Impeach on the Beach

[Slewis]

Null.

[BRussell]

I believe you spelled "Beaceh" wrong.

[Slewis]

Null.

[audiopollution]

I believe I mispelled Impeach in the title and I can't fix it :(

Sebastian

I've fixed that for you.

[Slewis]

Null.

[SDW2001]

To quote midwinter:

Get a job.

[Bergermeister]

Are you directing that statement towards GW? I certainly hope so.

[SDW2001]

Are you directing that statement towards GW? I certainly hope so.

No.....keep guessing.

[Bergermeister]

Good to see you in true form again, SDW.

-----

Slewis, got any of the helicopter shots? I want to see the message. I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

Hope the Dems go back on their promise and try to impeach the jerk before he totally destroys everything.

Hopefully, Slewis, your generation will avoid electing such morons to public office and actually elect a leader who can honestly hold his head high and say that he is in office to serve the people, the nation, and the world with honesty and dignity. Study hard, get into a good university (forget the ones covered with vines, they tend to produce molded figures), get a good job and put your vote to work.

Oh, and while you are in school, watch out for the more out-spoken teachers; they may have agendas other than your future in mind.

[SDW2001]

Good to see you in true form again, SDW.

-----

Slewis, got any of the helicopter shots? I want to see the message. I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

Hope the Dems go back on their promise and try to impeach the jerk before he totally destroys everything.

Hopefully, Slewis, your generation will avoid electing such morons to public office and actually elect a leader who can honestly hold his head high and say that he is in office to serve the people, the nation, and the world with honesty and dignity. Study hard, get into a good university (forget the ones covered with vines, they tend to produce molded figures), get a good job and put your vote to work.

Oh, and while you are in school, watch out for the more out-spoken teachers; they may have agendas other than your future in mind.


This is just the worst kind of hatred bordering on obsession.

I really would like to see an end to the carnage that GWB and his fan club are wreaking upon the planet.

It pretty much sums up the irrational hatred of this President and his administration.

[SDW2001]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/06/18344482.php

Basically over a thousand people gathered to make a human impeachment sign on the San Francisco Ocean Beach. I just noticed it on the News during a dull moment, basically someone got the idea to do this when looking at Google Map Images.

:lol:

Sebastian

EDIT: Impeach* Apparently I can't fix the Title :(

Wow! Over a THOUSAND! :D

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. You don't impeach someone because you disagree with a policies or actions carried out within the powers of his office. You can hate the war. You can hate him. You can even hate everything he does and says. But impeachment? Advocating that in this situation makes one look like a fool.

[jimmac]

Wow! Over a THOUSAND! :D

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. You don't impeach someone because you disagree with a policies or actions carried out within the powers of his office. You can hate the war. You can hate him. You can even hate everything he does and says. But impeachment? Advocating that in this situation makes one look like a fool.

Hey in case you haven't noticed a large majority don't like Dubbya and are fed up with the way he's been running things. If you ask me he's lucky he hasn't been impeached by now!
Upholding the constitution my ass! More like trying to change it to his liking.

[BRussell]

Bush won't be impeached because it would be politically risky for Democrats. Clinton was at the height of his popularity when he was being impeached by Republicans.

But if a president can't be impeached for illegally eavesdropping on Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy), and torturing and imprisoning US citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29) without trial, then a president can't be impeached for anything.

[Celemourn]

...get a good job and put your vote to work....

Don't vote, it only encourages them. It's like feeding the bears.

On a serious note, I have actually given considerable thought about the "Don't Vote" position that most of the populace of the US holds (intentionally or not). The way I see it, if one chooses to vote, then one has the right to bitch about WHO gets elected (or not). However, they do NOT have the right to bitch that someone WAS elected. If one chooses not to vote, then one has the right to bitch that someone WAS elected, but not to bitch about who it was.

I've heard the line many times, and even uttered it myself, in absolute thoughtlessness, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain!" What a crock of ... brown stuff. That's like saying that because I didn't vote against being eaten by the tribe of canibals who are boiling me alive, I have no right to bitch about it. I certainly don't have a right to bitch about whether I am sauteed or flambeed though. :D

One of the great tragedies of human existance is that so long as we desire the benefits of technology and of a unified society in general, there must always (as far as we've seen so far anyway) be some form of limitation on the rights and privilages of the members of society. One could wish for an Anarchist state, where there is a minimum of centralization of government, but that has historically led to lots of war n' stuff.

Maybe in the distant future when humans are linked into a giant network through neural implants, and we act a huge hive-mind, we can dispense with the foolishness of leaders.

Then again, the multitude of cells in the body are all guided, controlled, and ruled by one small clump of grey cells.

<shrug>

Anyway, lets all stop being assholes and stabbing at each other every chance we get. It IS actually possible to have an intellectual discussion involving politics and religion. You just have to be willing to not assume that your opinions, based solely off of YOUR experiences, are the absolutely, 100%, undeniabley true and right ways to look at things.

blah.
<dons flame retardant long-johns>
ok, flame away.

[BR]

This is just the worst kind of hatred bordering on obsession.



It pretty much sums up the irrational hatred of this President and his administration.

I don't irrationally hate the president and in fact I do think that GWB has been creating global havoc. He single-handedly lost all the world-wide support we had after 9/11 and has made a god-awful mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. His idea of foreign policy is "I'm not talking to you!!! That'll teach ya!!!" Sorry, global carnage is a rather appropriate term.

[Slewis]

Null.

[Gilsch]

Why did they have clothes on??? Disappointed by SF. ;)

[sammi jo]

Wow! Over a THOUSAND! :D

I think it's positively stupid, no matter what your politics are. There is absolutely nothing to impeach the man for. ...........

How about lying under oath? That is what got Clinton impeached.

When Bush was inaugurated in January 2005 for his 2nd term, he stated under oath, to "uphold the Constitution of the United States....". At least 6 months before his swearing in, he had approved secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Slamdunk... how much more obvious can it get?

Impeachment must be on the table. Anything less should be interpreted as 'going soft on crime'.

Is Pelosi a weasel, or a patriot? One easy guess: it begins with W.

:mad:

[franksargent]

:smokey:

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/hellfrozeover.jpg

CONFIRMED!

:smokey:

[Bergermeister]

Let the games begin!

[Celemourn]

...Like Ants or Termites -_-...

Precisely. On the other hand, too much government tends to lead to the same thing. I wonder though whether the merging of individuality into a collective would be good or bad. One writer, Alastair Reynolds, who is also a physicist, describes the Conjoiners, who have done precisely that - they have neural links that allow them to share thought and emotion with the collective whole. In Reynolds books, it is a good thing. Of course, they still had a ruling councel. I wonder how it would be in real life? What are the benefits of separated individuality? What would be the benefits of a fully merged society, where all know the minds of each other? (NOT like 1984, where personality and individuality are surpressed, but rather where they are gladly accepted and absorbed as part of the whole.)

<cough> Groupthink </cough>

hmmmmmmm

[Celemourn]

Back to the topic at hand, if I recall my Govt/econ class correctly, impeachment does not necessarily equal removal from office. It serves only to initiate the review process. More like putting the guy on trial. From that point of view, considering that whenever a serious accusation is made that someone has violated the law a trial generally ensues, as it should, impeachment can be viewed as a very reasonable, and even necessary thing. It would initiate investigation, and judge whether the president has violated the law, especially the constitution, and if so, whether those violations are grounds for removal from office.

From that perspective, viewed according to it's actual function and purpose, I think impeaching Bush would be a pretty good idea.

I suspect that a lot of the malice in these discussions results from polarization over whether or not Bush should be REMOVED. On one hand we have those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that he should be held accountable, and who assume that that means that he should be removed, and on the other hand, those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that there is insufficient grounds for removal.

Impeachment, however, is simple the review process. You stand accused, and we will investigate, and pass judgement. It's that simple.

Historians: Has an impeachment ever resulted in removal from office?

Here's a thought: What if we had manditory impeachment, for every president, every year? It'd be like a year-end review. If he's not doing a good job, OUT WITH EM! (NOOOO, that would screw up the checks and balances!!!!)

