FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush Impeachment






Should Bush be Impeached?
Yes, He is hurting the country!
32%
 32%  [ 8 ]
No, He is doing a good job!
16%
 16%  [ 4 ]
No, Cheney is a scary guy. I don't want him to be the president!
16%
 16%  [ 4 ]
No, we're about to get a new president anyway
36%
 36%  [ 9 ]
Total Votes : 25

polly-gone
What do you think about the possibility of Bush being impeached? It has been brought up numerous times, but finally, someone has actually proposed it, but alas, it failed to progress. What do you think about this topic? Personally, I DO NOT want him impeached. Not because he is doing a good job. I think he is doing a horrible job. I just do not want Cheney to be the president for any amount of time.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91441595&ft=1&f=1003
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=bush+impeachment&ei=UTF-8

-Nick Smile Smile Smile

Edit: If forgot to put '-Nick Smile Smile Smile '.
Bengt
He's not doing a good job. But anyway, his days as president are almost over with elections coming up, right ?
mathiaus
Couldn't Cheney be impeached as well?
polly-gone
Yes, Bush's term is almost up, which is why the proposal to impeach him died.

No, to impeach Cheney, they would have to have a separate impeachment trial. They wouldn't be able to impeach him because he hasn't done anything that would render that consequence, but he would be a horrible president.

-Nick Smile Smile Smile
ocalhoun
Where's the "no, we're about to get a new president anyway" option?
mathiaus
ocalhoun wrote:
Where's the "no, we're about to get a new president anyway" option?


Option #4


Razz
thadnation
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. besides, if ur impeached, you can't even get a job polishing floors at a mayor's office. you cannot ever work in a government building. bush doesn't deserve that.
Bikerman
thadnation wrote:
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. besides, if ur impeached, you can't even get a job polishing floors at a mayor's office. you cannot ever work in a government building. bush doesn't deserve that.

Err...do you really think that is correct? Do you really think that Nixon had problems earning money after his resignation? He earned a fortune on the 'lecturing/speaking circuit'. Being disallowed public office is hardly a problem - there would be private companies standing in line to employ him because of his political connections....
HalfBloodPrince
I don't think he should be impeached; in November there's going to be a new president anyway..
thadnation
Bikerman wrote:
thadnation wrote:
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. besides, if ur impeached, you can't even get a job polishing floors at a mayor's office. you cannot ever work in a government building. bush doesn't deserve that.

Err...do you really think that is correct? Do you really think that Nixon had problems earning money after his resignation? He earned a fortune on the 'lecturing/speaking circuit'. Being disallowed public office is hardly a problem - there would be private companies standing in line to employ him because of his political connections....


i stand corrected
deanhills
Shouldn't there be criteria for all the different categories, i.e.:

Yes, He is hurting the country!
Exactly how has he been hurting the country? Examples?

No, He is doing a good job!
Define what a good job is and how his actions fit into the citeria for a good job?

No, Cheney is a scary guy. I don't want him to be the president!
How is Cheney a scary guy? By what definition? Substantiate.

No, we're about to get a new president anyway
How would that be better? We know it will be either Obama or McCain, but how would each of them be better than Bush?
Moonspider
polly-gone wrote:
Yes, Bush's term is almost up, which is why the proposal to impeach him died.


No. It's because there are no grounds for it that will hold water.

Respectfully,
M
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
thadnation wrote:
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. besides, if ur impeached, you can't even get a job polishing floors at a mayor's office. you cannot ever work in a government building. bush doesn't deserve that.

Err...do you really think that is correct? Do you really think that Nixon had problems earning money after his resignation? He earned a fortune on the 'lecturing/speaking circuit'. Being disallowed public office is hardly a problem - there would be private companies standing in line to employ him because of his political connections....


