can be abused to almost no end.

Just the opposite. It guarantees that impeachment is not done for frivolous reasons.

*looks at Bill Clinton* Okay, nearly guarantees. :p

Bush should have been removed from office a long time ago for treason against the United States, getting us into a war under false pretenses that has so far caused the completely and utterly unnecessary and pointless deaths of 3,500 American soldiers, not to mention no one has a clue how many Iraqis, and the soldiers from other nations who unfortunately helped us. Add to that the fact that he ignores the Constitution any time he feels like it, with illegal wiretapping.

Getting thousands of our soldiers killed for no apparent reason, giving companies tax breaks to send their jobs overseas, removing tariffs on foreign steel a week after promising he wouldn't....and criticizing him makes you un-American?

George W. Bush is the most relentlessly anti-American President in recent memory, who seems to go out of his way to injure this country at every turn.

In my opinion, he is a traitor to this country, and does not deserve to be allowed to honorably leave his office after never honorably serving in it.

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "American", any more than he knows the meaning of others he likes to call himself, like "patriot", "compassionate", "conservative", "Christian", etc. He is none of the above.

End Rant.

Bush should be bled on the senate floor like tyrants of old. Impeachment is too good for him, he should be penetrated by daggers on national television. This would be the natural conclusion for any statesman up until recently. Alas, this is a generation of cowards and sycophants.

Bush should have been removed from office a long time ago for treason against the United States, getting us into a war under false pretenses that has so far caused the completely and utterly unnecessary and pointless deaths of 3,500 American soldiers, not to mention no one has a clue how many Iraqis, and the soldiers from other nations who unfortunately helped us. Add to that the fact that he ignores the Constitution any time he feels like it, with illegal wiretapping.

boohoo. desperate times call for desperate measures, and lots of people (like yourself) are either ungrateful or ignorant about the fact that these measures keep you safe at night.

about the constitution: oh, please. greater presidents have dropped several rights themselves (lincoln and habeus corpus; fdr and his little camps) yet hardly anyone cares... but all of a sudden, bush wiretaps potential terrorists, and ZOMG ITS THE END OF RIGHTS AS WE KNOW IT!!!11!!ONE!!

Getting thousands of our soldiers killed for no apparent reason

there's a reason. plenty.

giving companies tax breaks to send their jobs overseas

and yet we still enjoy a lower-than-normal unemployment rate... hmm... maybe the real reason they're moving overseas is because they're having trouble finding employees here?

removing tariffs on foreign steel a week after promising he wouldn't....and criticizing him makes you un-American?

it's economics; study it, and that move will make sense. as for un-american: did bush say that? no? then that argument doesn't belong here.

George W. Bush is the most relentlessly anti-American President in recent memory, who seems to go out of his way to injure this country at every turn.

calm down, sport. he's nothing of the sort.

In my opinion, he is a traitor to this country, and does not deserve to be allowed to honorably leave his office after never honorably serving in it.

really, this isn't even worth responding to...

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "American", any more than he knows the meaning of others he likes to call himself, like "patriot", "compassionate", "conservative", "Christian", etc. He is none of the above.

End Rant.

first off, how can you judge a man's personal life when all you see is his public life? then you can't say he's not a Christian or compassionate. saying he's not conservative is like saying "hey, i can fly!" (both will get you laughed at). as for patriot: i say he is, but that's more a matter of opinion, really.

there's a reason. plenty.

Well there should be plenty, considering "the reason" for invading Iraq seems to change every time Bush talks about it. He didn't used to say anything about "liberating the Iraqi people". First it was "Saddam was linked to 9/11", which we now know was a load of BS.

as for un-american: did bush say that? no? then argument doesn't belong here.

No, he just says we're making America less secure, which is kind of the same thing. But a lot of his more rabid followers like to brand anyone who criticizes Bush about anything as a Communist/traitor/terrorist-sympathizer/whatever.

saying he's not conservative is like saying "hey, i can fly!"

He's certainly not economically conservative, even Republicans are displeased with him about his massive spending. And as for Bush supposedly being against abortion and gay marriage, he didn't care about either issue back in 2000. He said gay marriage was a state issue, and abortion best left between a woman and her doctor. Not good enough answers for the conservative Christian base he likes to woo, so he suddenly starts talking about "a culture of life" and "defense of marriage".

boohoo. desperate times call for desperate measures, and lots of people (like yourself) are either ungrateful or ignorant about the fact that these measures keep you safe at night.

