cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:18 pm

I heard a rumor somewhere that congress might be trying. Everyone I talked to today says it's not too bad of an idea. There's definately reason to. So should they or shouldn't they?
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:20 pm

They should. As long as nobody from his administration would take his place.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:22 pm

Well impeaching him is one thing. Getting him removed from office is another. But keep in mind that Cheney would likely succed him should that actually come to pass.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:25 pm

Ummm one thing that might get in the way of an impeachment trial on Bush: He committed no impeachable crime.

The Dems are dreaming...
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:29 pm

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.


[Edited 2003-07-18 07:58:40]
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:32 pm

"He committed no impeachable crime."

What do you call lying to the American people and Congress in a State of the Union address about illusory WMDs, African Uranium and trumped up CIA reports? The story of Hansel and Gretel?
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:51 pm

Lying in a speach isn't a crime (but it should be). Lying under oath is.
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:54 pm

Sending American kids off to die for no good reason should be a crime too.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:57 pm

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.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:57 pm

Lying in a speach isn't a crime (but it should be). Lying under oath is.
***************

This would be an easy one...

Congress: Mr Bush, were you aware that when you made your state of the union address regarding the Uranium comments, that you had already been advised that this was untrue.

Bush: If he says yes, he's screwed, if he says no, he's screwed
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:02 pm

Well, here's a website with some information to provide fodder for the discussion.

From votetoimpeach.org:

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.

Click here to read the Articles of Impeachment.

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.

Click here to view these notes.

LoneStarMike

 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:13 pm

Allegations of impeachable offenses have been made in the administration of every President.

For me anyway, the jury is still out on Dubya's alleged lying. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Anyway, I thought that little tidbit from Clark's notes was worth sharing.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:35 pm

Lying to the public is one thing, but getting people (Americans and Iraqi's) killed for no reason is a whole other story!  Angry
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 4:56 pm

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.

From CBS News:

Bush knew Iraq Info was Dubious
July 10, 2002

Excerpt from the article:

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?

and

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.)

That's just my take on the situation.

LoneStarMike

 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:51 pm

B757300:

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."  Smile 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.

LoneStarMike

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:57 pm

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.


[Edited 2003-07-18 13:01:44]
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:03 pm

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
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:51 pm

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. "


Check http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1935586 for the whole article and/or http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx for the Casualty Count.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:29 am

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...
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2615
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:29 am

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.

Jeremy
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:50 am

Keesje:

"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
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 11:03 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:37 am

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
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:58 am

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.

-Nick
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 3:24 am

Nick - that last paraagraph pretty much sounds like "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is".
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:42 am

Rhodes Scholar my ass!  Big grin
This Website Censors Me
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:20 am

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.

Ok, BE VERY CAREFUL when starting something up with me. My statement there was broad. IT is my OPINION (and most agree fact) that Clinton did lie under oath...HOWEVER, was it serious enough to warrant removal from office? That was the question and the Senate...including Republicans stated "I don't think so". Therefore, innocent. As for his infidelity, that is a matter for Hillary, and he admitted that he cheated so he is guilty. Again, that's a marriage matter however.

It is all right to criticize the guy for his infidelity. Lord knows many were upset over his lack of morals. He is after-all a role model...but impeaching him? A step too far most likely.

Now, will Dubya be impeached? Dunno. Innocent until proven guilty. The measures to impeach Dubya are the same as pressing charges. He still gets his day in the Senate...100 people will decide his fate. Of course people can criticize him for his cowboy actions...this is after all a democracy.

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".

It's called politics. Role-reversal is more accurate. Both the dems and reps have egg on their face with this matter. Now it's the Dems' turn to be rabid blood suckers out to get a man removed from office and the Reps' turn to be liars on the defensive. Blanket denunciation of liberals or conservatives however is just too far.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:35 am

B4ever - I consider myself a "conservative" (if I have to label myself). I think the Clinton witchhunt was a whole lot of money spend for nothing. But I think that Bush going gung ho for war with a country that did not present a threat to the US or the constitution of the US was wrong.

The fact that he had to bend the truth so much, ranging from WMD's to funneling money and resources to Al Qeida, to finally settling on the "Iraqi Freedom" to get the country behind him, with the justified battle cry of "It's only ONE of the reasons".

I am disturbed by the "conservatives" who somehow manage to dominate the "left wind liberal media outlets" who paint anyone who protested this war as a bunch of worthless scum. I am disturbed that his policies and rhetoric on this war have made many Americans view France as an enemy. I am disturbed that cowboy antics of his "bring it on" taunt to terrorists put the soldiers that he commands at an even greater risk. I felt going in that this wasn't going to be a two week war with a bunch of Happy Iraqi's who are free from their tormentor and who would call for making Iraq the 51st state. I think he's opened a can of worms that is only going to get worse. I thought then and I think now that the world is no safer from terrorism than it was the day the war started. And I feel that his actions surrounding this war were more of an impeachable offense than putting Bill Clinton before a judge and asking him about his sexual encounters.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:29 am

Matt D:
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.



