Guthrie Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 even if Nancy Pelosi has pulled back all the House Democrats - the impeachment of Bush can go forward - The Constitution doesn't require the House initiate the impeachment, it does give the House the final vote on whether a federal official be impeached but a state can send articles of impeachment to congress and have them by-pass the sub-committee process entirely: ...Local governments can play a major role in the impeachment process. A city or state cannot directly impeach a President. That is done by the US House of Representatives. But individuals, groups or local governments can initiate the impeachment process by sending charges to the Congress for them to act on. Efforts are now underway in several states to initiate impeachment of George Bush. Many cities and counties have already passed resolutions calling for impeachment. Our hope is that these resolutions will encourage Congress to vote for impeachment. ... Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 What's this another site fund by George Soros. Founding date 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 What's this another site fund by George Soros. Founding date 2000. Same thought here...the "About Us" link is broken. The source lists "Phil Burk" [from Impeach Bush TV] as the HTML author. What the "People's Impeachment" movement doesn't understand is that Pelosi won't support any such notion for pure political reasons, including backlash from moderate voters in 2008. Democrats barely won back the House and Senate, but not by nearly enough. As of today, any proposed Articles of Impeachment are Articles of a Wet Dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nocrap Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 What's this another site fund by George Soros. Founding date 2000. Same thought here...the "About Us" link is broken. The source lists "Phil Burk" [from Impeach Bush TV] as the HTML author. What the "People's Impeachment" movement doesn't understand is that Pelosi won't support any such notion for pure political reasons, including backlash from moderate voters in 2008. Democrats barely won back the House and Senate, but not by nearly enough. As of today, any proposed Articles of Impeachment are Articles of a Wet Dream. As much as I would enjoy seeing him impeached, there are far more pressing issues...like Iraq. Besides, who in his administration is capable of taking over? They're all inept crooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 ...As much as I would enjoy seeing him impeached, there are far more pressing issues...like Iraq. Besides, who in his administration is capable of taking over? They're all inept crooks. Impeaching Bush will do more to help us successfully deal with those, " far more pressing issues...like Iraq," better than any other course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job. Spying on American people without a warrant is not just, "illegal," it is a violation of the very Constitution Bush swore to defend. I don't know how long is the list of illegal activities by Bush but no one who follows the news can make a credible claim of not knowing he's broken the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nocrap Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job. Spying on American people without a warrant is not just, "illegal," it is a violation of the very Constitution Bush swore to defend. I don't know how long is the list of illegal activities by Bush but no one who follows the news can make a credible claim of not knowing he's broken the law. Impeachment proceedings were brought against Clinton because he 'lied' about having sex with an intern. Bush has lied repeatedly about his reasons for invading Iraq. A former member of his inner circle and FBI chief has just published a book stating that Bush deliberately took his reports on Sadam out of context, twisting them to fit his plans. He even lied soon after 911 telling reporters that he watched the first plane hit on TV with students at the school he was visiting that day (then also the second). However, there was no footage of the first plane until the next day. I'm not sure if he even knows how to tell the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted April 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job. Spying on American people without a warrant is not just, "illegal," it is a violation of the very Constitution Bush swore to defend. I don't know how long is the list of illegal activities by Bush but no one who follows the news can make a credible claim of not knowing he's broken the law. Impeachment proceedings were brought against Clinton because he 'lied' about having sex with an intern. Bush has lied repeatedly about his reasons for invading Iraq. A former member of his inner circle and FBI chief has just published a book stating that Bush deliberately took his reports on Sadam out of context, twisting them to fit his plans. He even lied soon after 911 telling reporters that he watched the first plane hit on TV with students at the school he was visiting that day (then also the second). However, there was no footage of the first plane until the next day. I'm not sure if he even knows how to tell the truth. oh the list of particulars is ponderous, the depth of criminality is difficult to get a handle on -- we know that more than once the administration committed treason. The Valerie Plame incident is remarkable but not isolated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Impeachment proceedings were brought against Clinton because he 'lied' about having sex with an intern. Bush has lied repeatedly about his reasons for invading Iraq. A former member of his inner circle and FBI chief has just published a book stating that Bush deliberately took his reports on Sadam out of context, twisting them to fit his plans. He even lied soon after 911 telling reporters that he watched the first plane hit on TV with students at the school he was visiting that day (then also the second). However, there was no footage of the first plane until the next day. I'm not sure if he even knows how to tell the truth. Even if true....President Bush did not lie under oath in a federal court...BIG DIFFERENCE. That's principally why Slick Willy was impeached. Presidential "lies" are