Congressman Kucinich is right now filing 35 articles of impeachment against Bush

[SMM]

Even as I am writing this, I am watching C-Span, where Congressman Dennis Kucinich is reading 35 counts of impeachment against Bush. Stand-by for details and transcript, when it becomes available. He is making an ironclad case - very detailed with full references included. It is great viewing. The time is 7:38 PM PDT. If you are quick, you can watch the last several articles.

Update to follow.

[leekohler]

I don't have cable, so keep us updated.

[Thanatoast]

Finally.

Now let's see how quickly Pelosi can quash them.

[SMM]

Finally.

Now let's see how quickly Pelosi can quash them.

I lost my electricity, right after making my first post. So, I missed the end of C-Span. I was able to find a couple brief articles about it. I think we shall hear quite a bit about it tomorrow. You comments about Pelosi are well founded, as you will see. However, she does not have the authority to block this, although she may create an obstacle in the road. The articles Kucinich read were non-ambiguous and backed by strong, documented evidence. It would be impossible to just dismiss them. The only reason for her to block it would be, 'she wants what she wants and she wants it when she wants it'. I am not sure that would fly. The last time this was brought up, there was not such a compelling case and as much evidence as there is now. I do believe she will not be the next speaker.



From CBS News:

The Politico) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

Kucinich has introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney. That resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which has taken no action on the measure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."

Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks.

[mithrilfox]

I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan of our current president, but I also don't actively hate him or encourage the smear and hate campaigns. In fact, I voted for him... twice. I would have preferred someone else, but those options weren't on the table for me. I think Gore would have done a lot of great things if the Congress allowed him, but there's no doubt about it for me... Kerry didn't offer anything for me to go on. He was mainly a man of anti-positions, and I can't vote just for the anti-...

However much we dislike the war in Iraq, impeaching a president is an incredibly serious move. We got to have serious, hard core evidence of actual crimes committed, not just evidence of things we dislike or strongly disapprove of. If Bush can be linked to directly ordering the execution of commands which are clearly established as illegal, there are possible grounds for impeachment. The reasons that even the Democrats won't move on the issue is simple: there are not sufficient grounds. Besides, if they do it to him over something like this, the Republicans will turn around and do it to them too. Politics are like a teetor-totter... one day you're up on the top, next day you're down on the bottom. If you kick your opponents while they're down... they'll kick you the next time they're up. Just that simple.

Clinton was impeached, but the impeachment did not follow through to full results (a president is said to be "impeached" even if it doesn't result in removal from office). Clinton was impeached because of 100% clarity that he violated a serious law -- he committed perjury. Ultimately it was not sufficient grounds to remove him from office.

Even IF the impeachment process begins... there is no chance it would result in the removal of President Bush. Now Nixon... there's a case where an impeachment would have very likely ended in his removal. That's precisely why he stepped down, too.

[Rodimus Prime]

It would be a dumb move by the democrates to go after this. It is not like they do not have enough of a mess to deal with trying to heal the party so to speak because of Hillary and Obama campaigns.

This just adds more fuel to the fire.
Also it just turn into another huge waste of money and make things worse than they already are.
By the time anything is complete Bush would be out of Office any how and all it would do is waste money. Make confidences in the US dollar and economy drop even more and so on. Going after this is even a quicker way to lose my vote.

[SMM]

It would be a dumb move by the democrates to go after this. It is not like they do not have enough of a mess to deal with trying to heal the party so to speak because of Hillary and Obama campaigns.

This just adds more fuel to the fire.
Also it just turn into another huge waste of money and make things worse than they already are.
By the time anything is complete Bush would be out of Office any how and all it would do is waste money. Make confidences in the US dollar and economy drop even more and so on. Going after this is even a quicker way to lose my vote.

What they have have 'enough to mess with' is all the investigations of the other WH investigations going on. The administration has committed so many crimes, we almost need two congresses to deal with all of their crimes. And, the Democratic Party does not need much 'healing', just a short transition, which is already happening. It is the republican party that is in shambles.

Based on the history of your posts, it seems dubious that you are considering voting Democratic.

[SMM]

However much we dislike the war in Iraq, impeaching a president is an incredibly serious move. We got to have serious, hard core evidence of actual crimes committed, not just evidence of things we dislike or strongly disapprove of. If Bush can be linked to directly ordering the execution of commands which are clearly established as illegal, there are possible grounds for impeachment. The reasons that even the Democrats won't move on the issue is simple: there are not sufficient grounds. Besides, if they do it to him over something like this, the Republicans will turn around and do it to them too. Politics are like a teetor-totter... one day you're up on the top, next day you're down on the bottom. If you kick your opponents while they're down... they'll kick you the next time they're up. Just that simple.

Clinton was impeached, but the impeachment did not follow through to full results (a president is said to be "impeached" even if it doesn't result in removal from office). Clinton was impeached because of 100% clarity that he violated a serious law -- he committed perjury. Ultimately it was not sufficient grounds to remove him from office.

Even IF the impeachment process begins... there is no chance it would result in the removal of President Bush. Now Nixon... there's a case where an impeachment would have very likely ended in his removal. That's precisely why he stepped down, too.

You did not see the articles for impeachment. 35 articles, which in each case was sufficient grounds in and of itself. Bush is the most corrupt President in American history. He has completely under-minded the Constitution of the United States and principals of democracy. He is despised by the rest of the world, and virtually every country view America, under his leadership as one of the world's most threatening countries. He has reduced America to major threat to world peace. The vast majority of this Country despise him. He is a criminal, plain and simple.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Congress is filled with the same bought off politicians and half of them are still republican meaning they will sell out anyone including this country for the $$$.

I think this is great though because Congress didnt want to hold Bush and his Draft dodgers accountable for anything.

The President was sworn to uphold the Constitution instead he has attacked it at every chance. Thats Treason.

[Sun Baked]

Yes, lets see the trouble we would be in with Cheney in charge until the end of the year. :eek:

Though if we can get Pelosi in there quick enough, we can blame everything on the last person in charge, even if they were there for only months. Sort of like we did for Enron.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Cheney is as guilty or more so since he was directly responsible for the outing of Plame through Rove & Libbey.
What a sorry bunch of draft dodging false Patriots. Sorry indeed.

Ill predict the Republicans wont control any branch of our govt for the next 10 years after these crooks leave Washington.

[mithrilfox]

You did not see the articles for impeachment. 35 articles, which in each case was sufficient grounds in and of itself. Bush is the most corrupt President in American history. He has completely under-minded the Constitution of the United States and principals of democracy. He is despised by the rest of the world, and virtually every country view America, under his leadership as one of the world's most threatening countries. He has reduced America to major threat to world peace. The vast majority of this Country despise him. He is a criminal, plain and simple.

Well, history allows us to look back with 20/20 vision. Bush's two terms are almost up, and yet here we are, still alive, no nuclear war, no end of the world, no dissolution of all ties to the US by the UN .. or hardly any ties at all.

After he's gone, the doomdays sayers will feel just a little bit dumber for having proclaimed the horribleness, and yet it just doesn't come to be. The American military has had it's hands in pies all over the world, and this was long before Bush, and will be longer after him. It was true under the Republicans before him, and true under the Democrats before him as well. He stepped it up quite bit with the war in Iraq, but the American foreign policy-military marriage won't end for a long time; having bases all over the world with servicemen and women active all over the world makes it too easy and too simple a solution... at least, it seems so at first.

If all of the 35 indictments were true, and if each one were truly worthy of an impeachment on its own, it would have already happened. It's been debated, and found wanting.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Truth has little to do with this, what does is a house full of bought off paid for politicians who did nothing for 8 years while this administration took us into a false war and lied to get us into it. Trillion dollars, 4,000 dead Americans,150,000 dead Iraqi's and Gas is $4.00 a gallon.

Only reason were still there is to save face for those draft dodgers. There is Nothing in Iraq for any American to die for.

[leekohler]

If all of the 35 indictments were true, and if each one were truly worthy of an impeachment on its own, it would have already happened. It's been debated, and found wanting.

Really? Care to point us to a link?

No WMDs is enough for me. Starting a completely illegal war is enough for me as well. Wiretapping the American people is another. And there are 32 more? And Clinton only had one, and it was lying about sex?

Come on- you know damn well Bush has had a nice, Republican congress to protect him this whole time. Only recently has it become mostly democratic, and not enough so to get the guy for what he's done.

[themadchemist]

While I agree in principle with Kucinich, I think it's bad politics, and that's why Pelosi opposes it.

[quagmire]

I think it is surprising Pelosi doesn't support it. Seeing how everyone in Washington is out to increase their power, it would benefit Pelosi if Bush and Cheney were ousted. She would become the first female president though she will only be in office for 7 months.

[SMM]

Well, history allows us to look back with 20/20 vision. Bush's two terms are almost up, and yet here we are, still alive, no nuclear war, no end of the world, no dissolution of all ties to the US by the UN .. or hardly any ties at all.

After he's gone, the doomdays sayers will feel just a little bit dumber for having proclaimed the horribleness, and yet it just doesn't come to be. The American military has had it's hands in pies all over the world, and this was long before Bush, and will be longer after him. It was true under the Republicans before him, and true under the Democrats before him as well. He stepped it up quite bit with the war in Iraq, but the American foreign policy-military marriage won't end for a long time; having bases all over the world with servicemen and women active all over the world makes it too easy and too simple a solution... at least, it seems so at first.

