OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

How about FISA?

We can always start with illegal wiretapping. That ties in nicely with the 4th Amendment.

Originally posted by LiquidusAs was mentioned earlier, impeachment is a serious allegation and should be closely investigated.

Just for the record, impeachment is not an allegation... Impeachment is an action taken when charges of wrongdoing have sufficient evidence to convince the House of Representatives that impeachment is necessary. You could more properly say that impeachment is a verdict, except that neither the House nor Senate can make judicial decisions. Entirely different branch of government.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by Saint Michael]

Originally posted by Saint Michael
Just for the record, impeachment is not an allegation... Impeachment is an action taken when charges of wrongdoing have sufficient evidence to convince the House of Representatives that impeachment is necessary. You could more properly say that impeachment is a verdict, except that neither the House nor Senate can make judicial decisions. Entirely different branch of government.

Well I don't like getting into dictionary battles but since you brought this up...

Impeachment: a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office

Allegation: An assertion or statement of a party, which they intend to prove.

The way I wrote it reffered to the allegations of those in favor of impeachment, not the process itself. Hope this clarifies things.

Originally posted by Liquidus

Negative news coverage of the media is a weak argument. If you give it some thought, the media has nothing to do with this issue at all.

I totally disagree. The media carries much more power then it is given credit for. They can take the most minute Story and turn it into headlines in minutes, they do it every day.

An example of this would be the Nataley Holloway death in Aruba. Do you think for one minute if it were not for the press coverage they would be doing as much in Aruba?

In this case of impeachment, they are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill just to sell papers. Feingold tried to get it started and even his own party members turned down his suggestion that alone says a lot.

Originally posted by Nerdling
How about FISA?

We can always start with illegal wiretapping. That ties in nicely with the 4th Amendment.

The attorney general has already stated no laws were broken. Also you have to keep in mind that Radio intercept operators have been listening in on conversations for decades and no one has ever had a problem with that.

As much as i'd like that entire crime family and cronies out, unless we could totally impeach EVERYONE associated with Bush, most of all Cheney, what would be the point?
We'd be jumping from the frying pan into the fire with Cheney.

One good thing, if we happen to survive all of this, all the chaos, mayhem,wars, rummors of wars, this nut will go down in the history books as a total screwup who singlehandedly led the world into panic and as one who committed attrocities against humans.

May i live long enough to see those books.

Originally posted by Saint Michael
Now, as conspiracy theorists, I'm sure you can conjure up all sorts of anecdotal evidence that President Bush has committed crimes; but an important fact remains...You have no proof, never had any proof, never will have any proof. Michael Moore's best efforts are still just fiction, and not terribly entertaining fiction, at that. And there is no federal judge seriously considering a serious charge against this president. You'd have to convince the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, and that ain't happening either.
[edit on 20-4-2006 by Saint Michael]

I think that some would argue that the "lack of proof" is a direct result of an Administration which is using Executive Privelege (which is a shaky concept as applied by the current Administration at best) as an excuse to hide/cover up/conceal any indication of wrongdoing.

A cogent argument can be made for impeachment solely on the basis of dilution of separation of powers by this Administration. Of course, the big Catch-22 is that impeachment is EXACTLY the recourse that the Legislative Branch has to remedy any lack of balance in the overall balance of power and the GOP ain't likely to play that card any time soon. Most folks calling for impeachment are likely, deep-down, most upset not simply at the fact that the Administration has behaved as it has, but that Congress has implicitly colluded with the White House to facilitate the unbalancing of our branches of government by never calling the Executive Branch's activities into question.

Some contend that the domestic wiretapping incident is not against the law because Gonzales says that it isn't. That's like letting a batter call his own pitches. Believe it or not, the Department of Justice is an executive branch, not a judicial one. The only folks who can put the "LEGAL" stamp on Bush's activities are the courts, not the DOJ.

Some contend that leaking a top-level CIA operative is not illegal if, under an Executive Order, the behavior is condoned. Two things there...1) Executive Orders are not above the law and can be mitigated by either legislation or a court ruling...2) Even the Executive Order only allows for the President to identify intelligence as being declassifiable. Once that determination is made, our healthy bureocracy kicks in and a PROCESS OF DECLASSIFICATION is undergone, evidence of which seems lacking at this point.