neither new or remarkable...they call it "policy". For instance, Ike lied about overflights of the Soviet Union until Gary Powers showed up on Russian TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job. Spying on American people without a warrant is not just, "illegal," it is a violation of the very Constitution Bush swore to defend. I'm assuming that you're referring to the NSA warrantless surveillance issue. It may well be that the warrantless surveillance laws passed by congress and used by Bush is unconstitutional, but they way the law in the U.S. (and probably every other contitutional democracy) works, that does not necessarily make it 'illegal'. Its up to the president and congress to make laws, and later on for the Supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of those laws when they are challenged. If the laws are found to be unconstitutional, they can't be used; until then, the assumption is that they are valid. I am as yet unaware of any challenges to the surveillance laws that have reached the supreme court. Many presidents have used and/or passed laws that were later found to be unconstitutional. For example, the president used to have a Line Item Veto which allowed him to eliminate sections of proposed legislation while still passing the remainder of the law. The line-item veto was brought in in the 1990s, and was used by Clinton several times before the Supreme court decided it was unconstitutional. However, the fact that Clinton used a law that was later found to be unconstitutional was not (nor should it be) considered an impeachable offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. However being impeached does no remove one from office if the senate fails to convict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 ...Many presidents have used and/or passed laws that were later found to be unconstitutional. For example, the president used to have a Line Item Veto which allowed him to eliminate sections of proposed legislation while still passing the remainder of the law. The line-item veto was brought in in the 1990s, and was used by Clinton several times before the Supreme court decided it was unconstitutional. However, the fact that Clinton used a law that was later found to be unconstitutional was not (nor should it be) considered an impeachable offense. Excellent example of what these Truther-Impeachers are up against. In their zeal to remove President Bush or VP Cheney, their propositions are devoid of any legal foundation. Impeaching a president is a very difficult political thing to do, and achieving a conviction harder still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 What an emotional thread. Perhaps the Left ought to step back, shake its collective head, realize that the 911 conspiracy, the "Bush lied" meme, the "Impeach Bush" movement, the "illegal war" rant and everything else they have concocted is the product of growing up with a comicbook understanding of how government works. Look guys, I know its not as exciting as believing in SuperSoros vs the Evil Bushitler, but reality does have some cool things going for it, like people not laughing at you and the bumperstickers on your car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 ....Look guys, I know its not as exciting as believing in SuperSoros vs the Evil Bushitler, but reality does have some cool things going for it, like people not laughing at you and the bumperstickers on your car. I guess it's really hard for them...a popular and very leftwingnut Senator named Paul Wellstone (D-MN) was killed before the 2002 midterms, and some of his supporters started a conspiracy movement to prove nefarious Republican involvement. The funny part was that Wellstone had promised not to seek another term during the previous election, then reneged to carry on the good fight, only to die in the process. Years after his death, there are now bumper stickers advising emotional supporters...."Wellstone is Dead...GET OVER IT". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 What an emotional thread. Perhaps the Left ought to step back, shake its collective head, realize that the 911 conspiracy, the "Bush lied" meme, the "Impeach Bush" movement, the "illegal war" rant and everything else they have concocted is the product of growing up with a comicbook understanding of how government works. I hate to defend the "left wing". (I'm more of a libertarian myself, and think both the political left and political right need a brick upside their collective heads.) But, I think I should point out that not everyone who is "left wing", or who dislikes the president, or who things the president should be impeached is necessarily a believer in 9/11 conspiracies, nor is everyone who believes in such conspiracies a supporter of the left-wing. I am a regular contributor to a skeptics board who's posters hold a wide range of opinions (from left wing to right wing), but they all view 9/11 conspricies for the bogus junk that they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 I hate to defend the "left wing". (I'm more of a libertarian myself, and think both the political left and political right need a brick upside their collective heads.) But, I think I should point out that not everyone who is "left wing", or who dislikes the president, or who things the president should be impeached is necessarily a believer in 9/11 conspiracies, nor is everyone who believes in such conspiracies a supporter of the left-wing. I am a regular contributor to a skeptics board who's posters hold a wide range of opinions (from left wing to right wing), but they all view 9/11 conspricies for the bogus junk that they are. Well, as has been discussed many times, some of these folks would have us believe that a very incompetent administration and "stupid" president pulled off the biggest criminal conspiracy in US history with 9/11. Can't have it both ways. If there be high crimes and misdemeanors, then bring it through Articles of Impeachment, not a feel good circle jerk resolution from leftwingnuts in Vermont or a web letter campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 I hate to defend the "left wing". (I'm more of a libertarian myself, and think both the political left and political right need a brick upside their collective heads.) But, I think I should point out