Celemourn

[Celemourn]

Back to the topic at hand, if I recall my Govt/econ class correctly, impeachment does not necessarily equal removal from office. It serves only to initiate the review process. More like putting the guy on trial. From that point of view, considering that whenever a serious accusation is made that someone has violated the law a trial generally ensues, as it should, impeachment can be viewed as a very reasonable, and even necessary thing. It would initiate investigation, and judge whether the president has violated the law, especially the constitution, and if so, whether those violations are grounds for removal from office.

From that perspective, viewed according to it's actual function and purpose, I think impeaching Bush would be a pretty good idea.

I suspect that a lot of the malice in these discussions results from polarization over whether or not Bush should be REMOVED. On one hand we have those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that he should be held accountable, and who assume that that means that he should be removed, and on the other hand, those who, based on their reading, and on their values, feel that there is insufficient grounds for removal.

Impeachment, however, is simple the review process. You stand accused, and we will investigate, and pass judgement. It's that simple.

Historians: Has an impeachment ever resulted in removal from office?

Here's a thought: What if we had manditory impeachment, for every president, every year? It'd be like a year-end review. If he's not doing a good job, OUT WITH EM! (NOOOO, that would screw up the checks and balances!!!!)

Celemourn

Ok, what the crap? 6 days and no one replies to this? Was the post that bad, or did I just not make it inflamatory enough? I can fix that, if that's the problem.

"*cough* Ahem! Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! Bush is a Child Mollestor!"

There. Now SOMEONE aught to feel the need to reply to THAT one! :rolleyes:

:D

[franksargent]

Bush is a Child Mollestor!

Dubya plays with himself if front of school children while terrorists attack (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.mov)

CONFIRMED!

[Celemourn]

Dubya plays with himself if front of school children while terrorists attack (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.mov)

CONFIRMED!

That's more like it!

[Aurora]

If we Impeach Bush then we are stuck with his Dick.............cheney. another tough guy war hero who had what 5 deferrels from Vietnam. Lets face it the U.S. was dragged into this war by a bunch of draft dodgers who never served in any military. Here some Hero's at least in their minds and everyone a draft dodger. All hiding under their desks.
Bush
Cheney
Hastert
Lott
Delay
Libbey
Limbaugh
Rove
Gingrich
Its like a who's who of the republican party that put us into this mess while the democrats were kissing their rear's because they were to scared to say to the administration where is the evidence of WMDs?

[Celemourn]

If we Impeach Bush then we are stuck with his Dick.............cheney. another tough guy war hero who had what 5 deferrels from Vietnam. Lets face it the U.S. was dragged into this war by a bunch of draft dodgers who never served in any military. Here some Hero's at leat in their minds and everyone a draft dodger. All hiding under their desks.
Bush
Cheney
Hastert
Lott
Delay
Libbey
Limbaugh
Rove
Gingrich
Its like a who's who of the republican party that put us into this mess while the democrats were kissing their rear's because they were to scared to say to the administration where is the evidence of WMDs?

Good point. I do suspect that there would still be a significant impact from an impeachment, especially if it resulted in removal. Politicians love to find scape-goats, and if Bush were to fall, I think the rest of the crew would take the opportunity to do a little bit of an about face. Or at least a Column Left.

[Slewis]

Null.

[SDW2001]

How about lying under oath? That is what got Clinton impeached.

When Bush was inaugurated in January 2005 for his 2nd term, he stated under oath, to "uphold the Constitution of the United States....". At least 6 months before his swearing in, he had approved secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Slamdunk... how much more obvious can it get?

Impeachment must be on the table. Anything less should be interpreted as 'going soft on crime'.

Is Pelosi a weasel, or a patriot? One easy guess: it begins with W.

:mad:

I just realized, you're kinda dumb.

[SDW2001]

Hey in case you haven't noticed a large majority don't like Dubbya and are fed up with the way he's been running things. If you ask me he's lucky he hasn't been impeached by now!
Upholding the constitution my ass! More like trying to change it to his liking.

So let's get this straight...he should or could be impeached because "people don't like him and are fed up?" That's not why we impeach a President.

BR:

I don't irrationally hate the president and in fact I do think that GWB has been creating global havoc. He single-handedly lost all the world-wide support we had after 9/11 and has made a god-awful mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. His idea of foreign policy is "I'm not talking to you!!! That'll teach ya!!!" Sorry, global carnage is a rather appropriate term.

That's ridiculous. "Global havoc?" He's created global havoc? This kind of thinking just astounds me, because clearly you can't see that the "good will" of the world was nothing but political bullshit to begin with. Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

Secondly, let's explore the "global havoc" idea. You're telling me Afghanistan wasn't a war you supported? Or, are you taking issue with mistakes made in the process of overthrowing the Taliban? Iraq has not gone well, but that hardly creates global havoc. Iran and NK would still be rogue states without our actions. Russia would still be dealing with Iran, and acting in its interests. We'd still have rampant anti-Americanism in the Arab world. We'd still have a rising Red China and rising oil demand. Bush didn't create any of these problems by invading Iraq and refusing to make another utterly useless "deal" with NK. He didn't put a madman in power in Iran, either.

[SDW2001]

Bush won't be impeached because it would be politically risky for Democrats. Clinton was at the height of his popularity when he was being impeached by Republicans.

But if a president can't be impeached for illegally eavesdropping on Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy), and torturing and imprisoning US citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29) without trial, then a president can't be impeached for anything.

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.

[Bergermeister]

Bush could and should be impeached. There has been ample discussion of th ereasons elsewhere (with plenty of links for support with very lkittlesupport except name-calling by those supporting King George).

Now with Bush sending more troops (there were mistakes made, dear troops, you paid for them, and now he's asking more of you to pay more for them) combined his incapability/refusal to work with others in government (outside of his small group of cronies) shows even more strongly than ever why action needs to be taken NOW.

I will be labled a Bush Hater by someone on these boards for my comments, but that is the best those who support him can do.

There are sound reasons supporting impeachment proceedings against this jerk (supported elsewhere with plenty of links, unlike those posts in favor of Bush which lack support as if we are supposed to believe it all as the word of Godette) and I pray that the Dems have the courage to go ahead with them.

[BR]

BR:

That's ridiculous. "Global havoc?" He's created global havoc? This kind of thinking just astounds me, because clearly you can't see that the "good will" of the world was nothing but political bullshit to begin with. Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.
Was it really? At what point does political bullshit end and reality begin? Seems to me that the world runs on politics so having political support isn't such a worthless thing like you try to portray it.

Secondly, let's explore the "global havoc" idea. You're telling me Afghanistan wasn't a war you supported? Or, are you taking issue with mistakes made in the process of overthrowing the Taliban?
I'm telling you that we need the troops that are currently in Iraq to be in Afghanistan right now. Iraq was dumb from the start. Iraq is what lost us the good will. And then Bush has the fucking gall to ignore EVERYONE and send MORE troops.
Iraq has not gone well, but that hardly creates global havoc. Iran and NK would still be rogue states without our actions. Russia would still be dealing with Iran, and acting in its interests. We'd still have rampant anti-Americanism in the Arab world. We'd still have a rising Red China and rising oil demand. Bush didn't create any of these problems by invading Iraq and refusing to make another utterly useless "deal" with NK. He didn't put a madman in power in Iran, either.
His ridiculous foreign policy has taken bad situations and made them worse.

[Slewis]

Null.

[sammi jo]

I just realized, you're kinda dumb.

If you were capable of contributing to the argument, rather than resorting to middle-school name calling, it would help around here. If you can rebut the statement to which you were obviously referring, then here is the place to do that...... ..... or are you so enamored with this president and his policies that anything directed against him/them is seen as an insult directed against yourself personally?

[Aurora]

The tactic of name calling is used over and over by "Rightys" when they cant point to facts.. We have to remember that some people cant think for themselves and are incapable of change.

