B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1405 times:
The only idiot in Congress is a certain Rat Senator from Florida with Presidential aspirations. I guess the Rats would love to try and get payback for Klintoon. This is nothing but political tripe from a party that is so desperate to win its power back that they'd destroy the country to get it.
Bush did nothing wrong and certainly nothing even close to "high crimes and misdemeanors". Now Klintoon, he committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and a host of other crimes.
Oh, and since I doubt anyone in the useless media makes the distinction, impeachment is not removal from office. Impeachment is an indictment by the House and the Senate must then conduct a trial and a 2/3 majority is needed for conviction. The only penalty for conviction is removal from office. Obviously since Klintoon served out his second term being impeached didn't remove him from office.
The 'Rats are desperately seeking any kind of scandal and if one doesn't exist, they'll lie in order to create one.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Please, if you are a fellow Republican, don't disrespect our party by referring to Clinton as "Klintoon". It makes us all look bad, and I don't appreciate it.
You have a right to not like the man (and I sure as hell didn't), but that doesn't change the fact that he was our President for 8 years. At least give the man that much respect by calling him by his name.
Now as for whether or not he committed an impeachable offense, well let's just wait and see. Although for what it's worth, I believe that his administration is a rose and the Dems are the pruning shears heading his way. Although it may be driven by personal politics/vengeance for 1998, or what have you, they could see an opportunity and going for it.
Bush is running out of cards to play. 9/11 is old news. Gulf War II appears to have been a scam. The economy is still in the toilet. People are out of work. And another terrorist attack is "imminent". And I still can't go to the airport without being treated like a criminal.
I think I speak for millions when I say that I'm tired of that BS. Bush may not be directly responsible for our downward spiral, but he IS the Captain and needs to take command of the USS USA. Or else, hand over control to someone else.
View the Articles of Impeachment,drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General during the Johnson Administration has drafted articles of impeachment setting forth high crimes and misdemeanors by President Bush and other civil officers of his administration.
Mr. Clark has also prepared historical notes on the power of impeachment, for consideration in the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4021 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
These are the two things that caught my eye when reading over the history of impeachment in American government.
If the impeachment power is limited to serious felony crimes only, it may fail to protect against usurpations and abuses of power that threaten constitutional government, but are not crimes.
Based on what's come out so far, no, technically, Pesident Bush did not lie in his SOTUS. He attributed the comments about the uranium to British sources and that was true. But we need to look at the big picture.
Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.
So I don't think the question is "Did Bush Lie?" He didn't. The question is, "Did he abuse his powers as President to mislead the country?" I think he did. You can mislead someone without actually lying to them.
The article goes on to say:
But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.
"I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world," Powell said.
That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union.
So my question is why was this information deemed important enough to be presented as evidence to the American public, but not deemed important enough to be presented to the U. N. eight days later? What happened during those 8 days to diminish its importance/strength as evidence? If, in those 8 days, new information came to light about this issue, why was it not presented to the American public sometime before we actually went to war some 6 weeks later?
Going back to the history of impeachment, this is the other thing that caught my eye:
President Bill Clinton was impeached in December 1998 on three Articles of Impeachment by votes ranging from 229-205 to 221-212. The votes were highly partisan with only five Democrats voting for impeachment. The charges were for perjury, false and misleading testimony and obstruction of justice, all committed in legal proceedings involving allegations of extra-marital sexual conduct. The charges were less serious to Constitutional government than allegations against most previous Presidents.
So now the questions we need to ask ourselves are
1. What if anything is President Bush actually guilty of?
2. Are these alleged crimes more serious to Constitutional government than Clinton's were?
If not, we don't necessarily impeach, but we certainly do hold some sort of public hearings. At the very least the American taxpayers who are paying for all of this deserve some answers to their questions. There has been far too much secrecy in this Administration, IMHO, all in the name of "security."
If we do think that President Bush's alleged crimes are a more serious threat to Contitutional government than Clinton's crimes were, then we must impeach. If he's found not guilty by the required 2/3 majority he stays in office. If found guilty, he's out of office (at the very least.)
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4021 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Impeachment is an indictment by the House and the Senate must then conduct a trial and a 2/3 majority is needed for conviction.
Yes, that much is true.
The only penalty for conviction is removal from office.
As they say in the Hertz commercials... "Not Exactly." Some excerpts from the Constitution regarding impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 7 Provides:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
And if President Bush is impeached and later found guilty, you can forget about there being any pardons, because:
Article II, Which Creates The Executive Branch, In Section 2 Provides The President:"...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Nixon was able to be pardoned, because he was never impeached. He resigned before it came to that. If impeachment were to seem likely, I wonder if President Bush would go ahead and resign (he could then at least be pardoned) or if he would take his chances and hope he wasn't found guilty.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1292 times:
First of all, it's far, far too soon to even talk about impeachment. That's a huge step, and there's no evidence to warrent such talk at this time.
Secondly, from what I've seen, Congress is doing quite the opposite. The GOP majority is trying to protect Bush at all costs, it seems to me, ding everything they can to even forstall an investigation into this whole Iraq mess. And, since they own both Houses, they can stonewall this do death.
I DO think they'll have no choice but to investigate everything that led up to the war-to find out if intelligence on WMD', nukes and the OBL-Saddam claim were botced, doctored, or the intel was just ignored. That still has to be determined.
But if the GOP members in Congress want to look like complete hypocrites, vis-a-vis Bush and his predecessor, they certainly have the power to do so.