EXCELLENT POST!
We don't agree or talk politics much but I must say I agree with every point you outlined. The crappy economy isn't completly his fault but he is governing as if the economy is rosy.

An impeachment will not take place with a Republican Congress. GOP members of Congress will shoot themselves in the foot before they do anything to hurt the President or speak out against him. I just hope the voters vote him out in 2004 just as the majority of the voters voted against him last time.
Bring back the Concorde
 
American_4275
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 1999 1:11 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:44 pm

FYI - Didn't read the replies...too many  Smile

Get him out of there....I don't care if lying in a speech isn't a crime. He lied to his country about a matter involving WAR. Clinton lied about a blowjob. As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a damn about his sex life. When it comes to my country, though, I don't like knowing that I've been lied to on a serious topic.

 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:14 pm

I think it would be prudent to wait and see what the congressional investigations dig up before thinking of impeaching. We don't want to go through another Kenneth Star witch-hunt again, do we?

If Bush truly lied, he will not get away with it, not with the Dems chomping at the bits. But we need facts first, something most of us do not have at the moment.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:21 pm

B4ever - I consider myself a "conservative" (if I have to label myself). I think the Clinton witchhunt was a whole lot of money spend for nothing. But I think that Bush going gung ho for war with a country that did not present a threat to the US or the constitution of the US was wrong.

Where did I say the Clinton impeachment was worth it? Innocent till proven guilty. If Dubya is impeached, he'll have his chance to prove his innocence. BTW, I'm surprised noone decided to impeach Clinton on more prudent grounds...his destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and Operation Desert Fox...which was on the eve of his impeachment. Politics is dirty. You act like it's surprising that shit like this happens. Well, close your eyes, cuz it only gets worse.

The fact that he had to bend the truth so much, ranging from WMD's to funneling money and resources to Al Qeida, to finally settling on the "Iraqi Freedom" to get the country behind him, with the justified battle cry of "It's only ONE of the reasons".

Agreed on certain grounds: 1) Saddam did have WMD at one point, it is my belief that the many months leading up to the war gave Saddam time to just sell off any usable weapons to terrorists, other rogue states, etc. It would have made more sense, if going after WMDs, to use surgical strikes. Dubya's war strategy was flawed in this case, all he did was chase WMD's into hand attached it even more unstable minds. Again, this is one of my plausible theories.
2) If Dubya had stated that Saddam was a brute who abused his people and based the war on that instead, there wouldn't be any controversy...indeed he brought this on himself.

I am disturbed by the "conservatives" who somehow manage to dominate the "left wind liberal media outlets" who paint anyone who protested this war as a bunch of worthless scum. I am disturbed that his policies and rhetoric on this war have made many Americans view France as an enemy. I am disturbed that cowboy antics of his "bring it on" taunt to terrorists put the soldiers that he commands at an even greater risk. I felt going in that this wasn't going to be a two week war with a bunch of Happy Iraqi's who are free from their tormentor and who would call for making Iraq the 51st state. I think he's opened a can of worms that is only going to get worse. I thought then and I think now that the world is no safer from terrorism than it was the day the war started. And I feel that his actions surrounding this war were more of an impeachable offense than putting Bill Clinton before a judge and asking him about his sexual encounters.

This statement disturbs me because I've shot it down so many times before. There is no "left-wing dominated" or "Conservative" dominated media. Yes, there are those who say that if you don't like Bush, you are somehow a traitor. But there is an increasing number of Morons who views anyone who supports Bush as a fascist nut. I'm not supportive of all Dubya's policies, but I'll defend him when merited...after all, he isnt' the root of all evil like some would have you believe. Same went with Clinton...yes, I did support some Clinton policies. You don't have to like the man, but keep an open mind, you're stuck with him for four to eight years...and are you going to be as blind as to denounce anything Bush? Even if it is a "good" thing. As for France...please, they gave as good as they got in this mess. Enough whining. Chirac was grossly unprofessional...right down to Dubya's level. He also alienated Eastern Europe by telling them to "shut up" when they signed that letter supporting the war. He has yet to apologize. He has a right to be upset, but stooping to name calling is unacceptable.

As for the war itself. People compare it to Vietnam...though per day US casualties in NAM I believe were higher than in Iraq right now...correct me if I'm wrong. Of course the daily killing of US troops is a serious problem...but pulling out now would create even more problems. Perhaps commanders in Iraq should take some looks at the operations in Afghanistan...and learn something.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:34 pm

B4ever - As one who lived thru Vietnam, it wasn't the number of people being killed that was the reason for all the protests - it was the number of people who wondered what the hell we were doing over there in the first place. Vietnam started with a handful of "advisors" and grew to a full scale war. Guess what - Iraq will become just like another Vietnam - because we can't get out of there now, our soldiers will continue to be shot at (odd for a place where the war was "won"), and IMHO, troops will be increased as we "find" nukes in Iran and terrorist camps in Syria. I hope you really like Bush's policies because I have a feeling that you and others in your age group will get to experience the thrills and chills of the "selective service"....the draft...to keep our military staffed. And there isn't any "opt out" on the draft (well, not unless your daddy's a high up government official....ask GWB how that works), so you're either enlisting on your own, or Uncle Sam is signing you up. And when we start sending young men (and today -women) to get shot at by the newly freed Iraqi's, people are going to question exactly why we are over there. And IMHO, it's going to be a bit like the late 60's and early 70's...