that not everyone who is "left wing", or who dislikes the president, or who things the president should be impeached is necessarily a believer in 9/11 conspiracies, nor is everyone who believes in such conspiracies a supporter of the left-wing. I am a regular contributor to a skeptics board who's posters hold a wide range of opinions (from left wing to right wing), but they all view 9/11 conspricies for the bogus junk that they are. Well, as has been discussed many times, some of these folks would have us believe that a very incompetent administration and "stupid" president pulled off the biggest criminal conspiracy in US history with 9/11. Can't have it both ways. Yeah, I recognize the inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by various conspiricy theorits. Its just that I know several posters on line who hold left wing views that I respect. (I may not agree with all of their positions, but I can at least recognize that they put a significant amount of thought into their views.) And those people find 9/11 conspiracies to be as idiotic as you and I, even if they don't like Bush. And they would hate to be lumped in with individuals like polynewbie, who are unable to actually come up with anthing resembling coherence in their arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Yeah, I recognize the inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by various conspiricy theorits.Its just that I know several posters on line who hold left wing views that I respect. (I may not agree with all of their positions, but I can at least recognize that they put a significant amount of thought into their views.) And those people find 9/11 conspiracies to be as idiotic as you and I, even if they don't like Bush. And they would hate to be lumped in with individuals like polynewbie, who are unable to actually come up with anthing resembling coherence in their arguments. Well, to be complete, there are certainly plenty of nutbars on the far right who want Bush to go as well, from classic conservatives bemoaning budget deficits to single issue "defend the borders" types. The so called left or right compete and help to define a political spectrum that is very healthy in a democracy and for decisions made by government. "IMPEACH BUSH NOW" not only denies this reality, but is tacit admission that other interests could not carry the day when it counted (i.e. 2002 & 2004). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 So where are those WMDs? Where are the large caches of biological weapons? Yellow cake from Nigeria? Saddam and Al Queda? Sorry, ignore all of the above, it is about freedom right? I knew from the start that Iraq was going to be a debacle for the Bush Administration. Hell it is going to be a debacle for the next administration as well. A lie is a lie is a lie. The closed minded Right cannot get a grip on this. Apologists if I ever saw them. But we are making progress in Iraq, correct?? Lying about the wiretaps is enough in my eye to impeach, or at least get the ball rolling. You have so many 'incompitent' people in the current Administration it is easy to pick out the sane one among the bunch. If there were any sane people in the current Administration. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED ... uh huh. !!! SURGE IS WORKING !!! ARMY GENERAL SAYS THEY NEED TO INCREASE MILITARY NUMBERS !!! I guess the Right see so much grey areas when they really want to. But remember, terrorists want to kill us and our way of life. And remember, Bush was not that concerned with Osama untill after the attacks happened. Tenet had warned them. Eventhough I don't care for Tenet much, the interview on 60 Minutes showed to me how pissed Tenet was for the administration not listening to him. He did not have slam dunk evidence. And eventually Colin Powell was left out to dry. I can say he technicly lied on a few things, but then I would get slandered by the Right when they have been found out as hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 A lie is a lie is a lie. The closed minded Right cannot get a grip on this. Apologists if I ever saw them. But we are making progress in Iraq, correct?? Ah, the "lied about WMD" meme? Of course a lie is not necessarly a lie is not for sure a lie if it's only about blowjobs, right? And besides, a lie about WMD which wasn't actually a lie is worse than a lie about blowjobs which was in fact a baldfaced lie, because ummmm... The point is...ummmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Ah, the "lied about WMD" meme? Of course a lie is not necessarly a lie is not for sure a lie if it's only about blowjobs, right? And besides, a lie about WMD which wasn't actually a lie is worse than a lie about blowjobs which was in fact a baldfaced lie, because ummmm... The point is...ummmmm.... Ah yes, a lie about a consensual blowjob is much worse than a lie that results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 So where are those WMDs?Where are the large caches of biological weapons? Yellow cake from Nigeria? Saddam and Al Queda? Sorry, ignore all of the above, it is about freedom right? I knew from the start that Iraq was going to be a debacle for the Bush Administration. Hell it is going to be a debacle for the next administration as well. A lie is a lie is a lie. The closed minded Right cannot get a grip on this. Apologists if I ever saw them. But we are making progress in Iraq, correct?? I don't think it would matter even if there were "WMDs". War's detractors would still be circle jerking for UN inspections that didn't happen until 240,000 troops went camping in Kuwait. The WMD pretense worked, just as it did for President Clinton in 1998, executing American foreign policy for Iraq. Git 'er done. Ding dong Saddam is dead. Now that's progress! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 LOL, So far I fail to see a case for starting impeachment proceedings. Why all the scattershot accusations against the president? None of it is high crimes and misdemeanors. Ciao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Ah yes, a lie about a consensual blowjob is much worse than a lie that results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars The US House of Representatives sure thought so....guess who appropriates the money for Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.