Some contend that the President was well within his rights to unilaterally decide to wage war against Iraq even if the underlying rationale for that engagment is different than the rationale used to explain the engagement itself. (Actually, to some extent, I agree here because there are likely many geo-political forces at work which the American public likely wouldn't even be able to understand, let alone would "need to know" in all cases leading up to war.) Even if the REAL reason for a war was beyond the public's "need to know" and the war was begun anyway, the American People as the financiers of such an operation DO still have the final say as to whether the conflict continues. Bush sent us to war as part of his Presidential perogative...I can live with that. Don't continue to lie to me though when I know you are lying...it belittles us both and, frankly, is conduct unbecoming a President.

Here's the kicker...crimes and misdemeanors. Let's look at the last word, shall we?

Mis - Prefix for wrong or incorrect
Demeanors - behavioral attributes, or the way a person behaves toward other people

On this basis alone, it is clear that Bush is impeachable. Heck, even our State Department issued a memo telling Americans to be less boorish and arrogant when travelling because it gives our Nation a bad name. Guess what...we've got the poster-boy for boorish and arrogant sitting in the White House. All we have to say as a group is that we simply don't like the way Bush is representing us as a Nation...grounds for impeachment.

Unfortunately, I feel that while Congress is GOP controlled, this thread is nothing more than typing exercise. Even if the Democrats manager a power-shift in Congress come November, many will be afraid to wield that power to begin impeachment proceedings because, down the line, everyone needs a favor in Washington.

I would like to close with one thought...I'll offer an initial apology in the fact that I am not attempting to equate this Administration with the Nazi regime which brought about WWII, but I do feel that even if the historical entity against which a comparison is drawn is inherently evil, it does not mean that I am equating the two entities, but drawing a lesson from history...here goes...

The big lie - tell a lie big enough, loud enough, and often enough and people will believe it. This method was employed to great effect in Nazi Germany as a massive campaign was undergone to both vilify the Jews and deify the Arian race. I see another big lie at work here...

I believe that the current Administration's efforts to place "terror" and "terrorists" at the front of American hearts and minds as the greatest evil America will face in the near future is nothing more than terrorism itself. In condemning Al-Qaeda, the Administration is implying that terrorism is scary, it's real, and it's something suicide-belt-wearing Muslims do to Westerners. In fact, terrorism is simply the effective use of fear as a motivational tool to cajole a group of people to come to your way of thinking. Take a look at the threads on this board surrounding an impending nuclear strike against Iran and you'll see fear. The vast majority of American's are scared to death about the repercussions of detonating a nuclear weapon above the heads of thousands of Muslims. The boon of this Administration is that they have managed to get Americans more scared of the possibility that Iran will do the same to us...but first. That's terrorism folks...I don't want a terrorist in the White House. Let Hamas and Iran elect them...we're supposed to know better!

Originally posted by shots
I totally disagree. The media carries much more power then it is given credit for. They can take the most minute Story and turn it into headlines in minutes, they do it every day.

So what? If anything, the media only helps us attain different perspectives of the issue at hand. Sure they want to make money, but that does not mean that we are being fed false information through a tube just as long as we buy their words.

Yes, the media is powerful...but the media presents the information the viewers/readers WANT to hear. Otherwise it wouldn't sell well. If you think there is too much Bush bashing in the media, then pherhaps that is an indicator that the people have spoken.

President Bush is doing a great job. History will thank George W. Bush, and those that spoke against him will seem as fools!

-- Boat

Originally posted by Liquidus
Well I don't like getting into dictionary battles but since you brought this up...
Impeachment: a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office

I understand the context of the statement. However, the generic dictionary definition of impeachment is not the same as Presidential Impeachment. The following excerpt is taken verbatim from the Clinton Impeachment Hearing testimony of Professor Robert F. Drinan of Georgetown University Law Center (Mon., Nov. 9, 1998):

"Perhaps the best definition of impeachment is found in the classic work on jurisprudence by Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court, which states that impeachment is 'proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity.' Impeachment, therefore, should not be looked upon or compared with an indictment. Nor should the role of the House of Representatives be deemed to be that of a grand jury."

Which means Presidential Impeachment is not a mere charge of wrongdoing. It is an action taken to "divest [the President] of his political capacity" in order to "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors"... In this sense, impeachment is more like a verdict.

Originally posted by Boatphone
President Bush is doing a great job.
-- Boat

Yes he is

Specially when so far he has been backed by his own party ruled congress.