Ahem. As someone outside the US and familiar with living under terrorist threat, I can confidently say that Bush's measures have made you less safe at night.

Bush also didn't exactly keep anyone safe on 9/11 when he had very specific warnings for weeks ahead of time.

Nobody cares.


You are wrong .... I care

Kinda a bit late for impeachment though...

Never to late to impeach if it is warrented, and it is.

Also, this guy is right.

The reason the average American doesn't like Bush has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, the wire taps or even the egregious breaches of authority. They don't like Bush because we're losing in Iraq and he isn't stopping the immigrants. Really. They really couldn't give a flying fuck about how we've screwed up Iraqi society and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians; they're just getting bored with the news story and tired of pretending to feel sorry for the families of soldiers, and every time they're slightly inconvenienced by someone who doesn't speak English completely fluently, they get mad at the president for not ordering the national guard to militarize every mile of the border.


How would you know what we think?

Ahem. As someone outside the US and familiar with living under terrorist threat, I can confidently say that Bush's measures have made you less safe at night.

man, if what i'm living in is less safe than before....

...i don't know where to go with that, but recent news blatantly tells us that you're very very wrong.

Someone's gotta post this.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4536/notagainxo3.jpg

Why?

Clinton was supposed to be impeached, and Bush needs to be. Bush thinks he can do anything he wishes without consequences. He needs to be shown differant.

Bush also didn't exactly keep anyone safe on 9/11 when he had very specific warnings for weeks ahead of time.

"specific" being "terrorists may use planes" as part of their terror tactics. ya, that's specific enough to have saved those americans lost on 9/11. even if he knew they'd be used as missiles, he'd have no idea where they'd hit. there are thousands of targes on the east coast alone, and then when you consider that they could hit anywhere in the country, and all of a sudden, your little argument here sounds very childish.

Bush should have been removed from office a long time ago for treason against the United States , getting us into a war under false pretenses that has so far caused the completely and utterly unnecessary and pointless deaths of 3,500 American soldiers, not to mention no one has a clue how many Iraqis, and the soldiers from other nations who unfortunately helped us. Add to that the fact that he ignores the Constitution any time he feels like it, with illegal wiretapping.

Getting thousands of our soldiers killed for no apparent reason, giving companies tax breaks to send their jobs overseas, removing tariffs on foreign steel a week after promising he wouldn't....and criticizing him makes you un-American?

George W. Bush is the most relentlessly anti-American President in recent memory, who seems to go out of his way to injure this country at every turn.

In my opinion, he is a traitor to this country, and does not deserve to be allowed to honorably leave his office after never honorably serving in it.

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "American", any more than he knows the meaning of others he likes to call himself, like "patriot", "compassionate", "conservative", "Christian", etc. He is none of the above.

End Rant.


You are right

Bush should have been removed from office a long time ago for treason against the United States, getting us into a war under false pretenses that has so far caused the completely and utterly unnecessary and pointless deaths of 3,500 American soldiers, not to mention no one has a clue how many Iraqis, and the soldiers from other nations who unfortunately helped us. Add to that the fact that he ignores the Constitution any time he feels like it, with illegal wiretapping.

Getting thousands of our soldiers killed for no apparent reason, giving companies tax breaks to send their jobs overseas, removing tariffs on foreign steel a week after promising he wouldn't....and criticizing him makes you un-American?

George W. Bush is the most relentlessly anti-American President in recent memory, who seems to go out of his way to injure this country at every turn.

In my opinion, he is a traitor to this country, and does not deserve to be allowed to honorably leave his office after never honorably serving in it.

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "American", any more than he knows the meaning of others he likes to call himself, like "patriot", "compassionate", "conservative", "Christian", etc. He is none of the above.

End Rant.
I agree.

For more on my views, expressed better than I could do it, here's Keith Olbermann of MSNBC last night:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/from/RS.4/

I agree that Bush has committed many serious transgressions for which he and his entire administration should be, and should have been long ago, impeached, including launching a war of aggression under false pretenses (violating both US and international law); violating the Constitution with his warrantless domestic surveillance shenanigans and so-called "signing statements" (as if he has any right under the Constitution or anywhere else to pick and choose which parts of the law he feels like enforcing/obeying); rampant and obvious political corruption; and now this.

