Impeach Bush!!! Now !!!

How about we put Ray Nagin in as President. We know gets "along" with Bush oh so very well. (Nagin is on pissed off mother at Bush and I don't blame him!)

*sigh*

Where to start?

Impeachment does not remove anyone from office-- the two things are entirely separate. See-- the deal is that a sitting politician (or judge) cannot be charged with a crime. That was done so that the police would not be able to wield abusive power either on their own behalf or on that of others. Imagine how hard it would be for any politician to oppose any other politician, or any police agency, if he could be immediately arrested on any sort of trumped-up charge. That would put entirely too much power in entirely too few hands, and that's the reason why politicians cannot be charged while they're in office. However, politicians are certain to commit crimes at least from time to time, and it's for that reason that impeachment exists. The way it works is that any politician who could feasibly be charged with a crime can have, if the appropriate legislative body (in the case of the PotUS, it's the House of Representatives) decides to, articles of impeachment filed against him. All that says is, essentially, "We have sufficient cause to believe that this person committed a crime, and we are officially saying so." That's it. There's no penalty attached to impeachment-- it's only an official statement that the legislature believes the politician in question might legitimately be charged with a crime.

If a politician is successfully impeached, THEN the legislature so empowered (in the case of the PotUS, it's the US Senate) can, if it so chooses, vote on removing said politician from office. This STILL doesn't mean that s/he actually committed a crime-- only that s/he could legitimately be charged with one. The charges can't actually be filed until AFTER s/he is removed from office, so there's no issue as to whether s/he is guilty or not. The only issue is whether s/he could legitimately be charged.

Clinton was impeached not for "lying about a bj," but for lying UNDER OATH. Lying under oath (regardless of the subject of the lie) is a felony, and there was ample evidence that he did indeed do so, so he could legitimately have been charged with the commission of a felony, which is more than enough for impeachment. He obviously was NOT removed from office, nor was removal even proposed.

Bush, disturbingly dangerous shill for tyrants though he is, has NOT, to anyone's knowledge, committed any actual CRIMES, and therefore cannot, much though he might arguably deserve it, be impeached, much less removed from office. It's simply not possible, and unless evidence comes to light of a specific violation of a specific law, it will remain impossible.

If lying to the American people was grounds for impeachment, then ALL politicians could rightfully be impeached, since lying convincingly is the single most important prerequisite for a job in politics. Not that impeaching all of them would be a bad idea, but it's obviously not going to happen. If there was any way that Congress could successfully make the case that lying to the American people IS grounds for impeachment, they'd simply be cutting their own collective throats, and they're certainly not going to do that.

And please-- the PotUS does NOT "make laws," unconstitutional or otherwise. Congress makes laws, the PotUS simply signs them, or not. And Congress, if we want to be picky about it, makes many, many unconstitutional laws. There's nothing illegal about that-- it's simply the Supreme Court's job to overturn such laws, but since the Supreme Court operates (as all US courts do) largely by precedent, they don't overturn most of those laws simply because some previous court successfully failed or refused to overturn similar laws. If we're to blame any one president for that state of affairs, it would have to be FDR, who, more than any president before or since, used his authority to stack the court with justices that would rule as he wished them to, even if it meant ruling contrary to the Constitution.

While I appreciate and even admire the ardor of some of those who are voicing their opposition to this (or any other) political administration, you all really need to do some research and find out what you're actually talking about before you start ranting. If you fail to do that, then you're just wasting energy that might be used legitimately otherwise. And that, ironically enough, actually benefits the very politicians that you oppose.

man that was beautiful. i dont think my teacher in american government coulda said it better. clinton did indeed commit a crime and while being criminally stupid(bush) is not a crime it is exasperating.
if it were legal to shoot stupid people i'd run outta bullets real quick.
your post did make me think of one scenario though.
what about removal for being unable to fullfil the duties of office?couldnt he be removed by the military for not upholding the oath of office? sort of a coup as it were. did he not swear to protect and serve the constitution and the people? what i imply is that if he were instead endangering the american people by his actions would that be cause for removal?
just thinkin mind ya
love everyone

Originally posted by longhaircowboy...what about removal for being unable to fullfil the duties of office?couldnt he be removed by the military for not upholding the oath of office? sort of a coup as it were. did he not swear to protect and serve the constitution and the people? what i imply is that if he were instead endangering the american people by his actions would that be cause for removal?