But. . . as history will tell that will come to a stop when the rats start jumping the boat because congress is up for election and many of the rats has their own personal political agendas and Bush is one leg out of the door.

They will turn him in on a hart beat if that means saving their own butts.

I call for impeachment and jail for this crooked administration.

Originally posted by chaosrain
I think that some would argue that the "lack of proof" is a direct result of an Administration which is using Executive Privelege (which is a shaky concept as applied by the current Administration at best) as an excuse to hide/cover up/conceal any indication of wrongdoing.

And this is where the partisan impeachment argument trips over its shoelaces every time. You cite all sorts of anecdotal evidence, then fall back on the incredibly lame conjecture that The Administration is covering up the most crucial bits of evidence. Yeesh.

If we have learned ANYTHING from the Bush administration, it's that they are not capable of covering up even the simplest of scandals, nevermind the most damning. The President himself has practically no ability to formulate a compound sentence, nevermind spinning rhetoric. When he says he didn't know this or that detail, I believe him, because it fits my perception of him perfectly. I believe that George Bush really doesn't have a grasp on things. He's completely credible in that respect, and Democrats have been hammering him and his administration on this incompetence issue for years.

So, what on earth makes any of you think that this administration is possessed of the cerebral prowess to cover up the critical evidence at the core of all your talking points and open-ended accusations? You can't have it both ways---either this is the most inept administration since Warren G. Harding's, or it's the most incredibly clever administration in United States history, far surpassing the Clinton administration's intellectual gymnastics.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by Saint Michael]

Well Done!
It's about bloody time that people gathered strength and stated unequivocably "Enough!!"
Perhaps Bush cannot be personally pinned to any crimes worthy of impeachment, but the mere excercise of investigation will reveal some gaping unethical actions by G.W. and his admin.
If Clinton could get ousted for lying about a blow job (in a vain attempt to protect ALL the parties involved) then shurly Bush could be thrown out for enabling and advocating terrorist actions abroad and even within his own country. As a Canadian, I fear for the lives of myself and my children because of the madmen which currently guide the "policy" of the United States.

Originally posted by Saint Michael
You can't have it both ways---either this is the most inept administration since Warren G. Harding's, or it's the most incredibly clever administration in United States history, far surpassing the Clinton administration's intellectual gymnastics.

I am betting on the first one

While there were somethings ion the Clinton Admin that I believe bordered on if not were treason.....I think Bushs is just plain old corrupt and inept

Originally posted by solo32_98
If Clinton could get ousted for lying about a blow job (in a vain attempt to protect ALL the parties involved) then shurly Bush could be thrown out for enabling and advocating terrorist actions abroad and even within his own country. As a Canadian, I fear for the lives of myself and my children because of the madmen which currently guide the "policy" of the United States.

First of all, I don't believe a Socialist Canadian should even attempt to criticize our government in the USA. Canada is a beautiful piece of property, but its economy is a wreck, the unemployment rate is among the highest in the world, the healthcare system sucks, the fuel prices are debilitating, and your national security is virtually nonexistent. You should fear your own government, because it's a pefect model of where socialism will take you.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I will admit I have grown increasingly disenchanted with President Bush and his administration over the last year. The neo-cons and religious right have far to much say in what does and does not get done. However, I don't personally believe there is any one or any two, or three things that have been done that constitute an impeachable offense and I think it would be an enormous folly and prove extremely counterproductive to the nation to even try to do so.

Very well said dbates--satire & all.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Astronomer68]