The commutation of Libby's sentence is NOT appropriate. Libby was convicted of obstructing justice -- a far more serious crime than perjury alone. His trial and conviction were both fair, and there was nothing wrong with the sentence given him. Yet Bush seems to think it would be just terrible for his pal to spend one day in jail, while he sees fit to leave two border patrol agents languishing in prison, doing hard time for shooting a drug dealer on the basis of a trial and sentences that were blatantly biased against them beforehand. In fact, Bush himself is on record, from when he was Texas governor, that he would never "replace the verdict of a jury" unless there was clear error or overwhelming new evidence in the case. And in fact, he hardly ever did -- only 4 times in his entire Texas career. But now, he does it just because he concluded that Libby shouldn't have to do 30 months (he decided this without consulting the Justice Department lawyers who work for him and us, btw). This from a man who refused to review over 150 death penalty cases in Texas while he was in charge there. Well, if 30 months is too much for Libby to do on obstruction of justice, how about commuting the sentences of the hundreds of other people already serving multi-year sentences for the same crime?

Once again, as with his signing statements and refusal to deal honestly with Congressional oversight committees, Bush puts himself above the law, and his loyalty to his personal friends above his loyalty to the nation. If anyone thinks that is acceptable in a president, then I fear for them as well as for the rest of the country.

"specific" being "terrorists may use planes" as part of their terror tactics. ya, that's specific enough to have saved those americans lost on 9/11. even if he knew they'd be used as missiles, he'd have no idea where they'd hit. there are thousands of targes on the east coast alone, and then when you consider that they could hit anywhere in the country, and all of a sudden, your little argument here sounds very childish.

Specific in that Bin Laden was labelled as a threat and however little you want to argue that Clinton did against him (please, lets not get into that, even though I can feel it coming), Bush did less. Less than less. Nothing.

"specific" being "terrorists may use planes" as part of their terror tactics. ya, that's specific enough to have saved those americans lost on 9/11. even if he knew they'd be used as missiles, he'd have no idea where they'd hit. there are thousands of targes on the east coast alone, and then when you consider that they could hit anywhere in the country, and all of a sudden, your little argument here sounds very childish.

How about Zacharias Moussaouie (sp?) warning about the World Trade Center about a week beforehand after he was arrested in Germany?

The President has been resisting the subpoenas (cause enough for Contempt of Congress charges), but the pardon-in-all-but-name of Scooter Libby gives him another option.

So, do you want to also prosecute Bill Clinton for resisting subpoenas and refusing to hand over documents during his administration? :rolleyes:

So, do you want to also prosecute Bill Clinton for resisting subpoenas and refusing to hand over documents during his administration? :rolleyes:

Why don't you start that up with a website or something, if you feel strongly about it? Or was that an argument against not doing it against Bush?

So, do you want to also prosecute Bill Clinton for resisting subpoenas and refusing to hand over documents during his administration? :rolleyes:

Contempt of Congress is an impeachable offense. The Republicans in Congress clearly did not beleive they could proove it, or they would have added that to their list of charges.

How would you know what we think?

Because I deal with you people all day, every day.

I've been opposed to Impeachment on the grounds of not wanting to start a back and forth Impeachment war between the Republicans and Democrats. However, I always stated that I would support Impeachment if a substantive and unquestionable reason for Impeachment arose. The events of the last week have changed my mind: the breaches of this President are now worthy of impeachment. It is time to remove the lone (26%) Ranger.

Now, I know that from all the things Bush has done, the Commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence will just be a comma in a string of long, and incomprehensible (likely made up?) words. However, I beleive that it has more significance than is immediately apparent to America or the world.

As almost all of us are aware, three advisors or members of the President's staff have been subpoenad (amongst them Harriet Miers) in connection with the President's illegal wiretapping program. We are also aware that the Vice President (known henceforth as Fourthbranch) has refused to release documents.

The President has been resisting the subpoenas (cause enough for Contempt of Congress charges), but the pardon-in-all-but-name of Scooter Libby gives him another option. His advisors need no longer worry about telling the truth under oath. He need only pardon them as he has pardoned Scooter Libby for protecting him. Does the President have the right to pardon whomever he chooses? Yes, but that does not mean that he cannot be impeached. The system of checks and balances is now truly imbalanced, as Congressional Oversight is undermined.