Iraq was better off when Saddam was running it then with George and his roundtable of pretend Hero's. Congress should challenge his signing statements and his made up war in Iraq. Iraq never attacked the U.S. so why the hell are we there? George was played by somebody and the American people need to find out who? Corporations? Pentagon? Israel? Or just his Dick........cheney. Someone took this dufus and put into his head this was a solution. We need to find out who? Bush destroyed America's reputation and standing in the world, utterly destroyed it. How the heck to you go from having everyones support to no ones support? Yet our pretend Hero's George & Dick accomplished this.

[BRussell]

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.Whether someone should be convicted for committing a crime is always a legal and factual dispute. The defendant's attorney will make legal arguments and the legal system will decide. It's no different for impeachment.

The real difference is that the kind of "crime" committed is not spelled out for impeachment like it is in state and federal criminal statutes. If what the president did is considered to be beyond the pale, Congress has the power to throw him out. And again, if indefinitely imprisoning and torturing American citizens and eavesdropping on American citizens without warrant isn't beyond the pale constitutionally, you tell me something that is. What about testifying that you didn't have sex when you really did?

[@_@ Artman]

I just realized, you're kinda dumb.

I just realized (again) that you have and always will be:

http://img10.imagepile.net/img10/15484troll.jpg

But here's a surprise for you. I agree this stunt does nothing for anyone. The only step to take besides writing your representatives and voting is plain old: (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/ivins.surge/index.html)

http://www.eastman.org/taschen/m199603500014.jpg

:( "B-b-but the new season of 24?" :no:

[Celemourn]

Oh stop. Those are both ongoing legal disputes about the limits of Presidential power as exercised for national security reasons. They aren't grounds for impeachment. The court may put a stop to both (or other) actions, but that doesn't mean Bush committed a crime. Get real.

Is there a better reason to impeach? Impeachment does NOT equal removal/conviction. It is the Trial. As I mentioned above, when a person stands accused of crimes, and those accusations are supported by evidence (valid or invalid, damning or innocuous) it is society's duty to try them, regardless of popularity (or lack thereof).

Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

In years and eons past, when nations and tribes were independent and self-sufficient, that would likely be judged by all to be an accurate statement. In this modern world where our economies are so thoroughly interlaced, it's wise to keep the interests of your neighbor in mind. Granted, that ties into our own national interests. And that's the point. The stability of the world as a whole, and the interests of other nations, is becoming increasingly, "Our Business".

If you were capable of contributing to the argument, rather than resorting to middle-school name calling, it would help around here. If you can rebut the statement to which you were obviously referring, then here is the place to do that...... ..... or are you so enamored with this president and his policies that anything directed against him/them is seen as an insult directed against yourself personally?

Quit letting yourself be goaded into perpetuating the name calling and insults, man. You know better.

The tactic of name calling is used over and over by "Rightys" when they cant point to facts.. We have to remember that some people cant think for themselves and are incapable of change.

See above. Name calling is used by most people, regardless of their political affiliations. In my experience, it occurs most often when the person hears a statement which is very contrary to their understanding of the world. Snap judgement of the statement as being absurd, and they take offense that someone would present such a foolish argument. Frustration with an argument also leads to this, when one side just won't acknowledge the arguments of the other.

And again, if indefinitely imprisoning and torturing American citizens and eavesdropping on American citizens without warrant isn't beyond the pale constitutionally, you tell me something that is. What about testifying that you didn't have sex when you really did?

These, in my mind, are serious enough accusations (backed up by tons of media coverage, and my own personal experience when I was in Iraq) to warrant a VERY serious investigation and probable impeachment (again, refer to the above bit about impeachment != conviction).

Impeachment is one of the instruments of our Checks and Balances system thingy. Balance of power is necessary to prevent anyone person, faction, group, or conspiratorial group from seizing power. An unfortunate consequence of the nature of natural leaders, is that they always want to lead.

Ok, nuff for now.

<Dons Flame-Retardant Undies>

Have at it.

[@_@ Artman]

Ok, nuff for now.

<Dons Flame-Retardant Undies>

Have at it.

Bravo, Celemourn. Did you serve in Iraq? My hat's off to you. I have a question. Would be logical/feasible to even start an impeachment process during a time of war?

To me those are the only stumbling blocks, time being a major reason (this is far more reaching than a BJ you know).

[Celemourn]

Bravo, Celemourn. Did you serve in Iraq? My hat's off to you. I have a question. Would be logical/feasible to even start an impeachment process during a time of war?

I did. Though whom I served and to what end is yet to be seen. To answer your question Artman, I personally feel that it would be a horrible mistake, and a suspension of normally good judgement to NOT begin the impeachment process simply because we are involved in a pseudo-war (in my opinion, I feel it's not really war unless you are either facing the military of another nation, or you are intentionally killing the enemy's civilian populace in an effort to break their will. Until then, I feel it should just be called "Police action" or "Military actions" or whatever. It ain't war till the murder starts). Dictators around the world have shown that they gain the most power during times of crisis. The strong, charismatic man attracts the fearful populace in dire times, and can either lead them to freedom in the shadow of Churchill, or to murder and oppression in the shadow of Hitler. To suspend good sense and precaution during a crisis is paramount to inviting disaster. To his credit, Bush displayed incredible restraint on several occasions: 1) After September 11, 2001, he took his time before invading Afganistan. The 82nd Airborn Division at Fort Bragg, NC is capable of deploying ANYWHERE in the world in 18 hours from the time you say go. Bush waited a full month. We saw the benefits of that wait in a swift initial victory over the Taliban. The current problems are, I feel, more due to mismanagement, than initial foolishness. Of course, Iraq is a different story. Back to the subject, 2) When North Korea recently conducted the nuke test, no nukes flew toward Pyong Yang. Wise move. I think. Certainly has bought us some time, rather than annihilating millions and millions of civilians instantaneously. That's about where my kind words for Bush end for now though.

I feel that being at war is neither a logical nor a sound reason for postponing or foregoing an impeachment. If it is warranted when we are at war, then it is warranted when we are not, and vice versa.

<Opens Flame-Retardant Umbrella>

Bring it. :D

[jimmac]

So let's get this straight...he should or could be impeached because "people don't like him and are fed up?" That's not why we impeach a President.

BR:



That's ridiculous. "Global havoc?" He's created global havoc? This kind of thinking just astounds me, because clearly you can't see that the "good will" of the world was nothing but political bullshit to begin with. Our foreign policy shouldn't be based on what makes other nations happy with us. It should be based on our national interests.

Secondly, let's explore the "global havoc" idea. You're telling me Afghanistan wasn't a war you supported? Or, are you taking issue with mistakes made in the process of overthrowing the Taliban? Iraq has not gone well, but that hardly creates global havoc. Iran and NK would still be rogue states without our actions. Russia would still be dealing with Iran, and acting in its interests. We'd still have rampant anti-Americanism in the Arab world. We'd still have a rising Red China and rising oil demand. Bush didn't create any of these problems by invading Iraq and refusing to make another utterly useless "deal" with NK. He didn't put a madman in power in Iran, either.


I supported finding and bringing to trial OSBL. Has he done that?

And please do I really have to go into all the other stuff? Illegal wire tapping ( yes it was judged illegal ), wanting to change the law retroactively concerning rights of political prisoners, starting a 2nd new war without real provocation, wanting to compound the error by sending more troops. I could go on......

Face it. This guy is a major fuck up!

Someone needs to contain this guy before he does anymore damage. Also he's just the type that just hasn't got caught at doing something really damning yet ( smoking gun ). Make no mistake though that item is out there I assure you.

PS. the global havoc is in the fact that other's don't trust us anymore. And quite frankly why should they?

In effect he took a dangerous hornet's nest and hit it with a stick so now they're twice as mad.

And by the way in my book supporting Bush is about as anti- american as you can get as he hardly reflects the values of our founding fathers.

[Celemourn]

I supported finding and bringing to trial OSBL. Has he done that?

And please do I really have to go into all the other stuff? Illegal wire tapping ( yes it was judged illegal ), wanting to change the law retroactively concerning rights of political prisoners, starting a 2nd new war without real provocation, wanting to compound the error by sending more troops. I could go on......