I agree with you, Chris. I don't think a president would have problems. President Clinton was impeached and he hasn't had a problem making a living since. Wink

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Quite right - I should have remembered that. Impeachement is, of course, the first of two stages - the second being conviction. Clinton avoided conviction in the Senate (I think, from memory the vote was tied).(Interestingly enough I seem to remember that impeachment is a British 'invention'....)
johnny_metronome
Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached so that it becomes the icing on the cake of their damaged historical legacy. I want to see those bastards leave the White House in complete disgrace.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Shouldn't there be criteria for all the different categories, i.e.:

Yes, He is hurting the country!
Exactly how has he been hurting the country? Examples?

Look around?

Allowing the torture of innocent people who are charged with absolutely no crime.
Done little to combat illegal immigration (a fence that doesn't even cover the whole border is nice).
Spending $5 billion a week fighting a war against an enemy we haven't really labeled yet outside of "terrorists."
Watching the economy go down the hole without doing much except throwing more money out there.
Has obviously not read the Constitution or doesn't give two shits about it and has stepped on it constantly (illegal/unwarranted wire tapping, use of torture, denying basic human rights and Habeas Corpus to detained individuals, etc.).
Has destroyed the way many countries look at us and really the world as a whole.
A trillion dollars more in debt with little to show for it.
Done nothing to deal with the healthcare problem.
Done little to deal with the environmental issues and the threats of global climate change.

List could go on and on. The question is what has he done that is positive for the country. That would be easier, because the list is much, much shorter.

The bold ones are enough for me to be happy he leaves office regardless of how it happens. Those two examples alone are enough for me to say he's hurt the country and I wouldn't mind if he was impeached for just those examples alone.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
Habeas Corpus to detained individuals, etc.)

Done nothing to deal with the healthcare problem.

Habeas Corpus is one of the most abused rules in the system. It has been 'suspended' several times in history. The only one I can remember at the moment would be Lincoln's during the civil war, but there are others.
Well, actually, there was the Medicare prescription drug coverage. I thoroughly disagree with some of the details of it, however.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:

Has obviously not read the Constitution or doesn't give two shits about it and has stepped on it constantly (illegal/unwarranted wire tapping, use of torture, denying basic human rights and Habeas Corpus to detained individuals, etc.).


Wow, I thought the wire tapping was only in the movies. Where is it being used? Does this come directly from Bush? Surely this is serious enough for impeachment on its own? Who are being wire-tapped?

I have heard rumours about people being tortured without access to representation. Have specific instances been brought to light and could these be directly attributed to Bush? As yes, that would most certainly be infringement of constitutional rights. Serious stuff.
{name here}
It is congress's duty to impeach this man whether he is replaced or not; the legislative branch should check the executive branch when it is misbehaving as the executive branch checks the legislative branch when it is misbehaving. For them not to impeach him shows their submission to him and his branch of government.

There are 35 articles of impeachment which Dennis Kucinich recently put up: 35 reasons for him to be recognized as treacherous/treasonous.

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a lewd act then Bush can be impeached for at least lying about Iran's nuclear program, or any of his breaches to the bill of rights in fighting this Orwellian and inevitably endless War on Terror.
Moonspider
{name here} wrote:
If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a lewd act then Bush can be impeached for at least lying about Iran's nuclear program,


No one could legally prove that President Bush knew there was no active nuclear program. There is no evidence that such an intentional act was committed. There were disagreements on the interpretation of the intel, but no evidence of anything more.

{name here} wrote:
or any of his breaches to the bill of rights in fighting this Orwellian and inevitably endless War on Terror.


I don't know of anything that his administration has done beyond what President Roosevelt or Lincoln did, modern technology excepted. We could go into details if you like over each piece.