Similarly, Fourthbranch is attempting to avoid justice and oversight. This is also an impeachable offense.

Now is the time for Congress to act: Impeach Gonzales, Impeach Cheney, and Impeach Bush. Not on the silly and trumped up charges of H Res. 333, but on charges of Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress. Americans, call your Representatives and Senators and tell them you will not wait. The tide is turning, and we cannot allow this to stand.

Are you fucking kidding? We're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past "impeachment" time alone.
Long since.

Are you fucking kidding? We're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past "impeachment" time alone.
Long since.

I dissagree. Impeachment is not merely for incompetance or things you politically dissagree with (like Iraq or Katrina), but rather for crimes against the office of the Presidency. There have been other cases which were close, but not concrete enough to bring charges. This is now concrete.

I dissagree. Impeachment is not merely for incompetance or things you politically dissagree with (like Iraq or Katrina), but rather for crimes against the office of the Presidency. There have been other cases which were close, but not concrete enough to bring charges. This is now concrete.

The wiretapping alone was enough for impeachment. This, on the other hand, is not grounds for impeachment, since what he did was legal. It wasn't ethical, but it was legal.

I dissagree. Impeachment is not merely for incompetance or things you politically dissagree with (like Iraq or Katrina), but rather for crimes against the office of the Presidency. There have been other cases which were close, but not concrete enough to bring charges. This is now concrete.

You're arguing the "airtight" case.
I'm arguing a bigger scope than merely "impeachment" - at least, i'm inferring as much ... probably in reference to any # of other posts i've made in the past.

I dissagree. Impeachment is not merely for incompetance or things you politically dissagree with (like Iraq or Katrina), but rather for crimes against the office of the Presidency. There have been other cases which were close, but not concrete enough to bring charges. This is now concrete.

But aren't you also forgetting that Congress can basically define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

The wiretapping alone was enough for impeachment. This, on the other hand, is not grounds for impeachment, since what he did was legal. It wasn't ethical, but it was legal.

Read the Madison quote I posted upthread. Essentially, this is exactly the kind of thing that the impeachment power is for.

But aren't you also forgetting that Congress can basically define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

They can. That doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to do so responsibly. It would not be proper to impeach because you do not like the politics of a President. That is why Bill Clinton's Impeachment was incorrect.

I find it very strange personally that a country that fought for independence seems to allow the President to be above the law.

I find it very strange personally that a country that fought for independence seems to allow the President to be above the law.
How about fucking painful? :mad:

IMO this is not isolated to one individual, there is a history of the Executive branch trying to make themselves too powerful, Nixon etc. I think having a President is an undemocratic idea, especially one who can pardon criminals, and what good is Congressional power over a Presidential veto and the like if it's never used? Having partisan figures in such a position of authority is dangerous imo.

I've been opposed to Impeachment on the grounds of not wanting to start a back and forth Impeachment war between the Republicans and Democrats.

You really don't need an impeachment to touch off a war between the Republicans and Democrats. Actually, you really don't need to touch it off.

It's hard to have a lot of faith in the government when it seems like the parties in power are more interested in establishing dominance over each other and less interested in the American welfare.

I agree.

For more on my views, expressed better than I could do it, here's Keith Olbermann of MSNBC last night:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/from/RS.4/


Well stated commentary by Keith. Thanks for the link.......it sure is worth repeating in my reply!! ;)

Impeachment should only be used for the most extreme of circumstances, not for something that Bush did that was well within his constitutional powers. Clinton pardoned dozens of people, Bush has pardoned 3. Bush has done nothing wrong legally. Just because you don't agree with the President does not mean he should be impeached. If you don't like the President maybe you shouldn't have voted for him twice.

I voted for Bush twice and i don't regret it. Yes I don't think he is doing a good job. But imo he's better then Kerry. He should definetley not be impeached, and we are wasting our time talking about it. Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. And even if it wasn't it's too late. Election season for the next President has already started.

Obama/ Edwards '08.

