Calls for impeachment growing louder

[gerryhatrick]

Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

By Michael Powell

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, March 25, 2006; Page A01

HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.

snip

And Harper's Magazine this month ran a cover piece titled "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush."

snip

"Bush is saying 'I'm the president' and, on a range of issues -- from war to torture to illegal surveillance -- 'I can do as I like,' " said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "This administration needs to be slapped down and held accountable for actions that could change the shape of our democracy."

Tribe wrote Conyers, dismissing Bush's defense of warrantless surveillance as "poppycock." It constituted, Tribe concluded, "as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6032402248.html

Not a bad idea if you ask me. The guy has pissed on the world, what price does he pay besides sleepless nights? The little fool should be in jail.

[sharkman]

Uh, this is kind of old news. There's been impeachment talk since before Christmas, mostly by bitter lefties who can't stand a conservative president or want tit for tat retribution on Clinton's attempted impeachment. Now only if they could get actual impeachable activities. Having a war isn't. Having a war based on data that later turns out to be inaccurate isn't.

[gerryhatrick]

Uh, this is kind of old news. There's been impeachment talk since before Christmas, mostly by bitter lefties who can't stand a conservative president or want tit for tat retribution on Clinton's attempted impeachment.

I'm sure there's a few of those out there, but if you think that's what this is about you're fooling yourself.

And no, it's new news. The talk of impeachment has recently been moving off of the blogs into the houses of power and the mainstream press.

You only wish it was "old news" perhaps.

[KrustyKidd]

And no, it's new news. The talk of impeachment has recently been moving off of the blogs into the houses of power and the mainstream press.

And that's about how far it will ever go. A pipe dream. Well prior to the last election if you remember, or (even knew) Rockerfeller was using his position as Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Sub Commitee to gather dirt on Bush to use at an opportune time. He had access to every piece of information Bush had.

Every piece Gerry. Did any of it come out during the election? None. Why is that do you wonder? Why would they wait another five years? Are they unprepared or could it be there isn't anything but emotional wishing?

Answer is the latter. If they had something they would have used it years ago.

You only wish it was "old news" perhaps.

Not really. Keeps the morons busy instead of comming up with a real issue that might actually endanger something.

[Riverwind]

And no, it's new news. The talk of impeachment has recently been moving off of the blogs into the houses of power and the mainstream press.

I don't think anyone will accuse me of being an apologist for Bush, however, I think any talk of impeachment is a waste of time. Impeachment should be reserved for politicians who commit serious criminal offenses not as tool to harass political opponents. Bush and the Republicans are best punished at the ballot box.

[gerryhatrick]

Why would they wait another five years? Are they unprepared or could it be there isn't anything but emotional wishing?

Answer is the latter. If they had something they would have used it years ago.

I don't know anything about Rockerfeller gathering dirt on Bush and frankly don't care. The calls for impeachment are becoming more common in the mainstream, that's undeniable.

The reason it's never been talked about much before is likely due to the Repubs having control of both houses, making it a complete impossibility. This November might change that situation.

And wire tapping is something that came out very recently and it's the clearest case of illegal behaviour, so in all likelyhood that would figure prominently in any future impeachment hearings.

And anyway, did you think Presidents got impeached for old "dirt" that's dug up on them?

[gerryhatrick]

Impeachment should be reserved for politicians who commit serious criminal offenses not as tool to harass political opponents. Bush and the Republicans are best punished at the ballot box.

I agree with both statements, and if it's shown that he acted illegaly by going outside of the FISA law to wiretap then that would be a serious criminal offense.

[GostHacked]

Uh, this is kind of old news. There's been impeachment talk since before Christmas, mostly by bitter lefties who can't stand a conservative president or want tit for tat retribution on Clinton's attempted impeachment. Now only if they could get actual impeachable activities. Having a war isn't. Having a war based on data that later turns out to be inaccurate isn't.

That is like having a criminal trial with false evidence. I don't buy it. Impeach Bush.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't know anything about Rockerfeller gathering dirt on Bush and frankly don't care.

No wonder you are arguing on the other thread with crap for ammo. You don't even try to see what the hell is going on. I told you that Rockerfeller did everything he could to get Bush and had access to the US's most sensitive information. If you ever wish to change your ways and inform yourself, go here.

Then, you will see why, if anybody did have anything, it would have been him. And, he certainly would have used it then or well before now.

Then, you will see why all this talk of impeachment is hubris. Unless of course, something big has come up that eclipses Iraq.

And wire tapping is something that came out very recently and it's the clearest case of illegal behaviour

Anybody with authority charged him yet?

And anyway, did you think Presidents got impeached for old "dirt" that's dug up on them?

Nope but, since they have been going on about how he lied for four years now, I would have thought he would have been brought up on charges unless of course, he didn't lie. Same as this one. And yes, you are correct, they get impeached for new stuff. So, when's I happening? Better be soon otherwise it too will be old stuff.

[gerryhatrick]

Anybody with authority charged him yet?