But U.S. citizens arguably still enjoy more personal freedoms and suffer less "oversight" than any other country's citizens. They certainly enjoy more than U.S. citizens in World War II or the War Between the States.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
But U.S. citizens arguably still enjoy more personal freedoms and suffer less "oversight" than any other country's citizens. They certainly enjoy more than U.S. citizens in World War II or the War Between the States.
Respectfully,
M
Hmm..I'm not sure about this. I'd go along with the personal freedoms part but I would challenge the 'oversight' part.
You certainly have less oversight than we do in the UK - no question about it. We have cctv cameras everywhere (almost literally everywhere - 1 camera for every 14 people).
In the US, however, you have large scale phone-snooping routinely done (witness the recent AT&T case). You also have millions of dollars spent every year by the NSA buying commercial databases on citizens (phone, financial, geographical, retail etc) because by doing so they are exempted from the Federal Privacy Act (1974).
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986068.htm
You may be less overseen than us in the UK but I doubt you are less overseen than all other 'western democracies'.
daljirman
Whether he is to be impeached or not, United States is about to have a new president, so his "Time is Running Low", and his "Game is Over".
{name here}
Moonspider wrote:
{name here} wrote:
If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a lewd act then Bush can be impeached for at least lying about Iran's nuclear program,


No one could legally prove that President Bush knew there was no active nuclear program. There is no evidence that such an intentional act was committed. There were disagreements on the interpretation of the intel, but no evidence of anything more.

{name here} wrote:
or any of his breaches to the bill of rights in fighting this Orwellian and inevitably endless War on Terror.


I don't know of anything that his administration has done beyond what President Roosevelt or Lincoln did, modern technology excepted. We could go into details if you like over each piece.

The kucinich impeachment docs go over it better than I could explain it.

Quote:

But U.S. citizens arguably still enjoy more personal freedoms and suffer less "oversight" than any other country's citizens. They certainly enjoy more than U.S. citizens in World War II or the War Between the States.

Respectfully,
M

In the case of the civil war, it depends on what rights.
deanhills
I think the problem is more than just Bush. If it could have been just Bush, it would have been just too easy! But perhaps impeachment would be good, as if he would be put in a postion where he has to give a full account of his actions in a court of law, maybe the system that made it possible for so much to have been hidden, can be sorted out in the same process. I think there is a huge communication flaw and lack of openness in all the facts, perhaps in a large measure due to "in the interest of national security" need to know basis. Information is no longer open and transparent, and since there are so many shadows of possibilities of what the information can be, it is almost impossible to reach the truth.

So I would say impeach is good, but not because I think Bush is guilty of lies. But because this would be an opportunity for an overhaul of the system. In any event, I do believe someone is only guilty until proven so. Bush is only a dictator if the people of the United States has given him the power to be one or neglected in their duty to stop behaviour that they consider to be lies. This has been going on for a very long time. I think the system has turned itself into something that is less democratic, rather than giving Bush all of that credit. The whole system needs to change.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
You may be less overseen than us in the UK but I doubt you are less overseen than all other 'western democracies'.


I'll concede that. I'll confess that I overreached there. Smile

{name here} wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
{name here} wrote:
If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a lewd act then Bush can be impeached for at least lying about Iran's nuclear program,


No one could legally prove that President Bush knew there was no active nuclear program. There is no evidence that such an intentional act was committed. There were disagreements on the interpretation of the intel, but no evidence of anything more.

{name here} wrote:
or any of his breaches to the bill of rights in fighting this Orwellian and inevitably endless War on Terror.


I don't know of anything that his administration has done beyond what President Roosevelt or Lincoln did, modern technology excepted. We could go into details if you like over each piece.

The kucinich impeachment docs go over it better than I could explain it.

Yes, I’ve read them. And as I said before, I don’t think any of them are legally defensible.

Quote:

But U.S. citizens arguably still enjoy more personal freedoms and suffer less "oversight" than any other country's citizens. They certainly enjoy more than U.S. citizens in World War II or the War Between the States.

Respectfully,
M

In the case of the civil war, it depends on what rights.


