Is impeachment a possibility?
After reading this article, I'm left wondering, if it's true, to what extent the president can and should be punished. Impeachment? Treason? Nothing? How and why/why not?
Personally I'd settle for impeachment and a subsequent trial at the Hague. Although our court system could probably find something to convict, impeachment would be 'good enough' if the international community were able to put him on trial. For a domestic issue, like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski ordeal, our own courts should handle it.
Personally I'd settle for impeachment and a subsequent trial at the Hague. Although our court system could probably find something to convict, impeachment would be 'good enough' if the international community were able to put him on trial. For a domestic issue, like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski ordeal, our own courts should handle it.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Personally I'd settle for impeachment and a subsequent trial at the Hague.
Hmm, that seems harsh to me. Personally I'd settle for his resignation in disgrace.
Originally posted by BRussell
Hmm, that seems harsh to me. Personally I'd settle for his resignation in disgrace.
Maybe. That's kind of why I shuttled off any possible courtroom action to someone else. Let them decide if any action should be taken. Kind of a sitting on the fence, leaning towards action stance.
Just about any Congressman/Senator: "Umm yeah, I'm going to censure myself out of office and also impeach the President because a jaded Brit official said the oil word."
Riiiggghhhttt.
Oil was just the icing on the cake. We went after that "evil man that tried to assinate my Daddy...". A very small and oft overlooked quote.
Why is this worthy of any sort of reprimand?
Originally posted by AirSluf
We went after that "evil man that tried to assinate my Daddy...".
As for Bush, I'm glad we finally got a Pres. who has balls, I forgot what that was like when Cliton was in office...
Originally posted by groverat
I really must be missing something here.
Why is this worthy of any sort of reprimand?
he means that the president was lying, he did not went in war for disarming Iraq but for oil.
Knowing that mainly all politicians tend to lye at a certain point or another, we should impeach them all. What about a nice silly dictature ?
Originally posted by airfail
Iraq isn't our top, nor second top source of oil. Does anyone realize that? If you want to gripe, gripe to the auto industry lobbyists that continually push bills to keep gas guzzling vehicles in production and eliminating the bills to make cleaner and more fuel efficient engines; overall lowering our dependence on the black gold.
As for Bush, I'm glad we finally got a Pres. who has balls, I forgot what that was like when Cliton was in office...
Clinton has balls too, at least Monica is ready to swear it
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Knowing that mainly all politicians tend to lye at a certain point or another, we should impeach them all.
Well, that's not exactly true. If you lie about sex, that doesn't harm anyone. If you lie as a motivation for war, you kill people unjustly. Maybe sex is as bad as murder for some, but I just kinda thought murder was higher up on the 'things not to do today' list.
As for the veracity of this article, it's not really substantive in and of itself. That's why I said 'if it's true', because there's a long way to get to a burden of proof. But it could just as easily be the beginning of the unravelling of something big (or not.)
The point it, if it's true and someone in the UK administration steps up and proves it beyond a resonable doubt, what are we willing to do?
I'll be waiting.
Originally posted by groverat
Name a president who hasn't lied and killed people as a result.
I'll be waiting.
wait no more == george washington
"i never told a lie"
that was too easy
lets do another one
As far as impeaching Bush, anyone who didn't think this war was about oil should be slapped around a bit.
Oil was just the icing on the cake. We went after that "evil man that tried to assinate my Daddy...". A very small and oft overlooked quote.
Oh, did he indeed? The evidence that Iraq was responsible for the assassination attempt on Pres. Bush Sr. is flawed and circumstantial at 'best'.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/con...30fr_archive02
Originally posted by BuonRotto
People's own political moticvations?
LIke your motivations for posting this rant?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Why, oh why must everything black and white around here? Can you people please gain some sensibilty and stay away until that time? Christ, get a ****ing life, folks. Treason? Impeachment? One man's claims? Assumptions? People's own political moticvations? Now with denying the idea that Iraq was behind anassassination attempt toawards Bush Sr. which is completely irrelevant? You people are an exhausting, sad bunch.
i am just here for the prize i get for finding a president who didnt lie and cost lives because of it.... groverat!
you told us you would be waiting and... you seem to have left... you would be a bad bad president, lie to AO lie to the world all for your own self-lovin'
i wonder what i win
as a point of policy all presidents should face an impeachment hearing at some point during their term(s) that way we can perfect the current system of back stabbing and lies...
But I'm working on a sort of oil-themed circus act, and I feel it's time I, you know, moved on.
I don't want to be thought of as "the oil dance guy", you know? When I've got so much else to offer.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Now with denying the idea that Iraq was behind anassassination attempt toawards Bush Sr.
Don't humiliate yourself. It would do you a lot of good to read Hersh's article before forming an opinion on this.