If all of the 35 indictments were true, and if each one were truly worthy of an impeachment on its own, it would have already happened. It's been debated, and found wanting.

Until you have actually read the 35 articles, you have no credibility. However, anyone who has been paying attention over the past 7+ years, should be able to understand the vast criminal record of this administration. If you choose to live in denial, that is your affair, but you are just peddling an uniformed opinion (actually it is a position since it lacks any merit).

[SMM]

While I agree in principle with Kucinich, I think it's bad politics, and that's why Pelosi opposes it.

I would agree with you if Bush was not planning to attack/invade Iran. That changes things somewhat, in my opinion. I would preferred to see him tried for treason after he was out of office.

[Gelfin]

Well, history allows us to look back with 20/20 vision. Bush's two terms are almost up, and yet here we are, still alive, no nuclear war, no end of the world, no dissolution of all ties to the US by the UN .. or hardly any ties at all.

Is that really how bad things have to get before you care?

Honestly, if impeachment proceedings were to so tie the Administration's hands they could not get away with invading Iran as a going-away present, I frankly wouldn't care if the process completes before January or not.

Color me doubtful anything will move forward, though.

[Klaxons2012]

I understand what's going on in the minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

1. Don't aggrivate the Bush Administration who has all of these contingency plans in place to usurp authority (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc)

2. If you Impeach Bush, you're running the risk of putting an ex Halliburton CEO as President.

If you can't impeach an entire branch of the government then there really is no reason to proceed. Instead, I believe John Conyers is headed down the right path of condemning the Administration on the record and open things up for litigation down the road. Kucinich got greedy and he should've waited for the McClellan testimony truth be told.

[buffalo]

Instead of wasting time trying to impeach a president that will be out of office in seven months, how about Congressman Kucinich and Congress as a whole work to solve some of our country's current problems... Surely working on the economy, or lowering fuel prices, or figuring out what to do in Iraq is more important.

[Klaxons2012]

I would agree with you if Bush was not planning to attack/invade Iran. That changes things somewhat, in my opinion. I would preferred to see him tried for treason after he was out of office.

My thing is, attack/invade Iran...with what? Mercenaries?

[quagmire]

I understand what's going on in the minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

1. Don't aggrivate the Bush Administration who has all of these contingency plans in place to usurp authority (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc)

2. If you Impeach Bush, you're running the risk of putting an ex Halliburton CEO as President.

If you can't impeach an entire branch of the government then there really is no reason to proceed. Instead, I believe John Conyers is headed down the right path of condemning the Administration on the record and open things up for litigation down the road. Kucinich got greedy and he should've waited for the McClellan testimony truth be told.

They are also thinking of impeaching Cheney as well. Which will then put Pelosi into the white house.

I bet that is why she opposes it. So if it happens and if both Bush and Cheney are ousted, Pelosi is seen as not doing it for her own personal gain.

[bigjnyc]

Too little, too late... those two idiots already have our country in shambles and in a deep hole.

[Klaxons2012]

Instead of wasting time trying to impeach a president that will be out of office in seven months, how about Congressman Kucinich and Congress as a whole work to solve some of our country's current problems... Surely working on the economy, or lowering fuel prices, or figuring out what to do in Iraq is more important.

All of that is connected with getting Bush out of office I'm assuming. The Legislative branch is handcuffed to do anything with that administration still in power.

[atszyman]

They are also thinking of impeaching Cheney as well. Which will then put Pelosi into the white house.

I bet that is why she opposes it. So if it happens and if both Bush and Cheney are ousted, Pelosi is seen as not doing it for her own personal gain.

Won't happen.

If it even looks as though this will happen, then expect Cheney to resign and a new VP to be put into place before hearings actually begin.

If there's sufficient evidence then by all means impeach.

How much money was wasted with the Kenneth Star investigations to find anything about Clinton, and eventually they nailed him on perjury about an illicit affair?

If there is evidence enough that any of this administrations mistakes were intentional and criminal, Clinton's indiscretion will seem like child's play compared to what this administration has done.

If the evidence isn't there and this is just a witch hunt then it needs to stop now. Unfortunately, it'll probably drag out longer than necessary and do no good for either party in the upcoming election.

[Klaxons2012]

Won't happen.

If it even looks as though this will happen, then expect Cheney to resign and a new VP to be put into place before hearings actually begin.

If there's sufficient evidence then by all means impeach.

How much money was wasted with the Kenneth Star investigations to find anything about Clinton, and eventually they nailed him on perjury about an illicit affair?

If there is evidence enough that any of this administrations mistakes were intentional and criminal, Clinton's indiscretion will seem like child's play compared to what this administration has done.

If the evidence isn't there and this is just a witch hunt then it needs to stop now. Unfortunately, it'll probably drag out longer than necessary and do no good for either party in the upcoming election.

The problem is, the evidence that's been published in National Best Sellers is enough for TREASON. Imagine what you could dig up in impeachment proceedings.

[atszyman]

The problem is, the evidence that's been published in National Best Sellers is enough for TREASON. Imagine what you could dig up in impeachment proceedings.

I haven't read the books, or the articles of impeachment so I'm not going to say if it should or should not be done but rather, do the rational thing and condition the prospect of impeachment on the evidence.

If the evidence is there, sufficient and irrefutable, by all means Congress should do it's job and oversee the executive branch, something that's been woefully lacking in these last 7+ years.

Does anyone thing a GOP led congress would have let a Democratic president get away with even half of the stuff Bush and his administration have pulled? I'm starting to understand why the Democrats get labeled as wusses all the time.

[quagmire]

I only see this as a way to cripple the Bush administration for the rest of his term like with Johnson. Although Johnson was not ousted, his impeachment effectively crippled him.

[Klaxons2012]

I haven't read the books, or the articles of impeachment so I'm not going to say if it should or should not be done but rather, do the rational thing and condition the prospect of impeachment on the evidence.

If the evidence is there, sufficient and irrefutable, by all means Congress should do it's job and oversee the executive branch, something that's been woefully lacking in these last 7+ years.

Does anyone thing a GOP led congress would have let a Democratic president get away with even half of the stuff Bush and his administration have pulled? I'm starting to understand why the Democrats get labeled as wusses all the time.

Progressives are known for being overly cautious and unwilling to fly off the handle like their conservative counterparts. It's a blessing and a curse. In this instance, it's not the fact that they won't, it's almost impossible to do so. When the "Justice Department" won't uphold subpoenas to testify in front of the House Judicial Committee and the administration has effectively taken away the checks and balances on the Administrative branch, I can see why impeachment has become the impossible task this time around.

[Klaxons2012]

I only see this as a way to cripple the Bush administration for the rest of his term like with Johnson. Although Johnson was not ousted, his impeachment effectively crippled him.

I think that's the idea. Keep the administration in a holding pattern.

[Thanatoast]

Imagine what you could dig up in impeachment proceedings.

Under Bush's theory of Executive Priviledge he could just tell the Congress to go **** themselves. And has, on several occasions.

Sadly, themadchemist may have the right answer. The politics don't work, or aren't perceived to work. Of course that leaves out that the Dem-controlled Congress is polling even lower than the Reps because they've refused even the gentlest suggestion of checking the rampantly criminal Bush administration.

[SMM]

I understand what's going on in the minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

1. Don't aggrivate the Bush Administration who has all of these contingency plans in place to usurp authority (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc)

2. If you Impeach Bush, you're running the risk of putting an ex Halliburton CEO as President.

If you can't impeach an entire branch of the government then there really is no reason to proceed. Instead, I believe John Conyers is headed down the right path of condemning the Administration on the record and open things up for litigation down the road. Kucinich got greedy and he should've waited for the McClellan testimony truth be told.

Those are good points. I always have the NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE in the back of my mind. When this first became available (May 2007), I read through it, but did not have time to study it in detail. I came back to it a few weeks later and studied it in depth. Then I tried various scenarios, to see if they would be applicable. The way it is written (very loosely in key sections), every scenario I tried could be covered by it. Bush gets to decide what is a national emergency. He could simply ignore Congress, claiming they were interfering with a commander-in-chief leading us in war. Conceivably, but unlikely, he could have Congress 'locked out', or even arrested. He has given himself those kinds of power.

Cheney is Bush's greatest insurance policy. The thought of him sitting in the big chair, is enough to make any intelligent person shudder. So, he would have to be impeached as well. His impeachment has already been sent to the judiciary for action.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Seems you all are missing the focal point, that point being the corporations own both sides and the military industrial complex is owned by them. Hence a do nothing Congress on Iraq,Borders,Oil,Immigration, and Bush,,,,,,,,,instead they do real stuff like investigate steroids in sports:rolley

Half of Congress = Republican meaning this goes nowhere.

[Thanatoast]

Seems you all are missing the focal point, that point being the corporations own both sides and the military industrial complex is owned by them. Hence a do nothing Congress on Iraq,Borders,Oil,Immigration, and Bush,,,,,,,,,instead they do real stuff like investigate steroids in sports:rolley

Half of Congress = Republican meaning this goes nowhere.