Face it. This guy is a major fuck up!

Someone needs to contain this guy before he does anymore damage. Also he's just the type that just hasn't got caught at doing something really damning yet ( smoking gun ). Make no mistake though that item is out there I assure you.

PS. the global havoc is in the fact that other's don't trust us anymore. And quite frankly why should they?

In effect he took a dangerous hornet's nest and hit it with a stick so now they're twice as mad.

And by the way in my book supporting Bush is about as anti- american as you can get as he hardly reflects the values of our founding fathers.

I'd say he broke it open and let everything fly out. A democrat in office would likely have done the same thing, at least initially, I think.

[jimmac]

I'd say he broke it open and let everything fly out. A democrat in office would likely have done the same thing, at least initially, I think.


Well personally I don't think anyone else that's ever been electable to the office of the president could be this stupid. Be they democrat or republican.

[Celemourn]

Well personally I don't think anyone else that's ever been electable to the office of the president could be this stupid. Be they democrat or republican.

One serious character flaw which I have noticed in Bush is that he values Loyalty over Integrity. For example: Back at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, General Chief of Staff of the Army, General Erik Shinseki, was directly asked by a reporter how many troops would be required, and for how long, to provide security in Iraq. He answered candidly that up to 150,000 soldiers on the ground for five years would likely be required. Bush's PR guys instantly (like the next day) refuted his estimates, and claimed, in very insulting language, that General Shinseki didn't know what he was talking about. A few day later, Bush himself said publicly that General Shinseki's estimates were unrealistically high. He then forced General Shinseki, one of the most experienced Generals he had at his disposal (Shinseki served in combat in Vietnam, and had over 30 years of service) to retire. General Shinseki dared to answer a question honestly, rather than being evasive and sticking with the party line of, "Oh, not that many. Don't worry about it. Trust us." and was forced to retire because of it. In the military, I should point out, being forced to retire is the way they get rid of you when you become a problem but you haven't done anything that warrants disciplinary action. It's a kind of easy out, and very, VERY embarrassing.

That, plus his disrespect for the value of life (when he publicly mocked death-row inmate Karla Fay Tucker after her execution, which he authorized (I don't care who it is, death should not be made light of. It is a very VERY serious matter.)) are, in my eyes, two glaring character flaws of his.

[Slewis]

Null.

[Celemourn]

2 Questions

1) In order to Impeach Bush, wouldn't the House have to have a 2/3s Majority Vote in the Democrats favor?

2) Do the Democrats have that? Or even enough support from the Republican party to actually Impeach him?

Sebastian

1) it would have to be in favor of removal, not in favor of the Democrats. The two overlap, but it's a BIG difference.

2) That's the idea exactly. It's not SUPPOSED to be easy to get rid of the President. He checks the power of Congress and of the Courts. The courts check the power of the President and of Congress. Congress checks the power of the courts and of the President. Three separate groups who each have a hold on the coat tails of the other two help to prevent any one faction (or two for that matter) from gaining a toe-hold. Supposedly.

[Slewis]

Null.

[Celemourn]

1) Yes Terrible wording, sorry about that, but 2/3 right?

2) In other words, make it really hard for any one part of the Government to rid another. I should've paid more attention in Social Studies last year 8)

Sebastian

1) dunno. Ask a poly-sci (pah! science! right!) major. ;-D I bet it is at least though, for at least one point in the process, considering it takes 2/3 to override a veto or change the constitution.

2) Don't worry, I don't think I paid attention either... not sure though... I forget. ;-)

[Slewis]

Null.

[Celemourn]

1) Ah, I don't pay attention to politics too much, just a few things I notice on the news when I'm doing something else 8)

2) Well it didn't help that my Notebook literally fell apart (it was a cheap notebook) halfway through the School Year :lol:

Sebastian

1) Most people don't. I feel compelled to say that that is part of the problems we see with our political system, but I know that's not true. Even if 99% of the population voted, the statistics would likely end up being the same.

2) I never read my notes anyway. I just use the notebook to scribble in to get the kinesthetic learning aid. I actually tend to throw away my notes every week or so. Just scribbles anyway. All the good stuff is in the books.

[Slewis]

Null.

[franksargent]

1) Most people don't. I feel compelled to say that that is part of the problems we see with our political system, but I know that's not true. Even if 99% of the population voted, the statistics would likely end up being the same.

2) I never read my notes anyway. I just use the notebook to scribble in to get the kinesthetic learning aid. I actually tend to throw away my notes every week or so. Just scribbles anyway. All the good stuff is in the books.

Don't quote me on this but I think is's a simple majority in the House and 2/3's in the Senate. Yup just wiki'ed it those are the rulez.

[Slewis]

Null.

[Celemourn]

Don't quote me on this but I think is's a simple majority in the House and 2/3's in the Senate. Yup just wiki'ed it those are the rulez.

1) Damn, man. You broke the pattern!


2) I was trying to get 150 of those in a row! j/k (sorta)

:D

[midwinter]

To quote midwinter:

Get a job.

:err:

[franksargent]

1) Damn, man. You broke the pattern!


2) I was trying to get 150 of those in a row! j/k (sorta)

:D

Sorry to break the chain, but I did find it a bit odd, I thought you guys needed some help. :embarrass

[tonton]

It pretty much sums up the irrational hatred of this President and his administration.

I stopped here without reading the rest of the thread, but...

There is no irrational hatred of this president. It is all completely rational.

[@_@ Artman]

I feel that being at war is neither a logical nor a sound reason for postponing or foregoing an impeachment. If it is warranted when we are at war, then it is warranted when we are not, and vice versa.
<Opens Flame-Retardant Umbrella>
Bring it. :D

I completely forgot that the Nixon Impeachment process occurred during the waning years of Vietnam, silly me. But is there time in the situation we are in in the Middle East?

Another thing, I actually believe that this administration realizes that they have little time left. If this is the case then I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 2-3 months:

1. They ramp up troops in Iraq (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070113-122725-7470r.htm) and Afghanistan (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2007-01-15T195234Z_01_L15395385_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-USA.xml).
2. The Naval defense's are ramped up (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/middleeast/21navy.html?ex=1324357200&en=89d268b4a9650a47&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) in the Gulf.
3. Israel launches air attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm) on all nuclear facilities in Iran.
4. And all Hell (http://rowhouselogic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/nuclear%20explosion.JPG) breaks loose.

Would Israel bomb Iran?

This BBC report is worth watching (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3827866392656270502&q=will+israel+bomb+iran&hl=en).

So if we want to have an impeachment process started. We better hurry the fuck up.

[Slewis]

Null.

[SDW2001]

Bush could and should be impeached. There has been ample discussion of th ereasons elsewhere (with plenty of links for support with very lkittlesupport except name-calling by those supporting King George).

Now with Bush sending more troops (there were mistakes made, dear troops, you paid for them, and now he's asking more of you to pay more for them) combined his incapability/refusal to work with others in government (outside of his small group of cronies) shows even more strongly than ever why action needs to be taken NOW.

I will be labled a Bush Hater by someone on these boards for my comments, but that is the best those who support him can do.

There are sound reasons supporting impeachment proceedings against this jerk (supported elsewhere with plenty of links, unlike those posts in favor of Bush which lack support as if we are supposed to believe it all as the word of Godette) and I pray that the Dems have the courage to go ahead with them.


:lol:

You can post all the links you want. The man hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. Period.

[@_@ Artman]

:lol:

You can post all the links you want. The man hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. Period.


Articles of Impeachment by Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.amazon.com/Articles-Impeachment-Against-George-Bush/dp/1933633085)

"Book Description
In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more widely. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: There has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon.

In this gripping new book, one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, sets out the legal arguments for impeachment detailing four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution's separation of powers. It is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.

The book also contains the relevant laws and legal precedents. It explains what the Constitution says about impeachment and gives a brief history of impeachment, its procedures, and previous articles of impeachment against presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.

About the Author
Founded in 1966 by attorneys defending civil rights activists in the South, the Center for Constitutional Rights is one of America's most prestigious collectives of constitutional lawyers and experts."