I’ll use the list I most commonly repeat in Frihost as the example:

Acts of Lincoln during the Civil War:

  1. Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus – As Yale professor Joshua Kleinfeld said, “When Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.” (BTW, Franklin Roosevelt used this precedent to suspend the writ and imprison Japanese-Americans during World War II.)
  2. Declared Martial Law – Went so far as to arrest people for protesting the war and shutting down anti-war newspapers. And since the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, there was nothing they could do about it.
  3. Had Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio (an outspoken political opponent) taken into custody by armed soldiers in the middle of the night, thrown in a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason because of a speech he gave in the House of Representatives, and was promptly deported.
  4. Issued an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney after Taney issued an opinion that only congress could suspend habeas corpus.


Respectfully,
M
{name here}
And, in the constitution, I shall quote:
The Founding Brothers wrote:

The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Considering half the country was rebelling, Habeas Corpus was legitamately suspended by Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no rebellion, nor invasion when Bush decided to suspend it, I do not think he had legitamately suspended the privelege.

Similarily to Lincoln, the Japanese actually invaded US territory - albeit the allutian islands, and FDR could have suspended the writ because of that.
deanhills
{name here} wrote:
And, in the constitution, I shall quote:
The Founding Brothers wrote:

The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Considering half the country was rebelling, Habeas Corpus was legitamately suspended by Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no rebellion, nor invasion when Bush decided to suspend it, I do not think he had legitamately suspended the privelege.

Similarily to Lincoln, the Japanese actually invaded US territory - albeit the allutian islands, and FDR could have suspended the writ because of that.


How about the enemy is not easy to identify? Especially following what had happened on September 11? Cannot identify the enemy as so much camouflage embedded both inside and outside the country and that is threatening the public safety? The millitary has had to take a quantum leap into a total new style of warfare fighting a completely new war inside and outside the country.
Moonspider
{name here} wrote:
And, in the constitution, I shall quote:
The Founding Brothers wrote:

The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Considering half the country was rebelling, Habeas Corpus was legitamately suspended by Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no rebellion, nor invasion when Bush decided to suspend it, I do not think he had legitamately suspended the privelege.


President Bush could argue that 9/11 was a severe enough attack to constitute invasion. It was certainly more severe than Pearl Harbor in 1941. Or he and supporters of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could argue that the suspension is justified in the interest of public safety. Either way, the more important factors are that…

  1. President Bush did not unilaterally suspend the writ (as Lincoln did). The suspension was part of a bill passed by congress and signed into law by the president.
  2. The suspension of the writ does not apply to U.S. citizens. As the law states,
    S.3930 wrote:
    “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

President Lincoln acted unilaterally and suspended the writ for all U.S. citizens. The right was not returned until 1866.

{name here} wrote:
Similarily to Lincoln, the Japanese actually invaded US territory - albeit the allutian islands, and FDR could have suspended the writ because of that.

Although I am quite certain that FDR did not use the Alleutian Islands as a basis for his actions, I can see no justification for rounding up U.S. citizens and placing them in concentration camps because of their racial heritage. We didn’t round up U.S. citizens of German or Italian descent and throw them in concentration camps, did we? How many American citizens watched Japanese naval action from the continental U.S.? Some did see German U-Boats at work. How many Japanese operatives made it ashore in the continental United States?

I believe there was most definitely a double-standard and that U.S. citizens of German or Italian descent probably deserved closer scrutiny than those of Japanese descent. But like I said, I don’t think there’s a justification for it period.

References:
Military Commissions Act of 2006
{name here}
deanhills wrote:
{name here} wrote:
And, in the constitution, I shall quote:
The Founding Brothers wrote:

The privelege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Considering half the country was rebelling, Habeas Corpus was legitamately suspended by Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no rebellion, nor invasion when Bush decided to suspend it, I do not think he had legitamately suspended the privelege.

Similarily to Lincoln, the Japanese actually invaded US territory - albeit the allutian islands, and FDR could have suspended the writ because of that.


How about the enemy is not easy to identify? Especially following what had happened on September 11? Cannot identify the enemy as so much camouflage embedded both inside and outside the country and that is threatening the public safety? The millitary has had to take a quantum leap into a total new style of warfare fighting a completely new war inside and outside the country.