On the brighter side of this issue, I've read several stories recently about how Obama's funds are all coming from small donors due to his excellent social-networking credentials. He has no need to beg for money from the monied interests because he's getting all he needs from individual donors. And he recently changed the DNC's fundraising policies to match his. No PACs, no lobbyists. Could we actually see a President who's beholden to the people and not the corporations? Imagine the possibilities, if he and the Dems are brave enough to challenge the status quo next session.

[mithrilfox]

Really? Care to point us to a link?

No WMDs is enough for me. Starting a completely illegal war is enough for me as well. Wiretapping the American people is another. And there are 32 more? And Clinton only had one, and it was lying about sex?

Just to clarify, Clinton was not impeached because of "lying about sex," he was impeached for lying to a grand jury, a clear violation of the law on perjury. The content of the lie didn't matter as much as the lie itself, and the fact that it was at the heart of the issue at hand.

NO WMDs does not constitute a reason for impeachment. A lot of presidents try to do a lot of things and find that it doesn't work out the way that they had hoped. Misinformation is a part of political life, and who got misinformed is up for debate. Assuming that Bush intentionally lied (said something he KNEW was not true) is not grounds for impeachment; you need PROOF that he knew for a fact that the data he was giving was a lie. But then again, it wasn't even him so much as it was his cabinet. Who are you looking to impeach again?

You said "starting an illegal war." What do you mean "illegal?" Show me what American law it violates and how, and then can you point me to any court precedent on that particular issue?

The wiretapping issue was addressed specifically. There is much more to it than the simple presentation some give it, and whether it is illegal or not is highly debatable. The courts have found no basis for pursuing the manner, and neither have most democrats. They'll talk the talk about it being "illegal" and whatnot, but they won't put their money where their mouth is because if they pursue it, they know they'll lose and look stupid.

Besides, we should be looking at the law that Clinton signed into practice in 1998 that helped pave the way for these kinds of operations. Remember that the news is entertainment, plain and simple. Sensational headlines are the key... "BUSH WIRETAPPING CITIZENS" reads much better than "NSA USES WIRETAP ON INTERNATIONAL CALLS FROM POSSIBLE TERRORIST LOCATIONS."

The laws are just not so simple. If you brought up the best points, or the three biggest points, they are still found wanting.

OH, and BTW, I doubt you'll find many high-ranking officials are possible candidates for future cabinets/presidencies pursuing this issue. Why? Because they really know the necessity of such operations in a modern, terrorist-ridden world. Extrapolation of old laws concerning wartime use of wiretapping push some boundaries, but basically do allow for such practices with terrorists. Not labeling terrorists as an attacking force upon the US can be problematic, but at the same time, labeling them as combatants gives them rights that they clearly should not have (under the Geneva convention).

We really need a new convention of all of the security states to make some hard decisions about conventions for handling terrorism. It's common enough now that leaving it up to each and every country individually will cause a lot of turmoil and distress; some universal agreement would go a long way.

For example, a simple solution would be to say that any phone line or conversation that is tapped for terrorist activity is not permissible in court to prosecute or defend any other accusations against a US citizen apart from terrorist and/or militant activity. The wording needs to be done by qualified professional lawyers, but some clarity on these issues would be helpful. No one wants to do it yet because they don't want their powers limited, Democrats and Republicans included. Obama knows that if he tried to hang Bush for his probably legal wiretaps, the Republicans will hit back if Obama becomes president and tries anything similar.

Think about it this way. If you get in the ring with another guy, are you gonna take your gloves off? Probably not, because he'll take his off, and you don't want that.

[Ugg]

JBecause they really know the necessity of such operations in a modern, terrorist-ridden world. Extrapolation of old laws concerning wartime use of wiretapping push some boundaries, but basically do allow for such practices with terrorists. Not labeling terrorists as an attacking force upon the US can be problematic, but at the same time, labeling them as combatants gives them rights that they clearly should not have (under the Geneva convention).



Somebody's been drinking the kool aid!

The biggest threats to America are obesity, lack of health insurance and the rising cost of oil and of course, global climate change.

World Wide Terrorism, whatever that really is, is very low on the list.

I'd gladly give up my right to a Big Mac before I'd give up my right to privacy. Some people simply have their priorities mixed up.

[themadchemist]

Just to clarify, Clinton was not impeached because of "lying about sex," he was impeached for lying to a grand jury, a clear violation of the law on perjury. The content of the lie didn't matter as much as the lie itself, and the fact that it was at the heart of the issue at hand.


Clinton was impeached because there was a Republican Congress that was really annoyed that he was so popular and that spent millions and millions of dollars trying to find a way to get him. The fact that he lied under oath was perjury; the fact that he was being questioned bout his sex life under oath by Congress without any relevance to the business of running the country was a blatant attempt to force him into perjury in order to impeach him (or at least, to shame him publicly). The hearings themselves were a crock, and they were the height of hypocrisy considering how much sleeping around the Republicans (apparently) were up to themselves.

Now, whether perjury constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor" is certainly debatable. I find it highly doubtful that lying under oath about sex under such conditions was the sort of crime the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.


NO WMDs does not constitute a reason for impeachment. A lot of presidents try to do a lot of things and find that it doesn't work out the way that they had hoped. Misinformation is a part of political life, and who got misinformed is up for debate. Assuming that Bush intentionally lied (said something he KNEW was not true) is not grounds for impeachment; you need PROOF that he knew for a fact that the data he was giving was a lie. But then again, it wasn't even him so much as it was his cabinet. Who are you looking to impeach again?


It's the suppression of data that's more troublesome. The ignoring of the intelligence that was arguing in the other direction is problematic. That said, you are right that Bush seems to have set up the White House such that he was given highly filtered information, probably at his own directive. He seems to be the kind of leader who only wants to be told what he wants to hear. However, investigations of those filters (Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, etc.) could prove more insightful.


You said "starting an illegal war." What do you mean "illegal?" Show me what American law it violates and how, and then can you point me to any court precedent on that particular issue?


I agree with you here. I suppose one could argue that violations of the Geneva Convention (which, it could be argued, have occurred in spades) are a violation of American law because signed treaties have the force of the Constitution. However, I oppose the use of the terminology "illegal war" categorically. The phrase just sounds so dumb. I mean, the "war" is not illegal; actions taken within its context might be, but as you said, what makes the war itself illegal? Certainly, the starting of the war was not illegal; the pretexts upon which the war was started might have been, but there is nothing inherently illegal about the war. It's like saying that someone who ran a red light was "driving illegally." No he wasn't; he had a driver's license and registration and his own car and was driving legally, but within the context of that driving, he committed an illegal action. Anyway, "illegal war" is one of the lefty phrases I find most annoying, and its use immediately makes me question the arguments of the user of the phrase (no offense to anyone on this forum--it's sort of knee-jerk on my part).


The wiretapping issue was addressed specifically. There is much more to it than the simple presentation some give it, and whether it is illegal or not is highly debatable. The courts have found no basis for pursuing the manner, and neither have most democrats. They'll talk the talk about it being "illegal" and whatnot, but they won't put their money where their mouth is because if they pursue it, they know they'll lose and look stupid.

Besides, we should be looking at the law that Clinton signed into practice in 1998 that helped pave the way for these kinds of operations. Remember that the news is entertainment, plain and simple. Sensational headlines are the key... "BUSH WIRETAPPING CITIZENS" reads much better than "NSA USES WIRETAP ON INTERNATIONAL CALLS FROM POSSIBLE TERRORIST LOCATIONS."


The stuff that's signed into law is fair game. The administration is operating by the law. What's more problematic to me, and where the question of violating the Constitution comes into play, is on the stuff that doesn't adhere to the laws in place. The administration has consistently read way more executive power into the Constitution than exists, with high-level members of the administration going so far as to say that an act of the President is legal by definition. I think that if we took a closer look into some of the executive actions of the President and the ways that White House counsel has read the Constitution, we'd see what would not hold up in a court as constitutional acts. The Republicans in Congress should be concerned about this, as well, and many are, because the Executive Branch has only four places from which to steal power: The Judiciary, the Legislative branch, non-federal government, and individuals' rights. Congress has seen power grabbed from it, just as the Judiciary, individuals, and arguably even the states, have.


The laws are just not so simple. If you brought up the best points, or the three biggest points, they are still found wanting.


Considering that (as far as I know) none of us is a Constitutional law expert, that's true on all sides. Of course, there is a Constitutional law expert around here somewhere...Anyone seen Naimfan recently?


OH, and BTW, I doubt you'll find many high-ranking officials are possible candidates for future cabinets/presidencies pursuing this issue. Why? Because they really know the necessity of such operations in a modern, terrorist-ridden world. Extrapolation of old laws concerning wartime use of wiretapping push some boundaries, but basically do allow for such practices with terrorists. Not labeling terrorists as an attacking force upon the US can be problematic, but at the same time, labeling them as combatants gives them rights that they clearly should not have (under the Geneva convention).