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the... (Introduced in House) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.1106:)

"109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1106

Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 8, 2006

Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that:

ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

In violation of the oath of office, which reads: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself.

This conduct includes the following:

Manipulating Intelligence and Lying To Justify War

In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that `the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' as revealed in the `Downing Street Memo'. To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on `fixed' intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

In violation of his oath to `faithfully execute the office of President of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.

This conduct includes the following:

Failure To Uphold Accountability

In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.

Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:

(a) RICHARD CHENEY- In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to `fix' their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

(b) CONDOLEEZZA RICE- In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.

This conduct includes the following:

Illegal Domestic Spying

In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Zogby Poll: 53% of Americans Support Impeachment (http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/6)

"New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error."

http://infowars.net/pictures/dec06/051206impeach-bush-poster.jpg

:smokey:

[midwinter]

:lol:

You can post all the links you want. The man hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. Period.

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/y1696.gif

[addabox]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/y1696.gif

Brit Hume, we're looking at you....

[FormerLurker]

:lol:

[BRussell]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/y1696.gif

Hell, I'll volunteer if no one else will. But will that mean I have to give one to Cheney too before Pelosi becomes president?

[addabox]

Hell, I'll volunteer if no one else will. But will that mean I have to give one to Cheney too before Pelosi becomes president?

Steady, man. There are limits to the human capacity to endure horror.

[midwinter]

Steady, man. There are limits to the human capacity to endure horror.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b323/patfish/picofweek/dickcheney.jpg

Ahem. Capacity, indeed.

[BRussell]

He must have been thinking about the unitary executive when that picture was taken.

[addabox]

Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!! My soul has fled my body!

[Celemourn]

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the... (Introduced in House) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.1106:)

Did that actually get introduced, or was it just a draft that some congressman was trying to get action on?

[SDW2001]

jimmac:

And please do I really have to go into all the other stuff? Illegal wire tapping ( yes it was judged illegal ), wanting to change the law retroactively concerning rights of political prisoners, starting a 2nd new war without real provocation, wanting to compound the error by sending more troops. I could go on......

Face it. This guy is a major fuck up!

Well look, you're entitled to think that, just as I'm allowed to think otherwise. But being a "fuck up" has nothing to do with impeachment. What you're saying is that Bush delibrately committed a crime. That's patently absurd. White House legal counsel advised him that he could authorize such a wiretapping program. Now, if the courts disagree, and it's clear they do, that's the end of that. It doesn't mean he committed a crime. Ditto on the detaining of prisoners. Losing a legal battle doesn't mean there has been a "high crime or misdemeanor" committed.

[SDW2001]

1) it would have to be in favor of removal, not in favor of the Democrats. The two overlap, but it's a BIG difference.

2) That's the idea exactly. It's not SUPPOSED to be easy to get rid of the President. He checks the power of Congress and of the Courts. The courts check the power of the President and of Congress. Congress checks the power of the courts and of the President. Three separate groups who each have a hold on the coat tails of the other two help to prevent any one faction (or two for that matter) from gaining a toe-hold. Supposedly.

No, that's not how it works. The House would draw up Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate would hold a trial. They could then vote to remove the President from office. Impeachment and being removed from office are two different things.

[SDW2001]

Articles of Impeachment by Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.amazon.com/Articles-Impeachment-Against-George-Bush/dp/1933633085)

"Book Description
In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more widely. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: There has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon.

In this gripping new book, one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, sets out the legal arguments for impeachment detailing four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution's separation of powers. It is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.

The book also contains the relevant laws and legal precedents. It explains what the Constitution says about impeachment and gives a brief history of impeachment, its procedures, and previous articles of impeachment against presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.

About the Author
Founded in 1966 by attorneys defending civil rights activists in the South, the Center for Constitutional Rights is one of America's most prestigious collectives of constitutional lawyers and experts."

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the... (Introduced in House) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.1106:)

"109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1106

Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 8, 2006

Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that:

ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

In violation of the oath of office, which reads: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself.

This conduct includes the following:

Manipulating Intelligence and Lying To Justify War

In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that `the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' as revealed in the `Downing Street Memo'. To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on `fixed' intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

In violation of his oath to `faithfully execute the office of President of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.

This conduct includes the following:

Failure To Uphold Accountability

In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.

Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:

(a) RICHARD CHENEY- In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to `fix' their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

(b) CONDOLEEZZA RICE- In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.

This conduct includes the following:

Illegal Domestic Spying

In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Zogby Poll: 53% of Americans Support Impeachment (http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/6)

"New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error."

http://infowars.net/pictures/dec06/051206impeach-bush-poster.jpg

:smokey:


Stupid. Absolutely, incredibly stupid. So is McKinney, btw. Maybe she should just punch him instead? :\

[SDW2001]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/y1696.gif

Dude, as much as we disagree, you post some hysterical shit. :lol:

Of course, Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with a blowjob, but whatever.

[Celemourn]

No, that's not how it works. The House would draw up Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate would hold a trial. They could then vote to remove the President from office. Impeachment and being removed from office are two different things.

Thanks for clarifing that. Do both the senate and the house vote, or just the senate?

Last line: precisely what I've been saying. Trials ain't a bad thing.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B8829D094-616F-482E-9121-E8303D0DD2F3%7D.gif

[jimmac]

jimmac:



Well look, you're entitled to think that, just as I'm allowed to think otherwise. But being a "fuck up" has nothing to do with impeachment. What you're saying is that Bush delibrately committed a crime. That's patently absurd. White House legal counsel advised him that he could authorize such a wiretapping program. Now, if the courts disagree, and it's clear they do, that's the end of that. It doesn't mean he committed a crime. Ditto on the detaining of prisoners. Losing a legal battle doesn't mean there has been a "high crime or misdemeanor" committed.


SDW you have one gigantic blind spot when it comes to Bush. Read Artman's post again if you haven't.

[Celemourn]

Stupid. Absolutely, incredibly stupid. So is McKinney, btw. Maybe she should just punch him instead? :\

You know, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were just insulting people because you were aggravated by this discussion. I'm now beginning to suspect that you are simply a horribly rude and offensive person for whom the value of their intellect is depreciated by their personality. You are acting shamefully and you dishonor yourself and those you defend. You are doing much harm by reinforcing the "Insulting, irrational, and arrogant Republican" stereotype.

You are making a mockery of yourself and the Republican party, and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is deplorably immature.

In other words, you are being a total asshole.

Unfuck yourself and come back to the discussion when you are ready to act intelligently and actually present arguments and evidence which will help to sway others to your position, rather than acting like fucking child.

[Celemourn]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B8829D094-616F-482E-9121-E8303D0DD2F3%7D.gif

Why is Iraq a stick of butter?

[dmz]

I think this impeachment business is vindictive -- and nothing else -- except for maybe broadcasting:

"Hey! no matter how badly Iraq ends up, no matter much worse the ME is for it, we're going to get our political Jollies" (and I don't mean a big-lipped philanderette, trysexual, actress)

This entire Iraq business, from the start, has been used for political gain, no matter what the cost. If the Left had any decency they'd have gone to W and said "hey, you've got X months to get things fixed, we'll keep our mouths shut and let you do your job, but after that it's open season."

But no, it's been pissing and moaning -- for nothing more but show. Ridiculous. I've said this for years, don't argue in front of the kids. If the left isn't powerful enough to take out dubbubububububua, then shut the hell up and let him dig his hole.

If you disagree with invasion, then preach containment. Something more than 'Bush lied,' 'Michael Moore said...' Propose another way, something other than whining the Jihadis and emerging screwball ideologies to death.

But then, when Bush has to refer to all of this as the "War on terror" maybe no one is listening that can find Iraq on a map.

[Celemourn]

I think this impeachment business is vindictive

One of the things that irritates me the most about politics is how people will abandon reason in favor of emotion, caution in favor of loyalty, and honesty in favor of saving face.

Frickin annoying as hell, and firmly prevents anything constructive from being accomplished.

Or so it seems to me.