Fortunately and unfortunately, no.

If the military was given the power to remove a president, for whatever reason, then this would already be a military dictatorship. Luckily, at least in a broad sense, they don't have that power.

The only provision for removing a president is through impeachment, and impeachment requires evidence of the commission of a specific crime.

I did read more than once during Clinton's impeachment proceedings that, most technically, perjury is the willful violation of any legally binding oath-- not only the one sworn in regard to legal testimony, but I've never found any citation to support that view. If that was the case, then it would be feasible that Bush could be impeached for violating his oath of office, but it would still be necessary to prove that he had done so in at least one specific instance, and had done so willfully. Impeachment proceedings don't hinge on actual guilt. They're much like grand juries-- they only have to prove that there's sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. However, even proving that much regarding a theoretical violation of an oath of office would be quite tough.

And even if the legal definition of perjury could be stretched that far, and even if there was sufficient evidence that Bush had indeed willfully violated his oath of office, and even if there was a Democratic majority in the House, I still seriously doubt that they would attempt to impeach him on those grounds, since all office holders swear a similar oath, and most of them could certainly themselves be charged similarly.

I'm afraid we're stuck with him. I'd like to think that we'll learn something from all of this, but I doubt it. I have no doubt that the powers-that-be will continue nominating reprehensible scumbags, and the voters will continue to vote for the one that they find slightly less objectionable than the other in the mistaken belief that less bad is somehow the same thing as good.

www.sonofbush.com
George W. Bush is an illegitimate president. He stole the 2000 election using his brother Jeb to fix the Florida election. And then finally getting the Supreme Court to declare him the winner in an act of supreme treason. Bush is not the President of the United States. And since he seized power and took office - he has done everything in his power to undermine America and sell out to his small circle of contributors. Bush is a criminal and needs to be stopped.

Quote from another person:

www.sonofbush.com
The single thing that sticks out in my mind about the World Trade Center attack is the fact that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept those commercial jets. Those planes were in the air for over an hour after being hijacked - yet no interceptors we scrambled to stop them.

I used to live in Springfield Missouri. And a few years ago a famous golfer named Payne Stewart was killed in a plane crash. He was from Springfield - so this story had a greater local impact. What happened was that his plane - a small private jet with less than 10 people on board took off from Florida. Shortly after takeoff the plane went off course and failed to respond by radio. Within minutes fighter jets were scrambled and intercepted the plane. They observed frost on the inside of the window indicating a loss of cabin pressure - and that everyone was probably dead. The plane was on autopilot and flew for several hours before running out of fuel and crashing in South Dakota. What I clearly remember was being impressed with how fast that plane was intercepted.

On September 11th there were 4 commercial jets hijacked. All went off course - turned off their transponders - and refused to answer the radio. There was no doubt on the ground that 4 commercial jets we hijacked - yet no intercepter were scrambled - even though these planes were in the air for over an hour. It is standard operating procedure to scramble jets to see wqhat is going on. It doesn't take an order from the President to do this. But someone made an order to stand down and stopped the interceptors. Whoever gave that order is part of a government plot to allow the 9-11 tragedy to occur. I'm not prepared to say we were behind it. But we let it happen. And I have no doubts about that.

www.sonofbush.com...

[edit on 25-11-2005 by NR]

Mod Edit: Copy & Paste Placed In Quotes, Link Added.

[edit on 26/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

thanks bob... just read this book and it was based on the premise that the pres was unfit to fullfil his oath of office and the joint chiefs had him removed and the vice installed. it invovled an emergency situation where the entire US was in peril and he refused to act in a manner that would save the american people. sounded plausable. just wanted your thoughts. again thanks.... but I still ponder this scenerio...sounds so now

Oh, you cant get impeached for major things like, lying to your country, and, sending your country to war without a reason...

...only minor things like, sex.

edited out sexual phrase

[edit on 28-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

I agree, Bush SHOULD GO! the problem is two-fold:

1. Bush is very sneaky! Have you seen Star Wars- Revenge of the Sith? George W. Bush is a lot like Emporer Palpitine, he knows how to break the rules and not get caught!

2. The Republicans control congress. The first priority of a politiacl party is to get voters. Exposing the corruption of party leaders would undermine this. So even if they know the truth, they won't risk loosing voters by confronting Bush about his wrong doings.