This business of indefinitely holding folks at Guantanamo Bay is the biggest problem that I see. We've basically got no courts or kangaroo courts looking at these people, and robbing of them of some of the basic tenets of due process--the defense doesn't even get to see half the evidence in these trials. That's the most indefensible part of this, and the part of all of this that I think is most likely to have impeachable offense written all over it (with the exception, of course, of deporting our prisoners to Syria to get abused, which seems an outright violation of any number of things).

As far as people not touching impeachment with a ten foot pole, it's not because they all see merit in the Bush administration playing Jack Bauer. Instead, they all know that impeachment is bad politics. Impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998 hurt the Republicans; he left office even more popular than before. What impeachment does is to give a focus for people's anger, resentment, and retribution. But once you've done it, once you've impeached a guy, that's about it. He goes on with his affairs, and all of those people who were all so angry with him before, well, they've had their fun. The smarter thing to do is to channel that anger to the polls. Every person who is frustrated with the Bush administration, who is angry they've gotten away with something, the Democrats need them to channel that action into the future, not the past. Impeaching Bush (especially when a conviction is impossible) is about the past. Taking out that anger and frustration on the Republican party, from candidates for dog catcher to candidates for president--that's smarter politics. And that's why Pelosi is against impeachment proceedings, not any ideological concordance.


We really need a new convention of all of the security states to make some hard decisions about conventions for handling terrorism. It's common enough now that leaving it up to each and every country individually will cause a lot of turmoil and distress; some universal agreement would go a long way.

For example, a simple solution would be to say that any phone line or conversation that is tapped for terrorist activity is not permissible in court to prosecute or defend any other accusations against a US citizen apart from terrorist and/or militant activity. The wording needs to be done by qualified professional lawyers, but some clarity on these issues would be helpful. No one wants to do it yet because they don't want their powers limited, Democrats and Republicans included. Obama knows that if he tried to hang Bush for his probably legal wiretaps, the Republicans will hit back if Obama becomes president and tries anything similar.

Think about it this way. If you get in the ring with another guy, are you gonna take your gloves off? Probably not, because he'll take his off, and you don't want that.

You're right about this. If we feel that our current practices are outmoded (and I'm not saying that I think they are--not informed enough on the issue) then it makes sense to establish new treaties. The Geneva Convention cannot represent rules of engagement in absolute perfection, but if we decide that things need to change, the right way to do that is not to unilaterally reject the rules we've got, but to sit down with other countries and write new rules.

The problem with this, and maybe the reason we've shied away from it, is that rewriting the rules of war today would require getting the opinions of a whole lot more countries and leaders. Of course, it's great that the post-colonial world has broken Western political hegemony. But you do have to admit that having a hundred extraordinarily different countries, with markedly different levels of freedom, write the rules of engagement is a lot more fraught with difficulty than having four or five relatively similar countries with shared ancestry and geographical proximity do it.

[skunk]

A lot of presidents try to do a lot of things and find that it doesn't work out the way that they had hoped. Misinformation is a part of political life, and who got misinformed is up for debate. Assuming that Bush intentionally lied (said something he KNEW was not true) is not grounds for impeachment; you need PROOF that he knew for a fact that the data he was giving was a lie. But then again, it wasn't even him so much as it was his cabinet. Who are you looking to impeach again?Where exactly does the buck stop, these days?

You said "starting an illegal war." What do you mean "illegal?" Show me what American law it violates and how, and then can you point me to any court precedent on that particular issue?International treaties, including the provisions of the UN Charter, are incorporated into US law, if I am not mistaken. Kofi Annan stated quite clearly that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN Charter.

OH, and BTW, I doubt you'll find many high-ranking officials are possible candidates for future cabinets/presidencies pursuing this issue. Why? Because they really know the necessity of such operations in a modern, terrorist-ridden world.So you are excusing law-breaking on the grounds of expediency? Noble indeed, and worthy, too.
We really need a new convention of all of the security states to make some hard decisions about conventions for handling terrorism. It's common enough now that leaving it up to each and every country individually will cause a lot of turmoil and distress; some universal agreement would go a long way.We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have the UN Charter, and we have the Geneva Conventions, all of which the US had a hand in framing.

[Macky-Mac]

.....Cheney is Bush's greatest insurance policy. The thought of him sitting in the big chair, is enough to make any intelligent person shudder. So, he would have to be impeached as well. His impeachment has already been sent to the judiciary for action.

the thought of Cheney moving up to replace an impeached Bush is a frightening thought indeed!

As for impeaching Cheney first, The HuffingtonPost says that Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney was killed by Congress but doesn't go into much detail about it. (HuffPost) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/kucinich-introduces-bush_n_106191.html).....does that mean starting all over against Cheney?

Anybody looking for the text of the Bush impeachment articles can find them here; Kucinich site (http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581)

Given Pelosi's previous statement that impeachment is "off the table", I'm skeptical that this will go anywhere......we'll have to wait and see what happens with this

[themadchemist]

We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have the UN Charter, and we have the Geneva Conventions, all of which the US had a hand in framing.

That said, if he does think there is a need to reevaluate the ground rules for these sorts of things, it is probably the most reasonable response to argue for new, multilateral conventions, as opposed to arguing for a unilateral reinterpretation or discarding of signed treaties.

[skunk]

That said, if he does think there is a need to reevaluate the ground rules for these sorts of things, it is probably the most reasonable response to argue for new, multilateral conventions, as opposed to arguing for a unilateral reinterpretation or discarding of signed treaties.There is no need. No need at all.

[themadchemist]

There is no need. No need at all.

Maybe not, but if people who thought there was a need spoke like this person more frequently, I think things would be a lot better, because there is a presumption that there should be rules. Right now, I feel like the debate is:

Person A: There are rules! We aren't following them!
Person B: Those rules suck! They don't work!
Person A: But THOSE. ARE. THE. RULES.
Person B: New rule: No rules!

Instead, if we could say we agree on the principle of good rules existing and being used, then maybe there could be a discussion about what the rules and boundaries ought to be. Those of us who think the rules right are now are at least pretty good can accept that maybe they could be better; and those on the other side who think the current rules are no good at all can at least accept that there should be some rules, even if they don't like these.

[SactoGuy18]

I have news for Representative Kucinich: President Bush is leaving office on January 20, 2009, just about half a year from now. Why bother wasting way too much taxpayer money in this case and turning into a potential PR fiasco?

[Don't panic]

I have news for Representative Kucinich: President Bush is leaving office on January 20, 2009, just about half a year from now. Why bother wasting way too much taxpayer money in this case and turning into a potential PR fiasco?

because it would be the right thing to do?

[mithrilfox]

Where exactly does the buck stop, these days?

If you impeached any president when one member of his cabinet did one thing wrong, all presidents would be impeached. You cannot hold Bush responsible unless he is directly involved. There's a lot that goes into the definition of "directly," and I leave it up to the courts... who have either not even received the case, or have turned it down.

International treaties, including the provisions of the UN Charter, are incorporated into US law, if I am not mistaken. Kofi Annan stated quite clearly that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN Charter.

Kofi Annan is not a judge and, as far as I am aware, has no judicial powers in the UN. His statements are on roughly equal ground, legally, with those of US senators, English members of parliament, etc. Also, even if it was found to be in clear violation of the UN charter and therefore illegal, can that be used as as basis for impeaching a US president? These issues could only be decided by a court, and since no court has faced them yet, we can't say for sure. It's been brought up numerous times, even now, and yet it is always found wanting.


So you are excusing law-breaking on the grounds of expediency? Noble indeed, and worthy, too.

No, not in this case. What I am saying is exactly what I said: no one will pursue him on these shaky grounds because they too want the same treatment. That is, talk smack if you want, just don't push it to the courts and I won't do it to you either. You'll notice that people talk real big and real strong until they start running for president... than they tone it down, and if they don't, they don't make it very far. If you refuse to scratch any backs, and if you insist on pointing out every pimple, you'll get it right back at you, and you won't like it.


We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have the UN Charter, and we have the Geneva Conventions, all of which the US had a hand in framing.

Very true. Now if the US is in violation of those particular issues, it would be a very unique and first-of-its-kind court battle to use it as grounds for impeaching a president. Even if you impeached him, I doubt he'd end up being removed. Remember, impeaching a president means to bring him to the impeachment trial process; it does not mean he is removed. That is another step of the impeachment process that has never been utilized.

After it's all said and done, who can look back and say, "I was respectful and reasonable." Or, will they say, "I did what I had to do to expose that administration and all its horrendous evil crimes against the universe!" If you say that, you're basically excusing your own behavior on the grounds of expediency. You're basically acting pragmatically, and that is no better than the accusations against Bush.

Remember, we can't lose ourselves in the fight becoming what we think we are fighting against.

[Macky-Mac]

Where exactly does the buck stop, these days?

International treaties, including the provisions of the UN Charter, are incorporated into US law, if I am not mistaken. Kofi Annan stated quite clearly that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN Charter.

So you are excusing law-breaking on the grounds of expediency? Noble indeed, and worthy, too.

We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have the UN Charter, and we have the Geneva Conventions, all of which the US had a hand in framing.

Given your arguments, shouldn't the UK be bringing criminal charges against Blair, Brown and others in the Labour party for their part in starting an illegal war? When will that happen?

[themadchemist]

because it would be the right thing to do?