[dmz]

One of the things that irritates me the most about politics is how people will abandon reason in favor of emotion, caution in favor of loyalty, and honesty in favor of saving face.

Frickin annoying as hell, and firmly prevents anything constructive from being accomplished.

Or so it seems to me.
I don't think it's ever been any different. Even with something as serious as the American Civil War, there were plenty of people willing to chisle/connive/resort to infighting.

[Celemourn]

I don't think it's ever been any different. Even with something as serious as the American Civil War, there were plenty of people willing to chisle/connive/resort to infighting.

"Come see the violence inherent in the system!!" - Monty Python

[gregmightdothat]

What you're saying is that Bush delibrately committed a crime. That's patently absurd.

I'm assuming, then, that you haven't heard of the Downing Street Memo. :no:

Lying to Congress is certainly grounds for impeachment, especially about critical information that led them to okay a $350 trillion war.

[Celemourn]

I'm assuming, then, that you haven't heard of the Downing Street Memo. :no:

I live under a rock, not having a TV or cable of any kind, but I would have expected to have heard about this before now. That this is the first i've heard of it is even more disturbing in my mind than the memo's supposed contents.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I think this impeachment business is vindictive -- and nothing else -- except for maybe broadcasting:

"Hey! no matter how badly Iraq ends up, no matter much worse the ME is for it, we're going to get our political Jollies" (and I don't mean a big-lipped philanderette, trysexual, actress)

This entire Iraq business, from the start, has been used for political gain, no matter what the cost. If the Left had any decency they'd have gone to W and said "hey, you've got X months to get things fixed, we'll keep our mouths shut and let you do your job, but after that it's open season."

Horseshit.

The war was planned and executed with incompetence, and people should be held to account. I'm sorry that they're the ones on 'your side'. They should be held to account.

Likewise, the war was instigated on controversial grounds. We are entitled to question those grounds. It was controversial at the time, and many of us protested it at the time. We were entitled to.

I'm sorry that 'your guys' were the ones who fucked up. I hope someone is held accountable. I'm not sorry if this hurts your feelings.

[jimmac]

Horseshit.

The war was planned and executed with incompetence, and people should be held to account. I'm sorry that they're the ones on 'your side'. They should be held to account.

Likewise, the war was instigated on controversial grounds. We are entitled to question those grounds. It was controversial at the time, and many of us protested it at the time. We were entitled to.

I'm sorry that 'your guys' were the ones who fucked up. I hope someone is held accountable. I'm not sorry if this hurts your feelings.


Amen to that!

I'm a big beilever in karma. What you do always has a way of coming back and biting you in the ass. The war advocates had plenty of time to listen before the war and did they?

Tables always eventually turn and here we are.

[dmz]

Horseshit.

The war was planned and executed with incompetence, and people should be held to account. I'm sorry that they're the ones on 'your side'. They should be held to account.

Likewise, the war was instigated on controversial grounds. We are entitled to question those grounds. It was controversial at the time, and many of us protested it at the time. We were entitled to.

I'm sorry that 'your guys' were the ones who fucked up. I hope someone is held accountable. I'm not sorry if this hurts your feelings.
No, not arguing in front of the kids is not "horseshit."

The left needs to "either shit or get off the pot." In practice, all they have done is add to the ineffectiveness of what the administration is doing. And the left have managed to do it preaching zero ideas of their own on how to deal with emerging threats, as Jihadi ideology finds its feet. Great, they managed to make things even worse -- but that's not an alternative.

As for 'questioning' -- question all you want -- but impeachment? It's not sane, and it's not constructive. Believing a decade of intrenched/invested intelligence bureaucracy is not a crime. Certainly not for someone who can 'look into' Vladimir Putin's soul, when there actually wasn't one to 'look into.'

But like I said earlier, when no one in any government, any where is willing to break those issues down intelligently -- separating Jihadi ideology from 'the muzzzlims', or something as simple as pointing to the wizard behind Ahmadinejad's curtain, or accepting that religion may actually be playing a part in not securing Iraq -- maybe the 'two sides' deserve each other.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

No, not arguing in front of the kids is not "horseshit."

The left needs to "either shit or get off the pot." In practice, all they have done is add to the ineffectiveness of what the administration is doing. And the left have managed to do it with zero ideas of their own on how to deal with emerging threats, as Jihadi ideology finds its feet. Great, they managed to make things even worse -- but that's not an alternative.

We live in democracies. The actions of our elected leaders demand scrutiny. When the actions of our elected leaders cause the deaths of thousands of our citizens for highly controversial reasons, they demand scrutiny all the more. Those leaders have to be held accountable, they have to be made to listen.

If we're not allowed to object to, and publicly discuss, the actions of our elected leaders, even with anger and force, we've lost the war. We're living in a society that's compromised the very principles we're supposed to be sending our kids to die defending.

So fuck that.

You seek to share the blame for the disaster that is this war on the people who object to it and who objected to it from the beginning. No. I vocally tried to stop it, and my government didn't listen.

George Bush has been presented with alternative policy choices by a non-partisan inquiry and he's decided to ignore them. It's not up to 'the left' to think up other alternatives.

[@_@ Artman]

Why is Iraq a stick of butter?

That's not butter. That's "I can't believe it's not butter" butter.

Sad isn't it? Look at the casualty number above that coffin.

Also, I don't know whether that impeachment statement ever went anywhere, but it is the most detailed and comprehensive one I've come across.

And as for the Downing Street Memo, here's a great place to start learning more about it (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/).

[dmz]

We live in democracies. The actions of our elected leaders demand scrutiny. When the actions of our elected leaders cause the deaths of thousands of our citizens for highly controversial reasons, they demand scrutiny all the more. Those leaders have to be held accountable, they have to be made to listen.

If we're not allowed to object to, and publicly discuss, the actions of our elected leaders, even with anger and force, we've lost the war. We're living in a society that's compromised the very principles we're supposed to be sending our kids to die defending.

So fuck that.

You seek to share the blame for the disaster that is this war on the people who object to it and who objected to it from the beginning. No. I vocally tried to stop it, and my government didn't listen.

George Bush has been presented with alternative policy choices by a non-partisan inquiry and he's decided to ignore them. It's not up to 'the left' to think up other alternatives.
Hassan i Sabbah, I think 'scrutiny' is what happens when you involve people who haven't the foggiest idea what to do.

The ISG compounds my point, except that instead of foot dragging and whining, it came in the form of platitudes that just begged the question. 'If we could just get Iran to be nice, we could get Iran to cooperate.'

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Hassan i Sabbah, I think 'scrutiny' is what happens when you involve people who haven't the foggiest idea what to do.

I can't really respond to this because I don't understand it.

I will say that our elected representatives have been elected in order to represent us, and I'm entitled to shout at the top of my voice about this clusterfuck.

The ISG compounds my point, except that instead of foot dragging and whining, it came in the form of platitudes that just begged the question. 'If we could just get Iran to be nice, we could get Iran to cooperate.'

You demanded someone suggest alternatives to the military strategies of the current administration. You already have them and all you can do is denigrate them, even though they come from a non-partisan source.

[dmz]

I can't really respond to this because I don't understand it.

I will say that our elected representatives have been elected in order to represent us, and I'm entitled to shout at the top of my voice about this clusterfuck.


You demanded someone suggest alternatives to the military strategies of the current administration. You already have them and all you can do is denigrate them, even though they come from a non-partisan source.
Mmmmm, somewhat, but I think it's a legitimate gripe that the ISG came back and simply proposed doing things that were truisms -- that implicitly require Iraq to gain nukes, in order for them to work, And no, no matter how many different ways you ask dad to give the car keys to the 11-year-old, he's still going to say 'no.'

Iraq is essentially going to have to bought, in blood, from Iran and no one wants to hear it. The failure is Bush's and he'll have to eat it, but the problem is systemic -- from bad intel, to a dismissive attitudes of religion as it bears on the ME, to thinking that waving Maslow's hierarchy of needs in Baghdad will solve our problems, and will democracy into existence.

