Can you say " Impeachment"

Riding the ever so rising tide of public opinion about the almost "sealed deal" to sell our major shipping ports to the U.A.E., has our President Bush gone over the line with his decision to veto any congressional efforts to go forward with this sale?. In my view, since we are at war with "players " of the Muslim & Arab world, should we, with overwhelming public opinion from both sides of the aisle, call for the impeachment of Bush?.
I find this action to be treasenous of our Commander In Chief and I cannot fathom the possibilities of such gross mis-management of our country by a sitting president WHILE we are at war with these people. If there were ever an excuse to question Bush's actions, this would sure trump them all.
If he is so big on "National Security" why in the hell is he even considering this notion. He may as well just surrender our country to 'em. We cannot even enforce our Southern border which in my opinion, has been severly wide open for decades. Im just one man. We must get our collective voices heard in any way we can. I'm open to any ideas by other members of ATS.

While I love a good impeachment trial I don't think this particular offense will lead towards the president being removed.

If anything it will simply mean an end to the rubber stamping that has occured between the congress and the white house.

I think the only person who is really in danger of criminal charges being brought against them might be Cheney. If Libby says Cheney was in fact the person that authorized the outing of Valorie Plame, he could be impeached/removed from office.

Bush has so far done everything legally as far as I know. Granted he often walks right on the line, he seems to only push the smaller guys over.

But then again, stranger things have happened. You would never have convinced me they would have impeached Clinton for doing what millions of other American men do all the time. I was wrong then, I will gladly be wrong again.

hey, at this point im supporting impeachment, obviously bush cares about national securitey when it is in his best interest and this has GOP angry. All you anti-bush people out there, now is the time to push for that impeachment.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
hey, at this point im supporting impeachment, obviously bush cares about national securitey when it is in his best interest and this has GOP angry. All you anti-bush people out there, now is the time to push for that impeachment.

I find myself suddenly awaked in a world where the Republican President plays the race card, and Jessie Jackson worries about our port security...I've tried pinching myself, but I'm still awake...

But he can't be impeached! He didn't know about it!

WASHINGTON -
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Remind you of any ex-president?

Since when is "his administration" making huge impactful deals without his prior approval?

Maybe they only let him out of the White House basement once a day. the man claims to know NOTHING.

Are we supposed to buy that?

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Riding the ever so rising tide of public opinion about the almost "sealed deal" to sell our major shipping ports to the U.A.E., has our President Bush gone over the line with his decision to veto any congressional efforts to go forward with this sale?

I have to admit that I don't know very much about this deal, but as to the question above, the answer is a resounding, No! The president is well within his rights to veto any legislation and the Congress is well within its rights to override the veto. That's the way the system works.

It doesn't seem odd to me that this deal would have only recently come to the President's attention. The President can't know about every business deal carried out by the government from start to finish.

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Riding the ever so rising tide of public opinion about the almost "sealed deal" to sell our major shipping ports to the U.A.E., has our President Bush gone over the line with his decision to veto any congressional efforts to go forward with this sale?. In my view, since we are at war with "players " of the Muslim & Arab world, should we, with overwhelming public opinion from both sides of the aisle, call for the impeachment of Bush?.

Please, state the facts, not the hype.

He is not selling any of our ports.
The UAE will not be in charge of security at these ports.
The deal is for operation of the ports only.
The deal is a result of a recent sale whereby the UK sold this business to the UAE. The UK previously had the operstions contract.
Our own longshoremen will load/unload the cargo, and the USCG will provide security, just as they have done in the past.

Now is the time for somebody to jump in and say that I am in favor of this deal, when all I've done is to state a few facts about it.

Originally posted by nativeokie
... impeached Clinton for doing what millions of
other American men do all the time.

MILLIONS of other men commit the crime of
perjury? hmmmm What are the figures on
perjury anyways? Didn't know that 'millions'
of men did it.

If MILLIONS of men commit that crime, then
MILLIONS of them deserve to be legally
punished.

Now on to President Bush. The one big thing that
has come out in this that is totally bogus ...
first he says that he'll veto anything that goes
against the deal ... then a few days later he says
he didn't know about it until just recently.

Sorry, but I gotta' say ... yeah, right

He wouldn't be backing something so strongly
that he threatens to use his first VETO on it
if he only heard about it a few days previously.

I find this explaination disappointing, at the
very least.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Now on to President Bush. The one big thing that
has come out in this that is totally bogus ...
first he says that he'll veto anything that goes
against the deal ... then a few days later he says
he didn't know about it until just recently.

Sorry, but I gotta' say ... yeah, right

He wouldn't be backing something so strongly
that he threatens to use his first VETO on it
if he only heard about it a few days previously.

I find this explaination disappointing, at the
very least.

Bush's kneejerk reaction to this was to threaten veto. Now he seems to be leaning toward a time period to allow for investigation.

But if you notice, some of the congresscritters whose gut reaction was to nix the deal are now saying there is "room to work" with the deal, after an investigation. This change of mind came to them after discussions with the prez and/or hearing more details of the deal.

The question remains, tho: why did Bush choose this particular issue to threaten veto on? In other words, why did he choose this "hill to die on?"

My guess is that there is much about the relationship between the US and the UAE that we don't know, or may never know. This would include fighting the WOT.

I realize that the UAE has a checkered past in regard to terrorists, but I also think they are a very strong ally of the US. Bush will have to reveal some of these "secret" details to the Congress if he wants their support. Which means we'll all know about the details fairly soon, since Congress can't keep it's mouth shut and stop leaking info that is sensitive.