Politics, at its best, is about making decisions between competing goods. Is impeaching President Bush a good? Perhaps it is. But isn't the greater good here taking care of the American people and making sure that leaders are in place who will be able to effect positive change? I'll sacrifice the symbol (impeachment) for the act (better governance) any day. And I think that that's what the Democratic leadership has chosen here.

[Peace]

So Clinton got impeached for lying about doing it in the oval office with an intern.

The whole Bush administration have been complicit in acts unlawful in the constitution. There's a laundry list so I won't list them. We all know it even if we don't admit it.

There's two sides to this impeach Bush scene.
You have the political side. That's the side that constantly spins everything. Even their own words. They can be pro Bush or Anti-Bush.

Then you have the moral minded ones. These are the ones that judge based on their own perceptions of what's right and what's wrong. They too can be pro-Bush and anti-Bush.

The political ones will spin and spin and spin.

The morally minded ones should honor our country. Whether it's popular or not.

Impeach Bush.

[SMM]

As for impeaching Cheney first, The HuffingtonPost says that Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney was killed by Congress but doesn't go into much detail about it. (HuffPost) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/kucinich-introduces-bush_n_106191.html).....does that mean starting all over against Cheney?



It was not 'killed', it just has not been acted upon by the Judicial Committee, and is still on the books.

[themadchemist]

So Clinton got impeached for lying about doing it in the oval office with an intern.

The whole Bush administration have been complicit in acts unlawful in the constitution. There's a laundry list so I won't list them. We all know it even if we don't admit it.

There's two sides to this impeach Bush scene.
You have the political side. That's the side that constantly spins everything. Even their own words. They can be pro Bush or Anti-Bush.

Then you have the moral minded ones. These are the ones that judge based on their own perceptions of what's right and what's wrong. They too can be pro-Bush and anti-Bush.

The political ones will spin and spin and spin.

The morally minded ones should honor our country. Whether it's popular or not.

Impeach Bush.

Pretty black and white world you see there, don't you? The morally minded ones ought to consider the impact of their actions in terms of real gains. Would you be willing to sacrifice actual policy gains--with real impact for millions of Americans--for this exercise in moral indignation? If you could get both, fine, but let's say you couldn't...How much impact for the average American would you give up in order to punish President Bush? And how would that fit into your moral framework?

[SMM]

I have a link to Countdown (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/10/countdown-the-impeachment-of-george-w-bush/), discussing this impeachment process. Keith has Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley on to provide some very good comments and points to offer. For those few, who are still living under the false opinion that there is insufficient evidence for impeachment, this completely destroys that position. That being said, it is unlikely to stop them from rationalizing away the facts. (Do not bother me with the real facts, I have my own).

[Peace]

Pretty black and white world you see there, don't you? The morally minded ones ought to consider the impact of their actions in terms of real gains. Would you be willing to sacrifice actual policy gains--with real impact for millions of Americans--for this exercise in moral indignation? If you could get both, fine, but let's say you couldn't...How much impact for the average American would you give up in order to punish President Bush? And how would that fit into your moral framework?

It is a pretty much black and white world in the USA. Why else would there only be two opposing major political parties.

The rest is spin.:)

[Evangelion]

This is coming from someone who lives in Europe. I have been wondering for years why Bush hasn't been dragged to court by now. All the time we hear about more and more shenanigans he and/or his administration has done, and nobody does a thing. Clinton was dragged to court because he had a blowjob and he didn't feel like sharing that fact with others. Bush started an illegal war under false pretenses. He is responsible for an illegal spy-network that spies on his fellow citizens. He's supporting torture. The list goes on.

Bush and his administration is utterly, 100%, corrupt and wicked. Yet nobody does a thing. Clinton had a blowjob, and all hell broke loose. Where is your sense of priorities?

[themadchemist]

It is a pretty much black and white world in the USA. Why else would there only be two opposing major political parties.

The rest is spin.:)

Unfortunately, I can't see how you get from point A to point B.

[leekohler]

Pretty black and white world you see there, don't you? The morally minded ones ought to consider the impact of their actions in terms of real gains. Would you be willing to sacrifice actual policy gains--with real impact for millions of Americans--for this exercise in moral indignation? If you could get both, fine, but let's say you couldn't...How much impact for the average American would you give up in order to punish President Bush? And how would that fit into your moral framework?

In other words, if you're the president, rules don't matter. Let's stop pretending and just say it already.

[imac/cheese]

I see that an impeachment process would be spun by the GOP into a complete waste of taxpayers money by the democrats since GWB will be out of office in 6 months. I also think that the average american would think it is a waste of time and money and they would have a lessor opinion of the democrats, and I do not see this as an advantage to the democrats in the upcoming election. I can't see the democrats taking such a risk right when it looks like they have a great chance to win the white house.

[leekohler]

I see that an impeachment process would be spun by the GOP into a complete waste of taxpayers money by the democrats since GWB will be out of office in 6 months. I also think that the average american would think it is a waste of time and money and they would have a lessor opinion of the democrats, and I do not see this as an advantage to the democrats in the upcoming election. I can't see the democrats taking such a risk right when it looks like they have a great chance to win the white house.

Exactly- only enforce the rules or investigate possible wrongdoing when convenient. Great system we have. And we sit here and wonder why we constantly get screwed by it.

[Peace]

Unfortunately, I can't see how you get from point A to point B.

I do it the way more people in this country should. I ask a lot of questions.;)

[imac/cheese]

Exactly- only enforce the rules or investigate possible wrongdoing when convenient. Great system we have. And we sit here and wonder why we constantly get screwed by it.

The entire field of politics is an example of the ends justifying the means. Personally, I would like to see the means held to a higher standard. I am not much for consequentialism.

[atszyman]

I see that an impeachment process would be spun by the GOP into a complete waste of taxpayers money by the democrats since GWB will be out of office in 6 months. I also think that the average american would think it is a waste of time and money and they would have a lessor opinion of the democrats, and I do not see this as an advantage to the democrats in the upcoming election. I can't see the democrats taking such a risk right when it looks like they have a great chance to win the white house.

Exactly- only enforce the rules or investigate possible wrongdoing when convenient. Great system we have. And we sit here and wonder why we constantly get screwed by it.

I think that congress should appoint an independent investigator to look into the crimes of the Bush administration but only give it 1/4th the budget that Kenneth Star was given for the Clinton investigation.

If the GOP balks at the expense it can be readily pointed out that they payed 4x more to investigate Clinton. If the Bush administration's crimes are as obvious as we all seem to think they are the investigator should have no problem finding enough on the shoestring budget.

If enough is found to impeach during the investigation then it should be done. Of course if Congress had done it's oversight job from 2000 on we could be in completely different place right now. President Hastert?

Of course I'm anxious to see what happens if Obama wins and tries to use some of Bush's expanded executive powers? Do you think any of the GOP pundits' heads will explode? Are we going to be allowed to use "b..b..but Bush did it first" as a valid defense any time they attack Obama? or are we going to be held to a higher standard?

[leekohler]

I think that congress should appoint an independent investigator to look into the crimes of the Bush administration but only give it 1/4th the budget that Kenneth Star was given for the Clinton investigation.

If the GOP balks at the expense it can be readily pointed out that they payed 4x more to investigate Clinton. If the Bush administration's crimes are as obvious as we all seem to think they are the investigator should have no problem finding enough on the shoestring budget.

If enough is found to impeach during the investigation then it should be done. Of course if Congress had done it's oversight job from 2000 on we could be in completely different place right now. President Hastert?

Of course I'm anxious to see what happens if Obama wins and tries to use some of Bush's expanded executive powers? Do you think any of the GOP pundits' heads will explode? Are we going to be allowed to use "b..b..but Bush did it first" as a valid defense any time they attack Obama? or are we going to be held to a higher standard?

I think you know the answers to those questions already.

[atszyman]

I think you know the answers to those questions already.

Of course I do....

I just like predicting hypocrisy. Of course as much as we get blamed for being über-liberal and worshiping Obama, I have a feeling most of us will actually manage to admit when he screws up and chastise him for it, rather than trotting out lists of excuses.

can I at least use "b..b..but Bush did it" a few times?

[leekohler]

Of course I do....

I just like predicting hypocrisy. Of course as much as we get blamed for being über-liberal and worshiping Obama, I have a feeling most of us will actually manage to admit when he screws up and chastise him for it, rather than trotting out lists of excuses.

can I at least use "b..b..but Bush did it" a few times?

Nope. ;) And you better not, either.

[Thanatoast]

Pretty black and white world you see there, don't you? The morally minded ones ought to consider the impact of their actions in terms of real gains. Would you be willing to sacrifice actual policy gains--with real impact for millions of Americans--for this exercise in moral indignation? If you could get both, fine, but let's say you couldn't...How much impact for the average American would you give up in order to punish President Bush? And how would that fit into your moral framework?

The impact we'd have from impeaching Bush and his cronies is that there would be less a chance of future Presidents breaking the law - spying without warrants, lying to Congress, torturing prisoners, invading other countries, and on and on. In the short term the Dems might lose a few seats they otherwise would've gained but in the long term the payoff would be a government that is less criminal. A net positive outcome.