It says "unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public safety may require it". Not "unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion or the Public safety may require it". There is no option to suspend Habeas Corpus simply because the public is in danger - you either do it in a case of invasion or rebellion. Terrorism, in the case of what we are dealing with, is the use of violence as a tool for coercion and is really neither rebellion nor invasion.

Unless Bush considers his term in office to be a Neoconservative invasion of the executive branch. Razz
ocalhoun
Moonspider wrote:

Acts of Lincoln during the Civil War:

  1. Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus – As Yale professor Joshua Kleinfeld said, “When Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.” (BTW, Franklin Roosevelt used this precedent to suspend the writ and imprison Japanese-Americans during World War II.)
  2. Declared Martial Law – Went so far as to arrest people for protesting the war and shutting down anti-war newspapers. And since the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, there was nothing they could do about it.
  3. Had Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio (an outspoken political opponent) taken into custody by armed soldiers in the middle of the night, thrown in a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason because of a speech he gave in the House of Representatives, and was promptly deported.
  4. Issued an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney after Taney issued an opinion that only congress could suspend habeas corpus.


Respectfully,
M


Yeah, Lincoln has been written up by the history books as a hero, but in reality he had a very dark side. It is possible that without his instigation, the civil war would have never happened. What it really was about was that he wanted the federal government to have much more power over the states, and make the US a single country instead of a collection of states.
Moonspider
ocalhoun wrote:
What it really was about was that he wanted the federal government to have much more power over the states, and make the US a single country instead of a collection of states.


At that he certainly succeeded. Lincoln is my favorite president. I honestly believe that his actions, though severe, had to be taken in order to preserve the United States. However, as a southerner I am a strong advocate of state rights and prefer to think of the U.S. as a collection of states rather than a single nation. I also believe that states have the right to secede, but the sword decided henceforth that they do not. And I'll honor the sword's arbitration.

I'm a U.S. citizen, but I'm a Tennessean. Wink Thus I have a love/hate relationship with my favorite president.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
At that he certainly succeeded. Lincoln is my favorite president. I honestly believe that his actions, though severe, had to be taken in order to preserve the United States. However, as a southerner I am a strong advocate of state rights and prefer to think of the U.S. as a collection of states rather than a single nation. I also believe that states have the right to secede, but the sword decided henceforth that they do not. And I'll honor the sword's arbitration.

I'm a U.S. citizen, but I'm a Tennessean. Wink Thus I have a love/hate relationship with my favorite president.

Respectfully,
M


I always thought that all of the United States was a melting pot? Smile There are no real borders in between the states? This is an interesting point of view.
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
I always thought that all of the United States was a melting pot? Smile There are no real borders in between the states? This is an interesting point of view.


It is a melting pot. Our citizens come from all over the world and blend together into one society. However state borders are very real. Sure, you don't need papers to travel from one to another or have to go through checkpoints (except the occassional agricultural checkpoint). However each state has its own constitution and its own government that works with the United States government, that is separate from it but subject to it.

Most states even have their own militaries. I don't mean the National Guard units, which actually belong to the United States no matter what the patch on their uniform says, but state militias. Texas actually has an army and air force (militias) separate from its National Guard army and air force units.

As a conservative, states right advocate, I believe the Federal government should only perform those duties which are most efficiciently and effectively carried out in the collective. Everything else should be left to the states. For example, I'd abolish the Department of Education in the U.S. government. That is something the states can take care of themselves.

Respectfully,
M
bigt
deanhills wrote:

I always thought that all of the United States was a melting pot? Smile There are no real borders in between the states? This is an interesting point of view.