I think the rest is sound and fury, and preparing for 2008; Alcibiades would be proud. Maybe Sicily is closer than we thought.

Must work. Bye.

[Celemourn]

No, not arguing in front of the kids is not "horseshit."


That would, I think, be a very mature and responsible way of handling the situation. The only thing that it requires is sufficient unity amongst the Democrats to effect it. Obstructing it is one of the most deeply rooted principles of Democrat ideology that I've ever observed: Tolerance of dissent and a hesitation to tout unity as the prime virtue of the group. Hence, Dems seem to me to tend to have much broader... um... damn. whatever the word meaning 'ideas' that would be appropriate in this context is.

On the other hand, it is, I think, bad for the citizens of the us for our rulers, who are supposed to represent us, to avoid the public forum. It's good to voice all ideas (yes, all, left, right, center, upside down, and hyper-dimensional).


Sad isn't it? Look at the casualty number above that coffin.

Ok, here's an insight from an OIF vet: The number of DEAD absolutely pales in comparison to the number who have been wounded or maimed. Technically, we refer to any injury (including death) which removes a soldier from immediate duty. This can range from a guy who got a back injury when the truck he was riding in rolled over on him and had to stay the night in the hospital, to the guy who got crushed to death by the same truck. If I recall correctly (there's a good chance I don't, so someone look this up) back in the Fall of '04, when the number dead was around 800 (I think), the best estimates of soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan too) was around 6,000. Also, isn't that number on the butter low? I thought it had gone over 2,000 already....

...and I'm entitled to shout at the top of my voice about this clusterfuck.

Heh, clusterfuck. I love that word. I've rarely found shouting to be an effective method of convincing people of anything though.

Iraq is essentially going to have to bought, in blood, from Iran and no one wants to hear it. The failure is Bush's and he'll have to eat it, but the problem is systemic -- from bad intel, to a dismissive attitudes of religion as it bears on the ME, to thinking that waving Maslow's hierarchy of needs in Baghdad will solve our problems, and will democracy into existence.

I've heard it said, and it seems accurate when I think about it, that no country has ever, or will ever, establish a stable and just government through of the involvement of other nations, and that action by the citizens of that country, usually in the form of a civil war, is necessary to effect the change.

I suspect that eventually the majority of Iraqis, who are suffering the brunt of the violence, will have to stand up as a group and take control of the extremist groups who are causing all the chaos. And I bet that they will do it largely without outside help. They need to take responsibility for their own security, and take action against the common enemy. A People United against a common foe is a force of incredible power.

The day will come, I think, when the Iraqis will see small groups of insurgents preparing to attack, and they will pull out their own weapons and attack those who would do murder.

The leader of such a united movement, I expect, will be a religious one, rather than a political one.

[dmz]

That would, I think, be a very mature and responsible way of handling the situation. The only thing that it requires is sufficient unity amongst the Democrats to effect it. Obstructing it is one of the most deeply rooted principles of Democrat ideology that I've ever observed: Tolerance of dissent and a hesitation to tout unity as the prime virtue of the group. Hence, Dems seem to me to tend to have much broader... um... damn. whatever the word meaning 'ideas' that would be appropriate in this context is.

On the other hand, it is, I think, bad for the citizens of the us for our rulers, who are supposed to represent us, to avoid the public forum. It's good to voice all ideas (yes, all, left, right, center, upside down, and hyper-dimensional).




Ok, here's an insight from an OIF vet: The number of DEAD absolutely pales in comparison to the number who have been wounded or maimed. Technically, we refer to any injury (including death) which removes a soldier from immediate duty. This can range from a guy who got a back injury when the truck he was riding in rolled over on him and had to stay the night in the hospital, to the guy who got crushed to death by the same truck. If I recall correctly (there's a good chance I don't, so someone look this up) back in the Fall of '04, when the number dead was around 800 (I think), the best estimates of soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan too) was around 6,000. Also, isn't that number on the butter low? I thought it had gone over 2,000 already....



Heh, clusterfuck. I love that word. I've rarely found shouting to be an effective method of convincing people of anything though.



I've heard it said, and it seems accurate when I think about it, that no country has ever, or will ever, establish a stable and just government through of the involvement of other nations, and that action by the citizens of that country, usually in the form of a civil war, is necessary to effect the change.

I suspect that eventually the majority of Iraqis, who are suffering the brunt of the violence, will have to stand up as a group and take control of the extremist groups who are causing all the chaos. And I bet that they will do it largely without outside help. They need to take responsibility for their own security, and take action against the common enemy. A People United against a common foe is a force of incredible power.

The day will come, I think, when the Iraqis will see small groups of insurgents preparing to attack, and they will pull out their own weapons and attack those who would do murder.

The leader of such a united movement, I expect, will be a religious one, rather than a political one.
I agree there, it will have to be in terms of their culture, and that means a Muslim approach. It just seems that getting the rank and file to stand up is being hampered by something -- somwhere between Islam's fatalism, and the ease that traditional Islamic defensive warfare can be invoked.

...and the historical bad East/West blood that goes all the way back to the Byzantine empire....and the fact that most people in the ME have a strong sense of culture, and real sense/memory of history, two things that nearly no American can relate to.

This could be really bad.

[Celemourn]

I agree there, it will have to be in terms of their culture, and that means a Muslim approach. It just seems that getting the rank and file to stand up is being hampered by something -- somwhere between Islam's fatalism, and the ease that traditional Islamic defensive warfare can be invoked.

...and the historical bad East/West blood that goes all the way back to the Byzantine empire....and the fact that most people in the ME have a strong sense of culture, and real sense/memory of history, two things that nearly no American can relate to.

This could be really bad.

meh... I'm not sure that there's any materially different amount of warfare and the death that comes with it at this point in time than there has been at any other time in history (aside from relatively short periods of regional peace). Overall, it seems like we're doing quite well at continuing the trend of mankind. Someone who has actually studied history would be interesting to hear from on this point.

On sense of culture: I frequently refer to myself as, "The ultimate American Mutt." My family supposedly has Irish, English Scottish, etc, etc, blood. Even a French Viking I'm told. We have effectively no family traditions, and no easily identifiable cultural heritage, aside from that of all of middle-class America. In a way, I am Pure American, in that I have no other cultural identity. Left to myself, I am inclined to think that that would be a bad thing, due to being exposed to only one perspective. However/fortunately, I've always had an interest in the rest of the world, and have had the opportunity/been forced to see a small chunk of it. Two years in South Korea, and a year in the middle east have reinforced my sense that we should always question stereotypes and should always guard against making assumptions about how others live and think.

[Slewis]

Null.

[Celemourn]

I never really saw the point in trying to figure out my heritage. I'm told my family is essentially from Northern Europe. I don't even bother to refer to myself as American though, Human is good enough. 8)

Sebastian

Seconded.

[SDW2001]

You know, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were just insulting people because you were aggravated by this discussion. I'm now beginning to suspect that you are simply a horribly rude and offensive person for whom the value of their intellect is depreciated by their personality. You are acting shamefully and you dishonor yourself and those you defend. You are doing much harm by reinforcing the "Insulting, irrational, and arrogant Republican" stereotype.

You are making a mockery of yourself and the Republican party, and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Your behavior is deplorably immature.

In other words, you are being a total asshole.

Unfuck yourself and come back to the discussion when you are ready to act intelligently and actually present arguments and evidence which will help to sway others to your position, rather than acting like fucking child.

First of all, don't ever tell me who I am or presume you have the moral authority to make judgements about me. Second, you clearly don't get the joke with regard to McKinney. Having some knowledge of fairly recent news and sense of humor would help you immensely. Finally, you obviously haven't been around here too long. Nothing I've said even begins to approach what others have said in these forums over the past 7 years. Calling an idea stupid is not tantamount to calling a person stupid. In any case, I certainly don't need to defend myself to the likes of you.

[SDW2001]

I'm assuming, then, that you haven't heard of the Downing Street Memo. :no:

Lying to Congress is certainly grounds for impeachment, especially about critical information that led them to okay a $350 trillion war.