That's the point KK, the November elections are nearing and the proverbial sh#t is poised in front of the proverbial fan.

You're saying that because the AG hasn't drawn up an indictment that means Bush didn't act illegaly? Is that seriously your point?

we're talking about impeachment. If those proceedings begin, the illegality will be established. The argument by the AG to protect his President thus far is that the Constitution allowed Bush to step outside of lesser laws. We'll see if that holds up.

[sharkman]

Anybody with authority charged him yet?

That's the point KK, the November elections are nearing and the proverbial sh#t is poised in front of the proverbial fan.

You're saying that because the AG hasn't drawn up an indictment that means Bush didn't act illegaly? Is that seriously your point?

we're talking about impeachment. If those proceedings begin, the illegality will be established. The argument by the AG to protect his President thus far is that the Constitution allowed Bush to step outside of lesser laws. We'll see if that holds up.

Yes indeed, election season is nearing and as usual, the Dems are trying to gain ground by any means possible. Truth has nothing to do with it when power is at stake.

[KrustyKidd]

You're saying that because the AG hasn't drawn up an indictment that means Bush didn't act illegaly? Is that seriously your point?

No. My point is that he did not act ilegally and that is a good indication why nothing is happening. The talk from the left is the same, the action the same. The reasons the same. Five years to gather dirt on Bush and make it stick and nothing.

And don't give me this stuff on how it has to be here and now so he can be impeached. I'm talking any sort of action. They've been trying to dishonor, discredit and smear his administration from day one through an election to boot but nothing stuck. Why? Because there is nothing there but wishful thinking. Now, you start a thread about the latest slur against Bush from the People Who Cried Wolf and expect to be taken seriously?

the clearest case of illegal behaviour

Sezzzz?

[Riverwind]

Yes indeed, election season is nearing and as usual, the Dems are trying to gain ground by any means possible. Truth has nothing to do with it when power is at stake.

I agree that it is wrong to pursue impeachment on this issue because the issue is really political - not criminal. I feel the same way about Clinton's purgury - he may have lied but it was about his private life and it had nothing to do with his duties in office. How many Republicans are willingto stand up and say it was wrong to persecute Clinton?

[gerryhatrick]

No. My point is that he did not act ilegally and that is a good indication why nothing is happening.

You got a lot to learn about politics in the US.

As I said...the argument by the AG to protect his President thus far is that the Constitution allowed Bush to step outside of lesser laws. We'll see if that holds up.

[KrustyKidd]

Ah, ok. So nothing being done but talk as usual. Let me know when something actually happens as the left has been known to just talk.

[gerryhatrick]

Ah, ok. So nothing being done but talk as usual.

Most things that are done begin with talk KK. Start paying attention and you'll see where it goes.

As the topic points out...it's growing. And November mid-terms are coming.

[KrustyKidd]

Most things that are done begin with talk KK. Start paying attention and you'll see where it goes.

Sorry, just remembering the last four years of impeachment talk and all with what - WMDS and stuff missing. Ya, things start with talk but you have to admit, the Democrats sure do a lot of yapping and get no results.

This time's going to be different right? I mean, this time, you have a guy who is tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists whereas before, he was only supposedly making up reasons to send a country to war. Yes, very serious in comparrison.

[theloniusfleabag]

Most things that are done begin with talk KK.

From the Canadian Global Almanac, (1992), pg 97 (from 'Famous Quotes and Phrases')

"I have no reply to make to your general other than from the mouths of my cannon and muskets"

Compte de Frontenac, Govenor General of New France, replying to the envoy of the British Admiral, Sir William Phips, who ordered him to surrender Quebec, Oct. 15, 1690.

KK, it is becoming a question of Bush's hold on power. If his own party wants him gone bad enough, the 'flung money poo' just might stick, and an impeachment might be seen as a viable way to remove him. I doubt that this would be the 'camel-back breaking straw', though.

[KrustyKidd]

"I have no reply to make to your general other than from the mouths of my cannon and muskets"

WTF?!!! Lonious, you have a whimsical side that is unfortunately rarely shown. Thanks for that.

KK, it is becoming a question of Bush's hold on power. If his own party wants him gone bad enough, the 'flung money poo' just might stick, and an impeachment might be seen as a viable way to remove him. I doubt that this would be the 'camel-back breaking straw', though.

Love it when people think outside the box and, you just did in a big way. Interesting for sure but, Bush is no power sucking gravitational black hole. The guy's a chimp who got lucky and set on a daring, yet logical course which he has stuck to. Hardly a threat to future generations of Republicans as a back stage power broker.

[Nocrap]

"to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president" I love that.

Many politicians on both sides were once afraid to oppose the president's actions for fear of being branded unpatriotic. However, now that polls show that 2/3 of Americans no longer have any faith in his ability to govern, we can see a lot more of Bush in the hotseat.

I would love to not only see him impeached but also be forced to stand trial for war crimes.

Ahhh...a girl can dream.