I think the United States was a melting pot, emphasis on was. Today I don't think that's the case. I think we should be more unified in our language and other things. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should remember their heritage and we should have legal immigration. However, illegal aliens are a big problem and nobody wants to bring their language, heritage, etc into the pot together with everyone else. Just a bunch of scattered, little pots that clang nice and loud when brought together Smile

But I digress from the topic, so I'll save it for a different thread. I can't wait to a debate between McCain and Obama.
deanhills
bigt wrote:
But I digress from the topic, so I'll save it for a different thread. I can't wait to a debate between McCain and Obama.


Agreed, I am looking forward to seeing the debate too. Think the whole world will be watching it. Smile
bigt
deanhills wrote:
bigt wrote:
But I digress from the topic, so I'll save it for a different thread. I can't wait to a debate between McCain and Obama.


Think the whole world will be watching it. Smile


Yep, for various reasons too. I'm voting for the guy the terrorist don't like Smile
Bikerman
bigt wrote:
deanhills wrote:
bigt wrote:
But I digress from the topic, so I'll save it for a different thread. I can't wait to a debate between McCain and Obama.


Think the whole world will be watching it. Smile


Yep, for various reasons too. I'm voting for the guy the terrorist don't like Smile

Which one would that be? Iraq has been a gift to Al-Queda. It has encouraged recruiting on a massive scale. It is much easier to persuade otherwise reasonable people to take up arms against a foreign aggressor than it is to take up arms against their own countrymen - particularly when that foreign aggressor is perceived to be responsible for the death of family and/or friends. Look back to before the invasion and you will find no significant terrorist problem in Iraq (yes, they had a brutal dictator but they didn't have significant Islamic terrorism). Iraq (and Afghanistan) have served as major recruiting advertisements for Al-Queda and other Islamic militant groups. This is not just my opinion...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/2199469/US-wars-have-helped-al-Qa%27eda,-says-report.html
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
bigt wrote:
deanhills wrote:
bigt wrote:
But I digress from the topic, so I'll save it for a different thread. I can't wait to a debate between McCain and Obama.


Think the whole world will be watching it. Smile


Yep, for various reasons too. I'm voting for the guy the terrorist don't like Smile

Which one would that be? Iraq has been a gift to Al-Queda. It has encouraged recruiting on a massive scale. It is much easier to persuade otherwise reasonable people to take up arms against a foreign aggressor than it is to take up arms against their own countrymen - particularly when that foreign aggressor is perceived to be responsible for the death of family and/or friends. Look back to before the invasion and you will find no significant terrorist problem in Iraq (yes, they had a brutal dictator but they didn't have significant Islamic terrorism). Iraq (and Afghanistan) have served as major recruiting advertisements for Al-Queda and other Islamic militant groups. This is not just my opinion...

... reality check?
Would terrorists really be saying "Yay! another Bush got elected!"?
Sure they've probably been recruiting better than usual, but having the US military turned loose on you is not a good thing.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
.. reality check?
Would terrorists really be saying "Yay! another Bush got elected!"?
Yes, I think so. Certainly the leaders would be since they know they can continue to recruit.
Quote:
Sure they've probably been recruiting better than usual, but having the US military turned loose on you is not a good thing.
Do you think somone who is willing to die for a cause really gives a monkeys about the US military? I don't. There are kids and young men queuing up to cross the borders into Iraq and Afghanistan and have a crack at the military.
You should remember Bin Laden's words "Americans love life, we love death". When you have been bombed and your country destroyed with loved ones killed/maimed, and you believe (or are persuaded to believe) that you will reap the rewards in the afterlife for killing the infidel then these words are scarey but true...
sondosia
Let's not forget what the constitutional basis for impeachment is:

Quote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Bush is far from what a good President would be, and he's made many mistakes throughout his two terms, possibly even hurting the country permanently, but he hasn't done anything that can warrant this most extreme of actions. You can't impeach someone for being an ineffective president. Herbert Hoover hurt the country much more than Bush did, and yet nobody impeached him. Or Warren G. Harding...
tribe
Clinton was impeached because he did something wrong. Bush has not done anything illegal.

I approve of GWB.
deanhills
tribe wrote:
Clinton was impeached because he did something wrong. Bush has not done anything illegal.