Bush ordered the US military to invade a soveirgn country that had committed no act of agression against the United States an action violative of international law and American political/diplomatic/military tradition. This unwarranted, illegal, act of agression directly led to the deaths in combat of over 2300 brave young Americans serving in the US armed forces; where I come from killing people is a crime. The President has ordered American citizens held prisoner as "enemy combatants"(a legally meaningless, invented term because "prisoners of war" have rights under treaties the US is a party to "enemy combatants" do not) for years on end without proving that they have commited any crime in a court of law; indeed although habeus corpus has not been suspended it has not been afforded to these detained citizens. Bush is responsible for the system of torture that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Were a real investigation held and individuals of all ranks to testify truthfully we would very quickly see that the inhumane treatment of detainees at both Ghraib and Gitmo was policy that came from the "decider" himself. The Bush administration is eavesdropping on the whole of the Internet & phone data stream and using NSA's search software to hunt up leads for Al Qaeda (or political adversaries or peace and activist groups as was done before in the 60s). This sort of spying by the executive branch of government is expressly forbidden under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA). Now a President signed this legislation into law back in 1978 thus agreeing to abide by it for himself and all future presidents. Moreover FISA has, if memory serves, withstood court challenges. Bush, by ignoring FISA is saying that he has the power to SET LAWS ASIDE--this is huge people; it is not done in a democratic republic such as ours. Bush apparently was a "hands on" manager in the Valarie Plame affair, the non-leaking leaker who apparently was declassifying classified material on the fly to have his henchmen feed to the press for political purposes. One of these disclosures blew Valerie Plame a non-official-cover (NOC) agent for the CIA. President Bush certainly has the legal authority to declassify and leak intelligence information but Valerie Plame was source and/or method of getting intelligence and such sources or methods are NEVER revealed. So yes there is at least a minor case for impeachment, removal and subsequent federal indictment, prosecution, conviction and long imprisonment.

Originally posted by lunatux
Bush ordered the US military to invade a soveirgn country that had committed no act of agression against the United States an action violative of international law and American political/diplomatic/military tradition. This unwarranted, illegal, act of agression directly led to the deaths in combat of over 2300 brave young Americans serving in the US armed forces; where I come from killing people is a crime. The President has ordered American citizens held prisoner as "enemy combatants"(a legally meaningless, invented term because "prisoners of war" have rights under treaties the US is a party to "enemy combatants" do not) for years on end without proving that they have commited any crime in a court of law; indeed although habeus corpus has not been suspended it has not been afforded to these detained citizens. Bush is responsible for the system of torture that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Were a real investigation held and individuals of all ranks to testify truthfully we would very quickly see that the inhumane treatment of detainees at both Ghraib and Gitmo was policy that came from the "decider" himself. The Bush administration is eavesdropping on the whole of the Internet & phone data stream and using NSA's search software to hunt up leads for Al Qaeda (or political adversaries or peace and activist groups as was done before in the 60s). This sort of spying by the executive branch of government is expressly forbidden under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA). Now a President signed this legislation into law back in 1978 thus agreeing to abide by it for himself and all future presidents. Moreover FISA has, if memory serves, withstood court challenges. Bush, by ignoring FISA is saying that he has the power to SET LAWS ASIDE--this is huge people; it is not done in a democratic republic such as ours. Bush apparently was a "hands on" manager in the Valarie Plame affair, the non-leaking leaker who apparently was declassifying classified material on the fly to have his henchmen feed to the press for political purposes. One of these disclosures blew Valerie Plame a non-official-cover (NOC) agent for the CIA. President Bush certainly has the legal authority to declassify and leak intelligence information but Valerie Plame was source and/or method of getting intelligence and such sources or methods are NEVER revealed. So yes there is at least a minor case for impeachment, removal and subsequent federal indictment, prosecution, conviction and long imprisonment.

Dang. Bush did all of that, all by himself?? Here we go again with partisan tunnel-vision... No, George W. Bush did not act without bipartisan approval of the United States Congress. That means the MAJORITY of your little Democrat friends in Congress voted for military action against Iraq. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and their whole peanut gallery are on record as stating that Iraq DID possess WMD and that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace---and to the United States in particular.

So, if you want to start "cleansing the system" of liars and warmongers, you have a wonderful opportunity to do so next November---let's begin by voting OUT all of the Democrats who voted for unilateral military action and who fully supported President Bush in the Iraq war. Sounds like a great starting point. But, of course, you won't do that, which makes you a consummate hypocrite.

Originally posted by shots
An example of this would be the Nataley Holloway death in Aruba. Do you think for one minute if it were not for the press coverage they would be doing as much in Aruba?

[off topic]

Yes they would. If you disagree, open a thread in BTS.

[/off topic]

Saint Michael


That is why when we talk about Corrupt administration it means most of the people that is in congress and around the president.

That includes Democrats and Republicans.

The corruption that is consuming our government is just to big to comprehend by many people that are faithful to the ideologies of their parties and their affiliations.

Parties do not do wrong the people that runs those parties are the ones corrupt.

So they will got with the highest bidder and when the people of the nation has been worked out to believe what their leaders tell them they will support anything that is done For the good of the nation