No stop don't. Bush is no hero but you do realize that whomever replaces him could be 100x worse. The unintended consequences of an action are sometimes just too great. Besides, Clinton did his own pardons too, if you were shocked Bush did it you're obviously don't know too much about the guy.

No stop don't. Bush is no hero but you do realize that whomever replaces him could be 100x worse. The unintended consequences of an action are sometimes just too great. Besides, Clinton did his own pardons too, if you were shocked Bush did it you're obviously don't know too much about the guy.

The issue is not the use of a Pardon, but the abuse of a pardon. I will also refer you to earlier in the thread where I quote James Madison.

The issue is not the use of a Pardon, but the abuse of a pardon. I will also refer you to earlier in the thread where I quote James Madison.

And Clinton didn't abuse the pardon? He lied in front of Congress, sworn in, under oath...I mean despite Bush being a total nitwit Clinton was no saint either.

And Clinton didn't abuse the pardon? He lied in front of Congress, sworn in, under oath...I mean despite Bush being a total nitwit Clinton was no saint either.

The GOP impeached Clinton for lying, but you'll notice they never brought him up on Contempt of Congress or charged him with Obstruction of Justice in association with his pardons. If he was guilty of misusing that power, then the GOP would have brought him up.

At any rate, the "But Clinton" defense is so old that no self respecting debator brings it up.

The GOP impeached Clinton for lying, but you'll notice they never brought him up on Contempt of Congress or charged him with Obstruction of Justice in association with his pardons. If he was guilty of misusing that power, then the GOP would have brought him up.

At any rate, the "But Clinton" defense is so old that no self respecting debator brings it up.

It works when people trying to point out that Bush is in a vaccum here of mistakes of bad leadership. With the Clinton thing, the GOP was too useless to do anything really, impeachment is nothing if the person is still in office. He was too popular overall with the people, despite the low voter turnouts. The sad thing now is that Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush has. Why would you want a body less popular than a grand idiot deciding anything?

It works when people trying to point out that Bush is in a vaccum here of mistakes of bad leadership. With the Clinton thing, the GOP was too useless to do anything really, impeachment is nothing if the person is still in office. He was too popular overall with the people, despite the low voter turnouts. The sad thing now is that Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush has. Why would you want a body less popular than a grand idiot deciding anything?

Congress always has a low approval rating, and yet individual Congresscritters retain high approval ratings. You want to know why? Because people are used to the old media spin of the "mess in Washington". It's without substance.

Impeachment should only be used for the most extreme of circumstances, not for something that Bush did that was well within his constitutional powers. Clinton pardoned dozens of people, Bush has pardoned 3. Bush has done nothing wrong legally. Just because you don't agree with the President does not mean he should be impeached. If you don't like the President maybe you shouldn't have voted for him twice.

I voted for Bush twice and i don't regret it. Yes I don't think he is doing a good job. But imo he's better then Kerry. He should definetley not be impeached, and we are wasting our time talking about it. Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. And even if it wasn't it's too late. Election season for the next President has already started.

Obama/ Edwards '08.

Maby not impeaced but he should be tried for war crimes. Blair too.

Impeachment is vital in this case.

Every president who holds office influences those that come after them. If Bush's clear and tangible violations of both US and international law are left unchallenged, it will be a clear invitation to future officeholders to act similarly.

>>Originally Posted by Dosuun
>>But he lied!
>>Well no, he acted on faulty intel.

His administration did not act on "faulty intel." They fabricated faulty intel. The yellowcake documents were a forgery and were recognized as such well before their inclusion of their baseless claims in his state of the union speech.

Cheney set up an aparatus in the pentagon called the Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith, which existed from Sept 2002 to June 2003 to "re-evaluate" intelligence related to Iraq. Few if any of the analysts involved in this effort were at all qualified for such a task, yet somehow they found evidence for active WMD programs in Iraq in information, evidence that no one else could before or after find again.

To quote the head of british intelligence reporting to the prime ministers "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." If you have real evidence, you don't need to fix facts.

And to whoever said Bush is a conservative - ???

How the heck is he a conservative? He is radical in virtually every aspect of his domestic and foreign policy - furthermore, I find his claims of being a devout christian to be highly-suspect as his public actions and stated beliefs do not support his claims to faith.