Jcs-you have NO IDEA if he committed an impeachable crime. Neither do I. Any investigation would focus on what led to the rush to this war, and why the intel is so far removed from reality. Such an investigation would either lead to the belief that Bush DID commit some kind of impeachable crime-although I know, to you, there's nothing worse then lying about a blow job, never mind the deaths of thousands over a war tha shouldn't have been fought-or it will show that perhaps the intel was fucked up. Either way, an independent investigation is warrented, and is necessary at this time.
If you deny this should take place, Jcs, you're a hypocrite. You wanted to hang Clinton for a personal lie, but you want to let Bush off the hook without even investigation a war who's origins are dubious, to say the least. Conservatives are showing their true colors, once again.
And once again, we have B757300, who can't add anything intelligent to the conversation but lame potshots. How predictable from him. Does anyone on this board-besides from Jcs, even take you seriously anymore? I doubt it.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
For me anyway, the jury is still out on Dubya's alleged lying. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
Unless your name starts with a "C" and ends with a "linton". Lets see, special prosecuter assigned to investigate shady real estate deal...nothing solid there...but wait...this travel office looks like it's full of shady deals....damn...nothing there....wait a second....he's a ladies man, and this old hag with a tape recorded phone conversation (illegal in many states, but that's beside the point) with an intern who talked about giving him a blowjob....lets put him under oath and ask him if he ever had sex with her...at the very least we can get him in hot water with that bitch of a wife of his (name usually spoken thru gritted teeth, like in the "AMerican Spectator" advertisements). Hey....he said "NO" under oath and we've got a jiz stain on a dress....let's impeach him.
The "conservatives" (of which I am one...but these guys embarass me) mockingly refer to Clinton by saying "that depends on what your definition of "is" is. And remember, we're talking blowjob here....but when Bush and his administration come forward with all this "irrefutable evidence" of WMD's that can't be found and then sends troops over with a resulting loss of American lives, why there's nothing wrong there because he wasn't "under oath" when he made his "statements of mass deception".
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
Not entirely on-topic, but important in this discussion nevertheless:
"JULY 17, 2003
Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq
Soldiers Dead Since May Is 3 Times Official Count
By Greg Mitchell
NEW YORK -- News Analysis
Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2. This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.
But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.
According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States.
Nevertheless, the media continues to report the much lower figure of 33 as if those are the only deaths that count. "
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1241 times:
It think it is better for the public to call into the spot lights the so called neo conservatives.
The god fathers who think "pre emptive defensive attack" to "protect" your own interest is OK. Forcefully projecting your values on other cultures is allowed too. 9-11 gave them to much power.
Ask them to come out and publicly tell the people want they are up to & how they are trying to achieve this.
They are Bush' hard line back-office :
Mr Paul Wolfwitz, Mr Rumsfeld's; Mr Lewis Libby, Mr Cheney's Chief of Staff; and Mr Richard Perle, former chairman of the defense Advisory Board ...and many others.
By the way I don't think you can only blame Bush, most people didn't want to say/ hear the truth. Patriotism can lead to this...
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
I think that what he did should be considered an impeachable offense and he should be impeached and removed from office. What Clinton did was his personal business but then he lied under oath which was wrong, but by no means as wrong as staging a false war because of his personal issues. Many have died from something that may not have even been legitimate, and it made our economy and the world economy even worse than it already is. What a moron Bush is! I'd take Cheney as pres. any day over Bush.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
"It think it is better for the public to call into the spot lights the so called neo conservatives."
I agree. Bush is 'just' the President, but he isn't the one 'calling the shots' in my opinion. It's people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and Rumsfeld that are actually and actively ruling the US. Impeaching Bush is, although a very dramatic move, not going to change much in American Policy in general as long as these people remain in Government.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
KCLE From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
Towards the top of this post some said that the Democrats would do anything to win back power of the USA, even if it meant destroying the country.
That is so very true. The wonderful little Keebler Elf, uh, I mean Dennis Kucinich, is running for president. If by some chance he wins, as soon as he finishes saying the last line of the presidential oath, "So help me God." I can guarantee the gates of hell will be opened.
All that stuff about Cleveland being the mistake by the lake and the river burning, and horrible grime and dirt and taxes and all that stuff that made Cleveland look like America's hell-hole, well, that was thanks to Kucinich. He ruined Cleveland, and we're still trying to build it back, and that was some 25 years ago when he was mayor. He ruined Cleveland very easily, I'm sure he can ruin a whole country just as easily.
B747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Bush could also be censured by the legislature. Is that not also an end after being impeached?
The thing about Clinton and being impeached is that as a president, he clearly lied directly under oath. Maybe it was absurd how much time and money was spent researching what happened, but the American people (represented by the legislature) have the responsibility to be sure their president follows the law. Clinton committed perjury, I think everyone agrees with that. Perjury is a crime, and Clinton was a very important person (president). So the legislature did what was its duty, to try the president based upon the crime he committed.
Now what crime has Bush committed. He has not lied under any sort of oath. In fact there is very little evidence (read: no) evidence that he lied at all. All the intelligence was there, it was just to what degree did it factor in his decision making. The administration might have misled the nation, but as I said before, there is no proof that that occurred. If it is proven that the intelligence was never there, then that would be a lie. However, if the only thing that can be proven is that the intelligence was not very strong, then it just proves that for some, Bush was a bad decision maker. The executive branch's job is to take information and act on it. The information told the administration that action had to be taken against Iraq. It is all how the information was interpreted. So far there has been absolutely no evidence of any kind of lying. The small amount of 'evidence' against the administration is that intel was badly analyzed.