[MacNut]

but in the long term the payoff would be a government that is less criminal. A net positive outcome.Never happen, there will always be someone to buy and sell in government. They will just find another way to stay hidden. You can never take the lies out of a politician.

[themadchemist]

I do it the way more people in this country should. I ask a lot of questions.;)

What I'm saying is, I don't think that what you said logically follows. Just because we have a two-party system, that doesn't necessarily mean that the issues (or people's positions on issues) are black and white. And even if they were, that doesn't mean that we should say, "Impeachment is the right choice so we should do it at all costs." There are two big logical gaps in your leaps, and I don't know how many questions you would have to ask to bridge the chasm.


In other words, if you're the president, rules don't matter. Let's stop pretending and just say it already.


No, that's not it at all. What we want to do is establish good policy and preserve freedom, right? Now, when people abuse their power, it would be best to punish/remove them, both from a symbolic standpoint and from a practical one. But there are costs to it, too. If it uses up political capital that could be employed elsewhere, then its practical benefits are reduced, and we're left with symbolic ones. My question is whether we have to take every fight to its absolute endpoint, given the costs involved? I'd love to see Bush impeached, but I think the political costs are too high. Our good fortune is that we live in a country where, recognizing the propensity for politicians in executive office to abuse their power, we limit Presidential terms. He's out in just a few months and impeachment proceedings would probably take the better part of that--and the bitterness of them would take focus away from the Presidential election and Obama's message.

In general, the best punitive tool available in politics is electoral, not procedural. If you want to make a stand against Bush, do so at the ballot box. Demanding the Democratic Party to do this in Congress, instead, could just cost the country way too much in lost opportunity for positive change. I'd rather have the Democrats get a boost to do some good in the future than send a leaving man out with a kick with no tangible benefits.


Exactly- only enforce the rules or investigate possible wrongdoing when convenient. Great system we have. And we sit here and wonder why we constantly get screwed by it.


Also, it is naive to imagine that impeachment is a judicial, instead of a political, process. It takes on the trappings of a legal proceeding, but it is purely a political exercise. Andrew Johnson's impeachment was largely politically motivated; Clinton's was; and Nixon resigned because nobody liked him and would have gladly taken the opportunity to remove him from office. While an impeachment of Bush would be justified, I think, it would exist within the context of political maneuvers, because it is a political maneuver. To proceed head first into it without examining its ramifications within that political context would be foolish.

[leekohler]

What I'm saying is, I don't think that what you said logically follows. Just because we have a two-party system, that doesn't necessarily mean that the issues (or people's positions on issues) are black and white. And even if they were, that doesn't mean that we should say, "Impeachment is the right choice so we should do it at all costs." There are two big logical gaps in your leaps, and I don't know how many questions you would have to ask to bridge the chasm.



No, that's not it at all. What we want to do is establish good policy and preserve freedom, right? Now, when people abuse their power, it would be best to punish/remove them, both from a symbolic standpoint and from a practical one. But there are costs to it, too. If it uses up political capital that could be employed elsewhere, then its practical benefits are reduced, and we're left with symbolic ones. My question is whether we have to take every fight to its absolute endpoint, given the costs involved? I'd love to see Bush impeached, but I think the political costs are too high. Our good fortune is that we live in a country where, recognizing the propensity for politicians in executive office to abuse their power, we limit Presidential terms. He's out in just a few months and impeachment proceedings would probably take the better part of that--and the bitterness of them would take focus away from the Presidential election and Obama's message.

In general, the best punitive tool available in politics is electoral, not procedural. If you want to make a stand against Bush, do so at the ballot box. Demanding the Democratic Party to do this in Congress, instead, could just cost the country way too much in lost opportunity for positive change. I'd rather have the Democrats get a boost to do some good in the future than send a leaving man out with a kick with no tangible benefits.



Also, it is naive to imagine that impeachment is a judicial, instead of a political, process. It takes on the trappings of a legal proceeding, but it is purely a political exercise. Andrew Johnson's impeachment was largely politically motivated; Clinton's was; and Nixon resigned because nobody liked him and would have gladly taken the opportunity to remove him from office. While an impeachment of Bush would be justified, I think, it would exist within the context of political maneuvers, because it is a political maneuver. To proceed head first into it without examining its ramifications within that political context would be foolish.

As I said before- all you're saying is that we should only hold politicians accountable if it's convenient. I don't see how what I just said is incompatible with what you said.

Now- how do we prosecute him after he's out of office? Because honestly, he should be and we shouldn't be expected just to let him walk back to his ranch to sip mint julips on his porch and collect Halliburton checks.

[OscarTheGrouch]

As I said before- all you're saying is that we should only hold politicians accountable if it's convenient. I don't see how what I just said is incompatible with what you said.

Now- how do we prosecute him after he's out of office? Because honestly, he should be and we shouldn't be expected just to let him walk back to his ranch to sip mint julips on his porch and collect Halliburton checks.

I agree with this.. He should be just as liable as an officer of the law that witholds information in order to get a warrant and people die in the process.. cant you believe we would crucify that person..

I'm all for these proceedings, not because I think it will make a difference- Bush is obviously a lame duck (pardon the pun), but it might pave the way for something more meaningful. Either way, his political career is over.

[atszyman]

As I said before- all you're saying is that we should only hold politicians accountable if it's convenient. I don't see how what I just said is incompatible with what you said.

Now- how do we prosecute him after he's out of office? Because honestly, he should be and we shouldn't be expected just to let him walk back to his ranch to sip mint julips on his porch and collect Halliburton checks.

Don't be silly...

He's going to be cutting brush like he always does when on vacation...

[leekohler]

Don't be silly...

He's going to be cutting brush like he always does when on vacation...

Don't you mean trimming bush? :)

[Cursor]

So, how come this HUGE story has not gotten any attention from the mainstream media? It's not even a blip on their radar. When Clinton was up for impeachment, it was the biggest story around. Really shows you how the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS) is corrupted. :confused: Anyway, I'm sure this won't get past committee (even though I hope it does). This is just more election-year politics from our so-called representatives.

[atszyman]

So, how come this HUGE story has not gotten any attention from the mainstream media? It's not even a blip on their radar. When Clinton was up for impeachment, it was the biggest story around. Really shows you how the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS) is corrupted. :confused: Anyway, I'm sure this won't get past committee (even though I hope it does). This is just more election-year politics from our so-called representatives.

Mostly because Kucinich is portrayed in most media outlets as a radical left wing-nut and very little gravitas is placed on what he says or does.

If this actually gets anywhere it will make the news. But somehow I think many reports will somehow manage to make the Democrats look like they are purely seeking revenge.

[Klaxons2012]

Anybody up for a Parlaiment? A simple "vote of no confidence" could've rid this nation of him.

[it5five]

Anybody up for a Parlaiment? A simple "vote of no confidence" could've rid this nation of him.

I am. For years I've been convinced that a parliamentary form of government is vastly superior to a presidential one.

[themadchemist]

As I said before- all you're saying is that we should only hold politicians accountable if it's convenient. I don't see how what I just said is incompatible with what you said.


No, I'm saying that accountability comes in various forms. By holding his entire party accountable via an election, we are still holding him accountable, and probably doing more good for society.

And what I am reacting against is the word "convenient." It's pejorative in this context--setting national policy back on track is more than a matter of convenience; it is a matter of necessity. If impeachment doesn't serve to advance that cause, then it's probably a waste of time. In a perfect world there would be unlimited resources to pursue everything we desired; in our less than perfect world, we have to come to compromises, and if Bush's impeachment doesn't come with real net positives, then the good feeling we have once it's done will probably be gone by morning.


Now- how do we prosecute him after he's out of office? Because honestly, he should be and we shouldn't be expected just to let him walk back to his ranch to sip mint julips on his porch and collect Halliburton checks.

Well this you weren't going to be able to do one way or another. He's mostly protected from legal challenge to his actions as President, via executive privilege and the like. All we can do is to ensure that history is the better judge, I think. I know it's not a great thing, but all of the things that might be good enough to get him impeached (a political process) might not be sufficient for a court of law (a judicial process). It's hard to find the line between bad judgment and blatant corruption, after all.

After all, Bush has entered the ranks of historical figures; his legacy, whatever it is, will have far greater impact on him than any realistic legal challenge.


The impact we'd have from impeaching Bush and his cronies is that there would be less a chance of future Presidents breaking the law - spying without warrants, lying to Congress, torturing prisoners, invading other countries, and on and on. In the short term the Dems might lose a few seats they otherwise would've gained but in the long term the payoff would be a government that is less criminal. A net positive outcome.


If that were the case, then I'd think there might be a case here. However, I don't know that it is the case. Obviously, this is just a matter of gut instinct here, because there isn't really any way to get data on it, but I don't think that the deterrent effect will work. I just think that each of these situations is so complex and idiosyncratic that if someone really wanted to try to get away with something, he/she would figure out how. As far as your above points, certainly the lying to Congress is hard to prove specifically and the invasion of other countries isn't an inherent violation of law by any means (though Iraq was really terrible judgment).

The spying without warrants and the torture are the worst part, but wouldn't we have more of an effect by writing legislation that blocked those things, instead of by trying to set precedent via impeachment? My biggest philosophical problem with the administration is this expansion of executive power, but something tells me that that's not really an impeachable offense (though then again, everything is an impeachable offense, isn't it?).