[scribblet]

Yes indeed, election season is nearing and as usual, the Dems are trying to gain ground by any means possible. Truth has nothing to do with it when power is at stake.

I agree that it is wrong to pursue impeachment on this issue because the issue is really political - not criminal. I feel the same way about Clinton's purgury - he may have lied but it was about his private life and it had nothing to do with his duties in office. How many Republicans are willingto stand up and say it was wrong to persecute Clinton?

Thats my take on it too, it is strictly political, from what I've read there is no legal basis for impeachment. Whats left of his term, 3 years, and the last year is all campaigning - so whats the point in tearing the country aside simply to gain political points. It would be a waste of time and money to gain political points, and, would leave Cheny as President...

[gerryhatrick]

Most things that are done begin with talk KK. Start paying attention and you'll see where it goes.

Sorry, just remembering the last four years of impeachment talk and all with what - WMDS and stuff missing. Ya, things start with talk but you have to admit, the Democrats sure do a lot of yapping and get no results.

Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk. Your point is not really useful beyond some cynical purpose anyway.

This time's going to be different right? I mean, this time, you have a guy who is tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists whereas before, he was only supposedly making up reasons to send a country to war. Yes, very serious in comparrison.

Well again, I'm not sure what "last time" you are on about. But at this point we have a case of laws being broken and the constitution put forth as a defense. I have heard from many experts on the law, and all except those on the Presidents payroll say it is an empty defense. It's gone a little beyond whatever bloggers you've noticed previous "impeachment talk".

I like the way you try to frame the wiretapping KK! "tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists". That's the narrative we're being fed, so it's heartening to see you repeat it. Problem is they haven't revealed exactly what they're doing. There's quite a bit of speculation (and perhaps even confirmation, I'd have to dig) that it has been more of a data-mining operation than a controlled targetting of suspected terrorists. If it was a controlled targetting of suspected terrorists then it will be interesting to hear why they couldn't use the FISA law. After November we should find out the true answer to that regardless of impeachment proceedings.

[KrustyKidd]

Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk.

No? Downing St Memo, WMDs and such? Pick up a paper sometime.

I have heard from many experts on the law, and all except those on the Presidents payroll say it is an empty defense. It's gone a little beyond whatever bloggers you've noticed previous "impeachment talk".

I don't read bloggers but would be interested on these legal experts you 'hear' from. 'All except those on the President's payroll' indicates you have quite the legal staff retained there. Fill me in on this one Gerry, you are beggining to intrigue me. Does your army of slip and fall abulance chasers do divorce?

I like the way you try to frame the wiretapping KK! "tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists". That's the narrative we're being fed, so it's heartening to see you repeat it

I suppose in your world it would make more sense to not tap phones and let suspected or real terrorists do whatever they wish while time was wasted getting orders. Glad you only run that battalion of lawyers rather than national security.

There's quite a bit of speculation (and perhaps even confirmation, I'd have to dig) that it has been more of a data-mining operation than a controlled targetting of suspected terrorists.

Always that hope.

[gerryhatrick]

Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk.

No? Downing St Memo, WMDs and such? Pick up a paper sometime.

I've heard of those things, of course.

But there's been no real impeachment talk in the mainstream and halls of Congress.

I'll direct you back to the topic post. "Calls for impeachment growing louder"

There is no logic in saying there was talk previously, and therefore the calls for impeachment now mean nothing.

Move on KK.

I suppose in your world it would make more sense to not tap phones and let suspected or real terrorists do whatever they wish while time was wasted getting orders.

I have no problem with wire-tapping suspected and/or real terrorists. Let it be done within the law though.

The FISA law was put in place to protect against the kind of abuses seen under Nixon. If you think in an environment of absolute power abuse will not occur you are obviously naive.

As we all know, under FISA they can wiretap without a court order and have 72 hours to approach the court afterwards. So why not use it, or get it changed if neccessary?

Claiming the right to step outside the law is not an option in a democracy, and using the "I'm protecting the USA against terrorists" defense is not enough. It is a false and circular defense because it leads right back to the FISA law which could be used to protect the USA against terrorists.

So, if the law was broken by the President it's very serious and impeachment for it is not unlikely.

It will be for the courts to decide if Constitution law is applicable and gave him the right to break other laws.

[GostHacked]

So, if the law was broken by the President it's very serious and impeachment for it is not unlikely.

It will be for the courts to decide if Constitution law is applicable and gave him the right to break other laws.

Constitutional Law is above all else when it comes down to it. Even the Patriot Act cannot stand up the the legal might of the Consitution.

I think the wiretappings are illegal and should be stopped. They are listing in on terrorists, but nothing to do with international terrorism. They are keeping tabs on the American population.

I want Bush impeached. I really really do. And I have been hearing/saying impeachment to people for the last 4 years or so myself. AS soon as we started going on with Iraq, I knew he should be impeached, along with his entire cabinet. They all need to be taken out, because they are all in this together.