Finally, while I consider myself a conservative, I did not vote for Bush...primarily because I was appalled at his dad's behaviour during Desert Storm (golfing, fishing, etc. while troops were at risk). I was kind of afraid that it would be "like father, like son".
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:12 pm

GoingBoeing if I didn't know better I'd swear that you wrote this article.

A Former Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops
"Bring 'Em On?"
07/03/2003

It makes a lot of the same points you just did.

LoneStarMike

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:27 am

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.

Seems to me that the Republicans are willing to destroy contries to keep power, KCLE. How else do you explain an unjustified war in Iraq? Every "reason" Bush used for this war has been show to be less-than-credible. How the hell do you blame Democrats for simply voicing their opposition to what many Americans now see as a war fought on a lie?

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.

Get your facts straight, son: the River burned 7 YEARS before Kucinnich became mayor! Kucinnich became mayor in 1976-the river burned in 1968 or '69, if memory serves. The "mistake on the lake" saying was around long before Kucinnich took office. Are you that out of touch with reality? Or are your parents filling you so full of lies and innuendo because of their political views?

And if you look at Dennis as mayor, it wasn't him who put the city in Default-it was the big corporations who didn't like the fact that Kucinnich wouldn't kiss their collective asses. He was not a very good mayor, to be sure, but for you to dump stuff on him that had NOTHING to do with him, shows your igonrance, and justkills your credibility.

I do find it pretty funny, that so many Republicans-the same one who spent 8 years hounding Clinton over nothing-Whitewater (the man LOST money on that venture!), Travelgate, Vince Foster, Ron Brown-did I miss any?-are the same ones now trying desperately-and I do emphasize "desperately"-to block ANY investigation into this Iraq mess. The only logical conclusion I can come to for this desperation is the fact they're convinced, like many Americans, that this war was started based on lies, and they will do ANYTHING to make sure that what they did to Clinton, doesn't happen to Bush.
 
Continental
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:32 am

I say so. It's time for Bush and his 'posse' to get the hell out. These past few years have been miserable, and this pointless war has made it even more miserable! Democrats 2004!

co
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sun Jul 20, 2003 11:53 am

B4ever - As one who lived thru Vietnam, it wasn't the number of people being killed that was the reason for all the protests - it was the number of people who wondered what the hell we were doing over there in the first place. Vietnam started with a handful of "advisors" and grew to a full scale war. Guess what - Iraq will become just like another Vietnam - because we can't get out of there now, our soldiers will continue to be shot at (odd for a place where the war was "won"), and IMHO, troops will be increased as we "find" nukes in Iran and terrorist camps in Syria. I hope you really like Bush's policies because I have a feeling that you and others in your age group will get to experience the thrills and chills of the "selective service"....the draft...to keep our military staffed. And there isn't any "opt out" on the draft (well, not unless your daddy's a high up government official....ask GWB how that works), so you're either enlisting on your own, or Uncle Sam is signing you up. And when we start sending young men (and today -women) to get shot at by the newly freed Iraqi's, people are going to question exactly why we are over there. And IMHO, it's going to be a bit like the late 60's and early 70's...

I never said I approve of all his policies. The man is a clown in most instances, but he's hardly the root of all evil. I'll be registering with the Selective Service when I turn 18 in Janurary. The reason I brought up Vietnam was not to get the reason for protests, but to compare situations. To say that it WILL be another Vietnam is naive...and only hurts the soldier in the front when his moral is killed like that ie, no support from home. Strategy changes are necessary in this case. Giving up like you have is dangerous. Besides, IF I DO END UP DRAFTED, my thoughts, like those of anyone else sent there isn't only WHY THE HELL are we going, but why the hell are we in uniform to defend folks who oh so easily have given up on us. You don't have to support Bush to support the troops. Stick by them, and do whatever is possible to get the commanders in Iraq to rethink their strategy. Wars are winnable, but if you get idiot commanders, no clear objective, and a lack of support overall, things will degrade to Vietnam-style.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Impeach Bush?

Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:08 pm

We may never get a chance to see if there's any impeachable offenses against Bush for another reason: if the killing of Americans continues in Iraq, and if the Administration cannot show that it's case for war was built on more than just lies, misinformation and poor intel, then we won't have to worry about a second term for George W. Bush. Because if both things continue as they're not going, he will not be re-elected.

And for those who support this neocon perversion of American foreign policy, and who call those of us who don't "unpatriotic", I can only tell you that I don't have to like Bush to love my country. They're not one in the same. Bush is NOT America. He is but a transient figure leading this nation, and I've got a feeling he won't be around after Jan 20, 2005.

[Edited 2003-07-20 06:10:01]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests