Impeachment

tonton · May 2, 2003 12:24AM

Let's keep personal flaming out of this thread.

The fact is, impeachment is a real possibility. There has been an impeachment movement against Bush throughout the entire course of this "lying to start a war" issue.

There is substantial evidence that Bush either lied or was grossly negligent in his duties leading up to this war of questionable intentions.

Here is a link for those of you who would like to see an investigation:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Here's another one:

http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/

And more:

http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/impeach-bush/

http://www.impeachbushbumperstickers.com/

http://democrats.com/elandslide/peti...m?campaign=911

And there are dozens more.

tht · May 2, 2003 12:36AM

Bush didn't do anything illegal. There aren't enough votes in either house of Congress. The media won't view it as profittable nor entertaining. Therefore the possibility of impeachment is near zero.

Now, what Democrats should be doing is reforming their ideology and exciting their base. They have the numbers on their side, so a Democrat can be elected POTUS if the Dems pull it together. The current disarray is embarrassing.

powerdoc · May 2, 2003 12:37AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

Let's keep personal flaming out of this thread.

The fact is, impeachment is a real possibility. There has been an impeachment movement against Bush throughout the entire course of this "lying to start a war" issue.

There is substantial evidence that Bush either lied or was grossly negligent in his duties leading up to this war of questionable intentions.

Here is a link for those of you who would like to see an investigation:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Here's another one:

http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/

And more:

http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/impeach-bush/

http://www.impeachbushbumperstickers.com/

http://democrats.com/elandslide/peti...m?campaign=911

And there are dozens more.

i am ready to bet a nice pack of bottle of Champagne that there will not be impeachment.

The fact that they did not found WOMD for the moment, do not prove that he was lying. WOMD was an excuse to go to war in Iraq, but there is great chances that the US secret services gave info that Iraq have some to Bush.

WOMD was an argument more PC than go to war for geopolitical strategy. Politicians tend to twist reality in order to have the support of their public opinion.

mrmister · May 2, 2003 12:39AM

This is so stupid that there's nowhere to begin. Wake me up when someone not way the **** out in left field who feels this way, and it is being discussed on Capitol Hill by actual legislators who could do the voting, not through anonymous websites. Until then debating whether we should or not is totally moot, as it isn't even going to happen.

groverat · May 2, 2003 1:06AM

Really, this is an amazingly weak case. This is weaker than the case against Clinton.

There is nothing from Bush that isn't par-for-the-course from anyone in a position of power.

Just have "I hate George Bush" tattooed on your forehead and spare yourself the energy of sugar-coating it.

tht · May 2, 2003 1:09AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

Bush didn't have to do anything illegal if he is found to be grossly negligent. One example of a case which is either lying or grossly negligent is the Bush regime's plea to Congress regarding the Niger Plutonium fiasco. Another would be WOMD.

Lying and gross negligence aren't impeachable offenses. Every POTUS is guilty of it, and they are perfectly acceptable to the American public. Without an actual illegal act to leverage the needed Republicans in both Houses of Congress, there's no way this can be anything but a fantasy.

Heck, even if the American public force the Bush administration to release actual Sept 11 investigation info, which is probably very embarrassing and grossly negligent to GWB, the American public will let it go. The media treats Bush like a cute, slightly incompetent kid who needs as much encouragement as possible. I don't think they can change this stereotype unless GWB actually harms their interests (if they have any) in some way.

The Dems don't seem to understand that they won the popular vote and lost the POTUS election by 500 votes in Florida. The answer seems blindingly obvious to me. Just get the 500 votes in 2004. All that is needed is a coherent security strategy and a reasonable health care platform. Oh and Wesley Clark should be the Dem nom for POTUS.

fellowship · May 2, 2003 1:20AM

tonton you amaze me.

Thank God for the change in Iraq. How would you like to be in one of Saddams holding chambers or raped by his son.

The people of Iraq have been left crumbs while Saddam had palace after palace built for him and his thugs.

Wake up to the fact Iraq will be a better country after this. Yes it is clear you don't care for Bush. So WHAT!

Look at South Korea as compared to North Korea. The south is advanced and in great shape compared to the North with it's slave camps.

I don't know your political ideas but if you are left leaning I don't understand how you can not be happy for the Iraqi people. They have a chance to build up their country for themselves not Saddam.

Fellowship

tht · May 2, 2003 1:28AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

Of course they are.

Tell me how ~16 republican Senators and ~10 Congresspeople are going to turn against the President, presuming all the Dems are unified?

retrograde · May 2, 2003 2:11AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

Bush didn't have to do anything illegal if he is found to be grossly negligent. One example of a case which is either lying or grossly negligent is the Bush regime's plea to Congress regarding the Niger Plutonium fiasco. Another would be WOMD.

For gross negligence it is worth taking another serious look at this article by Seymour Herch in the New Yorker. It is worth looking at again because people like to forget little facts like these.

harald · May 2, 2003 3:07AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

So as a Christian do you support murder if the result is a better world?

The fact that "better" is relative is the precise reason we need to draw a line. Waging a pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation is, and always has been, an illegal, and immoral act. For a reason.

Just because Saddam was evil doesn't change the rules. The rules are there for a reason.

Next thing you know, we'll be blowing up countries because they refuse to trade with us, and we'll call it an "economic threat to the welfare of the American people". We are travelling down a dangerous road. This road is the exact road that led us to a situation where 9/11 is not only a possible, but probable response.

I could not have put it better myself.

Fellows, you need to understand that Saddam was not removed for the people of Iraq ... he went for reasons of "American interests."

Think I'm shitting you? Read the PNAC. Their words not mine.

Define "American interests" please FCiB.

shawnpatrickjoyce · May 2, 2003 3:30AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

tonton you amaze me.

If I had a nickle for every time someone from AI amazed another poster...

...I'd throw them all at you.

bunge · May 2, 2003 7:16AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tonton

Of course they are.

I think everyone knows that a president can be impeached for doing something that's not illegal but just grossly negligent, I think THT's point was that considering the political makeup of the current congress it would take some massive illegal act to spur the dogmatic republicans into action.

trumptman · May 2, 2003 9:00AM

Nice to see that locking a thread around here leads to... another thread with the same name.

So the dogamatic Republicans are the only ones who wouldn't impeach Bush huh? I mean the whole fact he has done nothing wrong except according to some leftist conspiracy rags has nothing to do with it.

I suppose the Dems wouldn't dogamatically defend a Democratic president. (Oh wait... they did) Likewise I'm sure they would look so good trying to explain why they voted FOR the war, but now have to impeach the President for the war.

That would go over well...yep...

Nick

alcimedes · May 2, 2003 9:30AM

Quote:

Bush clearly started a pre-emptive war, which is, in fact, illegal.

did the war with Iraq ever offically end or not? (Bush 1)

groverat · May 2, 2003 9:40AM

tonton:

Quote:

This is a huge change in American policy.

What is?

Pre-emptive attacks? Are we just to forget the past and act like that idea really is new?

Just because you say it's a change doesn't mean is really is. The people who died under Clinton bombs and missiles aren't any more alive for your denial.

It's a weak argument because you can't come up with anything. You have to rely essentially on lies.

trumptman · May 2, 2003 10:10AM

From votetoimpeach.org

1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;

2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;

3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;

4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;

5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use;

6. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force;

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;

8. Authorizing, ordering and condoning violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights;

9. Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain his war ends;

10. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals.

------------------

Anyone else wonder why some anti-war types are called anti-American when a strike AFTER 9/11 is called a FIRST STRIKE by us?

The rest of these items sound pretty much like things you do when you are AT WAR with someone.

Sounds like lunacy to me.

This nice paragraph from Ann Coulter pretty much sums up the current anti-war view for me.

They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

So the next move... lets declare him a war criminal and impeach him.

Sure....

Nick

agent302 · May 2, 2003 10:23AM

Tonton, do you have any actual laws that Bush violated? No matter how weak the Clinton case was (and it was very very weak) he at least did in fact perjure himself in a court of law, which is a violation of law. Starting a war with the approval of both houses as Congress hardly constitutes 'High crimes and misdameanors'.

I mean, I dislike Bush as much as you do, but this is silly.

superkarate monkeydeathcar · May 2, 2003 10:32AM

Quote:

Originally posted by agent302

Tonton, do you have any actual laws that Bush violated? No matter how weak the Clinton case was (and it was very very weak) he at least did in fact perjure himself in a court of law, which is a violation of law. Starting a war with the approval of both houses as Congress hardly constitutes 'High crimes and misdameanors'.

I mean, I dislike Bush as much as you do, but this is silly.

it would if you lied or mislead congress to do it.

maybe poindexter was giving out tips before he was put in charge of spying on americans.

kneelbeforezod · May 2, 2003 10:48AM

Quote:

Anyone else wonder why some anti-war types are called anti-American when a strike AFTER 9/11 is called a FIRST STRIKE by us?

I don't remember hearing anything about Afghanistan attacking the US.

fellowship · May 2, 2003 10:49AM

Quote:

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

it would if you lied or mislead congress to do it.

It would indeed but you lame "Bush Bashers" should know the intel services here and abroad give Bush the data. Tony Blair also was convinced enough to be a forceful advocate of the war as well. Why don't we wait and see. After all you dimwits wanted to give the UN more time for inspections but now that we won a war you want instant findings of WOMD.

SHUT UP ALREADY

Fellowship

kneelbeforezod · May 2, 2003 10:57AM

So how long should the Bush admin have to find WoMD before we can question the motivation for the war? Does the fact that there is so much pressure on them to find something increase the likelihood of evidence being fabricated?

Impeachment

Comments