Tim

Its lack of family jewels that keeps them from impeaching. Anyway, by 2008, Bush's job of ruinning the world will have been completed.
It wont matter then.
Some worry about Hillary or other undesirables filling the presidency in the future. Fear the present, not 2008. I have the feeling that by then, Bush will demand to remain in his throne and will only leave kicking and screaming. He's slowly setting things up now so that he will remain BECAUSE WE F'REAKING NEED HIM SO MUCH. Its Hitler all over again,if all goes according to plan for Bush.

Originally posted by ghost

I would like to apoligize for this photo! While I can't stand George W. Bush, and despise EVERYTHING he stand for, to equate Bush with Emperor Palpatine is unfair. As a friend pointed out to me yesterday Emperor Palpatine was Genocidal. Bush is Not a nice person, but to say he's no better then a genocidal mad man is truly an insualt he doesn't deserve. Sorry if I offened anyone.

Tim

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by ghost

I would like to apoligize for this photo! While I can't stand George W. Bush, and despise EVERYTHING he stand for, to equate Bush with Emperor Palpatine is unfair. As a friend pointed out to me yesterday Emperor Palpatine was Genocidal. Bush is Not a nice person, but to say he's no better then a genocidal mad man is truly an insualt he doesn't deserve. Sorry if I offened anyone.

Tim

Don't worry about it. Ask the thousands of Iraqi citizens who've been killed, or those who got gassed with WP in Falluja(sp?), or those in the secret(and not-so-secret) prisons holding thousands of "enemy combatants" who have been subjected to torture if the comparison is fair.

And genocide aside, the comparisons of actions between the two is valid. They have both curtailed their own people's freedom in the name of protecting it. Both have greatly expanded their power in the government. Both are generally dishonest. Even if the genocidal part is included these aspects still earn the comparison.

I have a question(hes says jumping up and down)!
how many people must die before a person is considered genocidal?
just askin.
love everyone

The real genocidal maniac is on trial in Baghdad, or has no one noticed?

ok i got another question. saddams on trial for killing 140 people who he thought were trying kill him. our president has caused the death of at least 2,000 people who werent trying to kill him. whos worse?
smoke em if ya gottem
love everyone

It's kind of ironic isn't it. Saddam the murderer and torturer of thousands is complaining about not having clean clothes, showers and exercise. I think he should have at least that much, but it is ironic.

www.breitbart.com...

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
ok i got another question. saddams on trial for killing 140 people who he thought were trying kill him.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. If you are unable to distiguish the difference between Saddam and the President, no one will be able to explain it to you.

I think you misunderstood my question. I know the basic technical difference between the 2. I was just tryin to point out that there are also similarities.
I geuss what i was sayin was neither is a saint by any means.
love everyone

Ok, Lets impeach Bush for starting a illegal war. On Faulty intellegence. Then We need to Serious. And state we would have impeached the presidents for "pearl Harbor's blunder, The Gulf of Tonka, Grenada, Somalia, Bay of pigs, Iran's Failed rescue attempt, etc."

All the previous exp's were either Faulty intellegence or Worse. Like pearl harbor, TWA, Gulf of Tonka, etc. The Fed's Just lied pure and simple.

Of course, People Want Bush impeached for being a Republican. And at least one of you are honest.

(ps- I Elected conspiracy theorist06 with the "way above" award. Its refreshing to at least see one "honest" lib.)

Originally posted by Flinx
Bush won't be impeached, the congress and senate are Republican majority.
[edit on 9/4/2005 by Flinx]

This will probably be reversed in the mid-term elections in 2006 and impeachement will become possible. Interesting to note this scenario happened to Clinton.

Mccain would be a good choice for replacement for the Repubs.

[edit on 7-12-2005 by rizla]

Originally posted by Flinx
Bush won't be impeached, the congress and senate are Republican majority. Getting rid of him would do nothing because the people who "advise" him would still be there. Besides...he didn't lie about oral sex...

[edit on 9/4/2005 by Flinx]

Your right, Bush didn't lie about oral sex,... but he did lie to the citizens of the Untied States, the United Nations, heck Bush and Cheney have been lying their tails off to the world since day 1,... nope no oral sex happened (that we know about ), but Thousands upon Thousands have been murdered and maimed due to Bush and his Administration's lying,..... to me thats worse than what any other president has ever done to our country/nation, which has turned almost every country against us.

I agree they need to be Impeached and the sooner the better IMO .