Originally Posted by SDW2001
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".
Originally Posted by sammi jo
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Originally Posted by BRussell
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.