$350 trillion! Wow, that's a lot! ;)

Show me that he lied to Congress. Go ahead, I'm listening.

[@_@ Artman]

Well, back on the subject (impeaching Chimpy McFlightsuit) I just read this...

The Psychology Behind the Worst Possible President (http://www.alternet.org/stories/46794/)

"The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla..."

Forget impeachment. Can we have him committed? :\

[@_@ Artman]

$350 trillion! Wow, that's a lot! ;)

Show me that he lied to Congress. Go ahead, I'm listening.

READ (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.html).

[gregmightdothat]

I'm assuming then, that you STILL haven't read the Downing Street Memo.

It's the leaked minutes of a meeting between several higher ups in the British Labour Party prior to the war in Iraq. Here's the most relevant section:


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

It was pretty important in the European media, although the American media largely glossed over it. A number of congressman and pundits, however, both conservative and liberal, have been calling for a more thorough investigation.

[Celemourn]

First of all, don't ever tell me who I am or presume you have the moral authority to make judgements about me. Second, you clearly don't get the joke with regard to McKinney. Having some knowledge of fairly recent news and sense of humor would help you immensely. Finally, you obviously haven't been around here too long. Nothing I've said even begins to approach what others have said in these forums over the past 7 years. Calling an idea stupid is not tantamount to calling a person stupid. In any case, I certainly don't need to defend myself to the likes of you.

, he said, in his own defense.

Oh, and what precisely are, "The like of," me? Do you know anything about me, or are you simply implying that you are superior to all other beings?

You yourself show everyone who you are through your own posts, and present an image of your own morals. Are you wise enough to ensure that that image is the one you want to present?

As to moral authority to pass judgement: Don't be a hypocrite. Have you not cast judgement on others continuously throughout this thread? As a member of society, I do have, absolutely, the right and the moral obligation to evaluate YOUR ACTIONS, and those of every other person. That is a fundamental right and responsibility of EVERY member of society, and of every individual. I will continue to do so, and when I deem your actions to warrant comment, I shall comment on them. If I feel that they need to be paraphrased to emphasize the point, I shall do that too.

Obviously I haven't been around here too long. You can tell because my join date is 07-20-2006. What's your point? I have yet to find any reasonable person who accepts blaming your own misconduct on the misconduct of others as a valid excuse. Would you try to convince us that people should not be held accountable for their actions? That's a very Left-Wing position to take.

Inflammatory language is inflammatory language.

Please act like an adult, or quit pretending to be one. The farce is tiresome.

[SDW2001]

, he said, in his own defense.

Oh, and what precisely are, "The like of," me? Do you know anything about me, or are you simply implying that you are superior to all other beings?

You yourself show everyone who you are through your own posts, and present an image of your own morals. Are you wise enough to ensure that that image is the one you want to present?

As to moral authority to pass judgement: Don't be a hypocrite. Have you not cast judgement on others continuously throughout this thread? As a member of society, I do have, absolutely, the right and the moral obligation to evaluate YOUR ACTIONS, and those of every other person. That is a fundamental right and responsibility of EVERY member of society, and of every individual. I will continue to do so, and when I deem your actions to warrant comment, I shall comment on them. If I feel that they need to be paraphrased to emphasize the point, I shall do that too.

Obviously I haven't been around here too long. You can tell because my join date is 07-20-2006. What's your point? I have yet to find any reasonable person who accepts blaming your own misconduct on the misconduct of others as a valid excuse. Would you try to convince us that people should not be held accountable for their actions? That's a very Left-Wing position to take.

Inflammatory language is inflammatory language.

Please act like an adult, or quit pretending to be one. The farce is tiresome.


I'm not going to defend myself to you. Period.

[Celemourn]

I'm not going to defend myself to you. Period.

Thank you. That's the kind of maturity that promotes real communication and discussion. Vastly superior to the name calling we were all participating in earlier.

Many people would have been severely provoked by my last post. Your restraint is admirable.

:)

[@_@ Artman]

Chill Celemourn. If anything you've realized the futility of ever having a reasonable exchange with SDW2001. I've tried to stay away from the political forum. I guess whenever he makes his appearance I'll split. I not going to feed a pompous troll anymore.

By the way, the impeachment process has made it's first baby step...

Legislator seeks Bush impeachment (http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BNews%5D=ID&ID%5BNews%5D=19257)

State legislator. From New Mexico. I know. But if If the state passes it, the representative of that state may introduce it in House. This is how impeachment proceedings begin. If ever. :\

[SDW2001]

Chill Celemourn. If anything you've realized the futility of ever having a reasonable exchange with SDW2001. I've tried to stay away from the political forum. I guess whenever he makes his appearance I'll split. I not going to feed a pompous troll anymore.

By the way, the impeachment process has made it's first baby step...

Legislator seeks Bush impeachment (http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BNews%5D=ID&ID%5BNews%5D=19257)

State legislator. From New Mexico. I know. But if If the state passes it, the representative of that state may introduce it in House. This is how impeachment proceedings begin. If ever. :\

Thanks for the ad hom. Funny...your definition of reasonable seems to be "a person whom I agree with."

[Celemourn]

... realized the futility of ever having a reasonable exchange with SDW2001...

Reasonable conversations can be had with anyone, including SDW, whenever they choose to suppress the anger reflex and stick to keeping posts constructive. I point again to the fact that SDW has restrained himself from getting into a flame war with me. He knows how to be reasonable and mature. It's not the person which is the critical element, but the technique they use to express their ideas.

IMO, ideas are good. Emotional responses which do not align with reason (yeah, there can be a response which is both emotional and reasonable), are bad.

On reasonableness: Suppose someone is presenting an argument to which, were I to present it instead of they, I would give due consideration. If I reject that argument without due consideration, then I am being unreasonable. If I consider their argument, especially if I then accept it, then I feel I am being reasonable. In other words, if I reject something just because someone else said it, and not me, then I'm being damned unreasonable.

I feel that most arguments aught to be considered, regardless of their validity. Likewise, every person should be given basic respect, and their actions should not be seen to be THEM (Yes, I violate the principle at times. Point it out and I'll work on it).

Disagreement and dissent are good things. Yelling at and insulting people are not.

[@_@ Artman]

Disagreement and dissent are good things. Yelling at and insulting people are not.

How do you discuss something to someone who'll never bothers to read or reply to the evidence you give them for review? I've done this countless times with SDW but he never reads or responds to them. His ignorance is stifling.

[Celemourn]

...whenever they choose to suppress the anger reflex and stick to keeping posts constructive...

They have to choose to be reasonable. Often, it feels more rewarding (adrenalin rush, you know) to simply fall into verbal combat. Of course, the other person may be swayed by something you said, and simply have no reply for it.

Yet some people simply enjoy acting like assholes and goading others.

[jimmac]

How do you discuss something to someone who'll never bothers to read or reply to the evidence you give them for review? I've done this countless times with SDW but he never reads or responds to them. His ignorance is stifling.

Yes and then he asks for links which he imediately discredits for purely subjective reasons.




I've done the countless thing also.

[Bergermeister]

There is a wonderful function called "add to ignore list" or something like that, and I found, after interacting with a couple of people on these boards, that it was more worth my while to use that list and get on with life than to get bogged down in meaningless discussion with people who are incapable of discussion on any level and would have flunked my 8th-grade English as a foreign language class where the students are asked to engage in model discussions. As Celemourn rightly said, some people choose to participate in a meaningful way whereas others choose not to. It is up to us to choose when to ignore the difficult ones and go on. It could be that someone has chosen a role and is playing us as his stage.

[SDW2001]

How do you discuss something to someone who'll never bothers to read or reply to the evidence you give them for review? I've done this countless times with SDW but he never reads or responds to them. His ignorance is stifling.

"Evidence?" What evidence? It's amazing, really. Let me guess, you'll respost the Downing Street Memo again. Jesus.

[@_@ Artman]

"Evidence?" What evidence? It's amazing, really. Let me guess, you'll respost the Downing Street Memo again. Jesus.

Refute it.

[Harald]

Yes, let's hear your response to the Downing Stree