I approve of GWB.


I believe Clinton was acquitted.

Quote:
President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach.
Quoted from Wikipedia.

I thought he behaved with great dignity throughout.
Bikerman
Well....apart from his famous "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman".
You just KNEW that he was hiding something, and it obviously wasn't his genitals Smile
His mistake (from a European perspective) was denying it. In France they would have taken no notice at all (it might even have got him more votes), and even here in the UK it would not have been a resigning issue.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Well....apart from his famous "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman".
You just KNEW that he was hiding something, and it obviously wasn't his genitals Smile
His mistake (from a European perspective) was denying it. In France they would have taken no notice at all (it might even have got him more votes), and even here in the UK it would not have been a resigning issue.


Laughing This was a good one. Especially the part about France. Right on .... definitely more votes!
ThePolemistis
sondosia wrote:
Let's not forget what the constitutional basis for impeachment is:

Quote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Bush is far from what a good President would be, and he's made many mistakes throughout his two terms, possibly even hurting the country permanently, but he hasn't done anything that can warrant this most extreme of actions. You can't impeach someone for being an ineffective president. Herbert Hoover hurt the country much more than Bush did, and yet nobody impeached him. Or Warren G. Harding...


hmm... could we had impeached Reagan for the Iran-Contra affair?

And i'm sure we can impeach at least the last 5 US presidents, for war crimes. Certianly, those who where in govt during the Panama, El Salvador, Guat, Iraq, Vietnam, Laos etc etc incidents.
gr8inferno
Impeaching Bush is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What don't you all fix your credit then clean your house. , (I'm not making sense). Razz
j_f_k
thadnation wrote:
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. ...


um - you mean like invading a sovereign country for control of their oil on the pretext of their possessing weapons of mass destruction.

thadnation wrote:
...if ur impeached, you can't even get a job polishing floors at a mayor's office. you cannot ever work in a government building. ...


lbut you could get slightly more than a cleaner's salary on the international speaker's circuit. If it happened (and I voted not to bother as he's near the end of his term anyway) he would resign beforehand like Nixon, so technically this would not be the case.

thadnation wrote:
... bush doesn't deserve that.


Yes he bloody well does.
Moonspider
j_f_k wrote:
thadnation wrote:
you can't impeach someone for being a lousy president. a president needs to do something truly scandellous and awful. ...


um - you mean like invading a sovereign country for control of their oil on the pretext of their possessing weapons of mass destruction.


You and others may believe that, but you can't prove it. Therefore there's no basis for impeachment. A belief in an over-arching, neocon conspiracy does not constitute proof of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Congress only impeaches a prez for some isolated reason that won't spatter all over everyone else (the rest of the party, etc). Congress could distance themselves from Nixon's Watergate and Clinton's perjury; they couldn't distance themselves from the many impeachable offenses of Bush or Reagan (because they have participated in them) and that's why Bush and Reagan were impeach-proof.
handfleisch
From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3386654
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is sticking to his drive to impeach President Bush.

Few in the House of Representatives have any intention of doing anything with the last 35 articles of impeachment Kucinich set before them last month, so the former presidential candidate appears to be lightening the load. Kucinich sent a letter to colleagues Tuesday asking them to support a single article of impeachment, to be introduced Thursday, which accuses President Bush of leading the country to war based on lies.

"There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm's way based on those misrepresentations," Kucinich wrote in the "Dear Colleague" letter.

"There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States," he continued. "Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made."
Related topics
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
*Busted-Work of Impeachment
Dennis Kucinich brings up 35 Articles for Impeachment
NY lawmaker seeks to prevent Bush pardons of “cronies”
President Hu's surname the Bush headache was hoped everybody
What does Bush look like?
Bush Poll
Beginning of the End of the World?
Bush - Somebody Like This Band?
George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People - Kanye West
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Retarded leaders
Bush and Iraq
bush and condi talking...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.