[atszyman]

I am. For years I've been convinced that a parliamentary form of government is vastly superior to a presidential one.

Of course wouldn't that guarantee that the executive branch and the majority of the legislative branch are from the same party? Of course it would have meant 2 less years of Bush, but it also would have meant Clinton would have been kicked out after only 2 years.

I'm not saying it would have been a bad thing, but sometimes the deadlock of different party control is the best thing for the country.

[Eric Piercey]

While I agree in principle with Kucinich, I think it's bad politics, and that's why Pelosi opposes it.

There comes a time when you have to set aside politics. If I ordered someone to come kick in your door and shoot your family in the middle of the night, I'd not be too shocked when there was a response. This country is so far off the rails in the first place as far as the founding principals because of political tit for tat BS. Bush/Cheney need to be held accountable. Those of you who seriously think they had the best interest of the country in mind at any point during the past 2 terms need to take off their blinders. This is far from a waste of time and something long overdue. I'm not exteremely hopeful anything will come of it, but just ignoring the blatant crimes of this administration would be utter submission to future tyranny.

[themadchemist]

There comes a time when you have to set aside politics. If I ordered someone to come kick in your door and shoot your family in the middle of the night, I'd not be too shocked when there was a response. This country is so far off the rails in the first place as far as the founding principals because of political tit for tat BS. Bush/Cheney need to be held accountable. Those of you who seriously think they had the best interest of the country in mind at any point during the past 2 administrations need to take off their blinders. This is far from a waste of time and something long overdue. I'm not exteremely hopeful anything will come of it, but just ignoring the blatant crimes of this administration would be utter submission to future tyranny.

And again...I think you get the country back on the rails by getting new leadership, not by handing John McCain the election and following basically the same course. Impeachment, particularly without conviction, gets us nowhere but wasting people's anger towards the Bush administration on a symbolic act of political retribution.

[it5five]

Of course wouldn't that guarantee that the executive branch and the majority of the legislative branch are from the same party? Of course it would have meant 2 less years of Bush, but it also would have meant Clinton would have been kicked out after only 2 years.

I'm not saying it would have been a bad thing, but sometimes the deadlock of different party control is the best thing for the country.

Not always. Right now the Canadian PM (Steven Harper) is the head of a minority government. Of course, there are more than two parties in the Canadian House of Commons unlike our awful two party system here in the US. I'm not suggesting that we adopt a parliamentary system here in the United States. I just think that government is more accountable under a parliamentary system than a presidential one.

[atszyman]

Not always. Right now the Canadian PM (Steven Harper) is the head of a minority government. Of course, there are more than two parties in the Canadian House of Commons unlike our awful two party system here in the US. I'm not suggesting that we adopt a parliamentary system here in the United States. I just think that government is more accountable under a parliamentary system than a presidential one.

Our government can be held accountable, it's just that with Congress and President in the same party, accountability usually falls by the wayside as the party works it's agenda.

Of course when the other party is voted in to provide accountability and does nothing we end up in the same boat.

[MacNut]

More reason to get independent thinkers involved. The party line is what is killing this country.

[leekohler]

No, I'm saying that accountability comes in various forms. By holding his entire party accountable via an election, we are still holding him accountable, and probably doing more good for society.

And what I am reacting against is the word "convenient." It's pejorative in this context--setting national policy back on track is more than a matter of convenience; it is a matter of necessity. If impeachment doesn't serve to advance that cause, then it's probably a waste of time. In a perfect world there would be unlimited resources to pursue everything we desired; in our less than perfect world, we have to come to compromises, and if Bush's impeachment doesn't come with real net positives, then the good feeling we have once it's done will probably be gone by morning.

You're really missing the point. This isn't about "feeling good", it's about doing what's right and sending the message to the next President that he/she will not be able to get away with whatever they want without serious consequences. That I also see as a necessity that will have long-term ramifications.



Well this you weren't going to be able to do one way or another. He's mostly protected from legal challenge to his actions as President, via executive privilege and the like. All we can do is to ensure that history is the better judge, I think. I know it's not a great thing, but all of the things that might be good enough to get him impeached (a political process) might not be sufficient for a court of law (a judicial process). It's hard to find the line between bad judgment and blatant corruption, after all.

After all, Bush has entered the ranks of historical figures; his legacy, whatever it is, will have far greater impact on him than any realistic legal challenge.

Then this little "out" needs to be done away with immediately. And Bush hardly cares about history's view of him. If he did, he'd have thought a little harder before acting.


The spying without warrants and the torture are the worst part, but wouldn't we have more of an effect by writing legislation that blocked those things, instead of by trying to set precedent via impeachment?

Why not do both?

[Eric Piercey]

And again...I think you get the country back on the rails by getting new leadership, not by handing John McCain the election and following basically the same course. Impeachment, particularly without conviction, gets us nowhere but wasting people's anger towards the Bush administration on a symbolic act of political retribution.

Well frankly they should both be tried for treason and prosecuted to the full extent if found guilty, but I'll take an impeachment given the likelihood of that.

[themadchemist]

You're really missing the point. This isn't about "feeling good", it's about doing what's right and sending the message to the next President that he/she will not be able to get away with whatever they want without serious consequences. That I also see as a necessity that will have long-term ramifications.


It might, but as I said, I'm just not convinced. If that were the case, then I'd be more behind it.


Then this little "out" needs to be done away with immediately.


I actually disagree with you here. I know that executive privilege should have its limits and that it can be abused, as in this case. But it is extremely important. We demand that our leaders make difficult decisions that have far-reaching impact sometimes under ambiguous conditions and often with limited time. We need them to have a certain amount of security that they can act with personal impunity, so that they can execute their duties with confidence. They aren't always going to be right--sometimes they will be devastatingly wrong. But it's probably better to give them a little leeway but then have checks for when things get too far out of hand.

We can't afford for our President to be scared of criminal prosecution at every turn...


And Bush hardly cares about history's view of him. If he did, he'd have thought a little harder before acting.


I remember reading sometime that Bush really enjoys reading biographies, especially of war time presidents. I think he identifies with them...I think that he associates a certain romantic greatness to the leader under siege, doing whatever it takes to assert the force of the nation for some greater plan. He's already putting himself in the context of history and that shapes his actions. Honestly, sitting in the Oval Office every day, I doubt it's possible not to divorce yourself from your legacy.

Of course, there's always the risk that we're all wrong and history will remember him better than it should. He certainly wouldn't be the first President remembered incorrectly (Lyndon Johnson sure got a raw deal).


Why not do both?

Well, my premise is that impeachment will hurt us on a lot of levels legislatively, so that it would be more productive and lasting to do one than the other. It might be better to chalk up Bush's failures to the inevitability of politics, and use them to drive electoral change that can transform the country.

I think it's just that we have two different premises here. I think that impeaching Bush could cost us the election without sending a sufficient permanent message to make up for it. You believe, I think, that the electoral losses might be more modest and that the message will be more resounding. If your premise is right, then you're certainly right and I'm wrong. But if my premise is right, then I think the situation is a little different.

[Thanatoast]

Never happen, there will always be someone to buy and sell in government. They will just find another way to stay hidden. You can never take the lies out of a politician.
That's why I said "less criminal" and not "crime free".
If that were the case, then I'd think there might be a case here. However, I don't know that it is the case. Obviously, this is just a matter of gut instinct here, because there isn't really any way to get data on it, but I don't think that the deterrent effect will work. I just think that each of these situations is so complex and idiosyncratic that if someone really wanted to try to get away with something, he/she would figure out how. As far as your above points, certainly the lying to Congress is hard to prove specifically and the invasion of other countries isn't an inherent violation of law by any means (though Iraq was really terrible judgment).

The spying without warrants and the torture are the worst part, but wouldn't we have more of an effect by writing legislation that blocked those things, instead of by trying to set precedent via impeachment? My biggest philosophical problem with the administration is this expansion of executive power, but something tells me that that's not really an impeachable offense (though then again, everything is an impeachable offense, isn't it?).
The Senate report recently released details on all of Bush's transgressions we're currently aware of. One thing specifcally I've read is that he "misrepresented" the available intelligence to the Congress and the People while building a case for war. That means he left out parts, embellished other parts and flat out made some of it up.

For example, he left out the parts saying the CIA and FBI didn't think Iraq had WMD's, embellished the parts that said they *might* have WMD's and flat out invented the parts saying that Saddam was working with Al-Qeada.

We do have laws prohibiting things Bush has done. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow spying on citizens without a warrant. FISA even pushes this definition by allowing the President to get a warrant after the fact. Bush chose to ignore both these laws.

The US has several laws against torturing prisoners. Not treaties we've signed (which also count) but actual laws passed by Congress and signed by past Presidents. The most recent was passed by the Republican Congress in the mid-90's. Bush chose to ignore these laws as well. He didn't try to have the laws changed. He didn't even man up and face the consequences of breaking them under the rubrick of "I thought it was necessary at the time". His solution? Redefine "torture". And "legal". And "acts passed by Congress and signed into law by the President".