Someone's gotta post this.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4536/notagainxo3.jpg

I second that

It works when people trying to point out that Bush is in a vaccum here of mistakes of bad leadership.
No one here has said any such thing except Bush supporters wasting time with their usual old "but Clinton" strawmen. Nothing that Clinton did or did not do has any bearing whatsoever on what Bush does or doesn't do. Period.

With the Clinton thing, the GOP was too useless to do anything really, impeachment is nothing if the person is still in office. He was too popular overall with the people, despite the low voter turnouts. The sad thing now is that Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush has. Why would you want a body less popular than a grand idiot deciding anything?
The fact that the president is a "grand idiot" should be reason enough to prevent him from deciding anything. We are so far beyond popularity contests at this point. We are facing now serious and potentially permanent damage to the nation, the mid-east region, and the world at large due to this grand idiot's bungling policies. Our future and our lives are at stake here. No more time for political, partisan bullshit. The entire Bush administration should be shut down and the remainder of their term filled out by the Speaker of the House, just as if they had all died, until the next election. But that will not happen because it has never happened before, and there is no existing legal procedure to make it happen.

They can. That doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to do so responsibly. It would not be proper to impeach because you do not like the politics of a President. That is why Bill Clinton's Impeachment was incorrect.

I agree, of course. The impeachment process shouldn't be subject to mere partisan bickering. But we also hold the president to a higher standard than a normal citizen and the president doesn't necessarily have to do something illegal to be impeached.

I agree, of course. The impeachment process shouldn't be subject to mere partisan bickering. But we also hold the president to a higher standard than a normal citizen and the president doesn't necessarily have to do something illegal to be impeached.

Seems you have to get a blowjob and then lie about it to be impeached. With everything else you are gold.

The President has been resisting the subpoenas

Where did you read that?

Where did you read that?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=president+subpoenas

Seems you have to get a blowjob and then lie about it to be impeached. With everything else you are gold.

Of course. Sexual gratification is grounds enough to have your ass bounced out of the White House. It goes against wholesome Christian values. After all, the only blow job the president is allowed is the one where he blows up an "evil doer" nation.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=president+subpoenas

As always, you f*cking rock. *bows*

As always, you f*cking rock. *bows*
Definitely more Straughn like. :)

*nods*

Nobody cares.

See, it's attitudes like this-- I'm assuming the poster is from the US-- and the fact that Bush's administration was re-elected at all, that make me think that as long as America keeps behaving the way it has been, the rest of the world should just initiate an embargo. We wouldn't have to try a blockade or building a big wall around it (tempting as that may be) or anything, we'd just deny entrance to US citizens, suspend trade, etc. Not saying it would be easy, but really, if America is so determined to act unilaterally and ignore the rest of the world, the rest of the world should say "okay, we'll try it your way" and ignore America. Isolate it as a rogue state until it starts conducting itself in a civilised, responsible manner.

See, it's attitudes like this-- I'm assuming the poster is from the US-- and the fact that Bush's administration was re-elected at all, that make me think that as long as America keeps behaving the way it has been, the rest of the world should just initiate an embargo. We wouldn't have to try a blockade or building a big wall around it (tempting as that may be) or anything, we'd just deny entrance to US citizens, suspend trade, etc. Not saying it would be easy, but really, if America is so determined to act unilaterally and ignore the rest of the world, the rest of the world should say "okay, we'll try it your way" and ignore America. Isolate it as a rogue state until it starts conducting itself in a civilised, responsible manner.

Don't worry, Ferrous Oxide is an islamophobic racist who thinks all muslims need to be nuked.

As always, you f*cking rock. *bows*

Definitely more Straughn like. :)

*nods*

Tanks.

Definitely more Straughn like. :)

*nods*

:eek:

Where did you read that?


Resisting subpoenas is a criminal act in itself, its called contempt of court.

Blood on the Senate floor. Yum. I vote we leave it there too, to remind the next person taking the throne seat that that could be them. Keeps everyone on their toes, and toeing the line.;)

I find it very strange personally that a country that fought for independence seems to allow the President to be above the law.

Maybe we should be more like France or Italy.

oops

Resisting subpoenas is a criminal act in itself, its called contempt of court.

In America, Captain Obvious is an anti-hero.

All my Representatives and Senators would take a bullet for Bush.

And mine would be the ones shooting.

And mine would be the ones shooting.

Party at YOUR place. *nods*