Allowing him spend his twilight years "clearing brush" would be a stain on our country and our honor. The man and his closest advisors are criminals, and the Republicans who've blindly defended his every action for the last seven years are scum. Certainly, vote them out come November but we can't allow these misdeeds to go unpunished unless we're prepared to spread our cheeks for each new administration that chooses to define "legal" based on its own interpretation and not what's actually written down.

[SMM]

This is coming from someone who lives in Europe. I have been wondering for years why Bush hasn't been dragged to court by now. All the time we hear about more and more shenanigans he and/or his administration has done, and nobody does a thing. Clinton was dragged to court because he had a blowjob and he didn't feel like sharing that fact with others. Bush started an illegal war under false pretenses. He is responsible for an illegal spy-network that spies on his fellow citizens. He's supporting torture. The list goes on.

Bush and his administration is utterly, 100%, corrupt and wicked. Yet nobody does a thing. Clinton had a blowjob, and all hell broke loose. Where is your sense of priorities?

That sir, is a damn good question. I have been exploring a hypothesis, that the republican corruption runs so deep, it has spread like a cancer, into every American institution. There is currently insufficient resources, within the progressive movement to effect any major change.

When the republicans gained control of Congress, during the Clinton's Presidency, they began to systematically undermine the progress that had been made in the years prior. Two things they did, which were critical are, not acting on President Clinton's judicial nominations and bringing the neo-con christians into government. When Bush came to power, they now had control of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive branch. They rounded up every neo-con they could find (a endless supply seemingly) and placed them in virtually every government department and agency. They completely dismantled government, and made the version they wanted. Forty years of environment work and progress were lost. Departmental oversight was greatly reduced, or just disappeared. They made the Department of Justice and made it the Department of In-justice. It seems like the only thing they go after now are Democrats. They have thumbed their nose at the Constitution and greatly weakened it.

I could go on, but you should get the picture. When the Democrats won back Congress in 2006, they did not have a sufficient majority to overrule Bush's vetoes, which were the order of the day. The republican minority resorted to obstructionism, doing every they could to prevent legislation from even being voted on. That continues to this day.

Finally, the republicans have a marketing slime machine that is always working overtime. It is completely immoral and merciless. A person does not have to do anything. They will fabricate outright lies. The Democratic members of Congress, who went through the years of republican rule, many of them are timid and cowed. Also, many Democrats elected in that timeframe, were really not liberal Democrats. They were moderates, to right leaning. They voted with the republicans and still continue to do so.

From overseas, it may seem like we should just be able to quick remedy the problem. I do not think many fully grasp the magnitude of the American collapse. If we win the white house and get a larger majority in Congress, change can begin. What the republicans have done to America is like what Katrina did to New Orleans. It will take a long time to restore our Country.

[iJohnHenry]

Never happen, there will always be someone to buy and sell in government. They will just find another way to stay hidden. You can never take the lies out of a politician.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

That's because a vast majority of them start their working lives as lawyers.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/prayer.gif

[atszyman]

When the republicans gained control of Congress, during the last part of Clinton's Presidency, they began to systematically undermine the progress that had been made in the six years prior.

Might want to recheck that. Clinton only had 2 years with a Democratic congress. The GOP won the Senate and House in 1994.

1994 Senate Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994)
1994 House Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1994)

[Macmadant]

8 Years too late.

[Macky-Mac]

.... I just think that government is more accountable under a parliamentary system than a presidential one.

I'm not so sure; consider the UK. The Labour party continues in power despite leading the country into a fiasco of a war in Iraq. In what manner have they been held accountable?

[iJohnHenry]

Like Canada, they play the "support our troops" card very well.

We have a Highway Of Heroes phenominum over here that is, to me, perverse.

Mothers, wifes/husbands, children have been deprived of their loved ones, and we make a cerimony of the "repatriation" of their mangled bodies.

[SMM]

Might want to recheck that. Clinton only had 2 years with a Democratic congress. The GOP won the Senate and House in 1994.

1994 Senate Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994)
1994 House Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1994)

Thank you for correcting that - it is never my intention to misspeak facts. I have changed the original post.

[mithrilfox]

This is coming from someone who lives in Europe. I have been wondering for years why Bush hasn't been dragged to court by now. All the time we hear about more and more shenanigans he and/or his administration has done, and nobody does a thing. Clinton was dragged to court because he had a blowjob and he didn't feel like sharing that fact with others. Bush started an illegal war under false pretenses.

Couple important facts. Clinton was not impeached for lying about sexual misconduct; he was impeached for lying under oath and committing the crime of perjury. I want to make sure that is clear.

Second, Bush's war has not been found illegal by any court that has jurisdiction of the issue. How can you call it illegal? You're just guessing, however educated your guess.

Additionally, pretty much EVERYONE voted for the war. That means that these senators and representatives voted for an illegal war, under your definition. What should their punishment be? Additionally, data retrieved came through many cabinet members, and they had a big part in the final decision making process, so what should their punishment be? Kerry basically would have done the same thing as Bush, try to withdraw slowly and methodically to prevent collapse. What should have been Kerry's punishment if he were elected and continued to allow the war for many years?

What should be the punishment of the generals in charge of the war? How about the soldiers who are obligated to refuse an order if it is morally wrong? Should they be punished, too?

Bush and his administration is utterly, 100%, corrupt and wicked. Yet nobody does a thing. Clinton had a blowjob, and all hell broke loose. Where is your sense of priorities?

Bush and his administration are "100%" corrupt and wicked? Wow... It's clear that no more discussion with you will accomplish anything, if you refuse to relinquish that kind of statement. This discussion is clearly over for you; you have decided, and are now just relaying those decisions to everyone us. I don't wish to participate with that kind of discussion.

[.Andy]

I'm done with my statements to you.
You're going to end up just writing long and drawn out posts to yourself at this rate.

[SMM]

Couple important facts. Clinton was not impeached for lying about sexual misconduct; he was impeached for lying under oath and committing the crime of perjury. I want to make sure that is clear.

Second, Bush's war has not been found illegal by any court that has jurisdiction of the issue. How can you call it illegal? You're just guessing, however educated your guess.

Additionally, pretty much EVERYONE voted for the war. That means that these senators and representatives voted for an illegal war, under your definition. What should their punishment be? Additionally, data retrieved came through many cabinet members, and they had a big part in the final decision making process, so what should their punishment be? Kerry basically would have done the same thing as Bush, try to withdraw slowly and methodically to prevent collapse. What should have been Kerry's punishment if he were elected and continued to allow the war for many years?

What should be the punishment of the generals in charge of the war? How about the soldiers who are obligated to refuse an order if it is morally wrong? Should they be punished, too?



Bush and his administration are "100%" corrupt and wicked? Wow... It's clear that no more discussion with you will accomplish anything, if you refuse to relinquish that kind of statement. I'm done with my statements to you.

You can add my name to that list, because all you are doing is mouthing administration talking points. There is so much evidence that completely destroys your arguments, frankly I am embarrassed for people still clinging to these completely uninformed positions. You appear to have formed your position and refuse to look at the facts. And, as a matter of fact, there are several foreign countries who have voiced a desire to try Bush for war crimes.

[Thanatoast]

I just figured it out.

Bush wants to continue the occupation of Iraq. The "not-a-treaty" he's trying to sign within the next month would allow the US military to stay, build bases, conduct maneuvers and grant the military and the mercenaries legal immunity for any damages incurred.

He wants this agreement pushed through quickly because he has to attack Iran before he's booted out of office. Once he strikes Iran, Iran will strike back - in Iraq. With Iran invading Iraq (to attack us) Bush will have his justification for continuing the occupation of Iraq.

What's more, Obama gets handed a giant war that he can't possibly get out of without simply withdrawing or becoming a "cheese-eating-surrender-monkey". The reactionaries will insist that we have to stay, and that we didn't start the war, Iran did. And the military-industrial complex gets fed for the next decade on the corpses of Americans, Iraqis and Iranians. That doesn't even include whatever unintentional side wars occur in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the like.

If this happens, we're ****ed.

[posted in the attack Iran thread as well]

[Macky-Mac]

Today the House sent Kuninich's articles of impeachment to a committee (from a report at CQ Politics); The House sent articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee Wednesday on a mostly party-line vote: 251-166.

Dennis J. Kucinich , D-Ohio, said he introduced the measure (H Res 1258) because he believes there had been “abuses of power” during the run-up to the Iraq War.

Kucinich previously introduced impeachment measures against Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333, H Res 799).

The Judiciary Committee has allowed those to languish without any committee consideration.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. , D‑Mich., has not said whether he will convene hearings on the latest impeachment effort, which Democratic leaders consider an unnecessary election year distraction.

Kucinich said that if the Judiciary Committee does not act within 30 days, he intends to introduce another, longer version of the articles of impeachment, with 60 counts instead of 35.

“I am not going to let this go. I am not going to let it go. I’ll just keep coming back and they can pile these things up in committee but I’ll keep coming back,” Kucinich said. “I’ll bring it up again, and there will be more. There will be more....

the rest of the report is here CQ Politics report (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002895043)

[obeygiant]

Here are the articles of impeachment which I never saw a link to:

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes.

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq.

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources.

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries.

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq.

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors.

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives.

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture.

Article XX
Imprisoning Children.

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government.

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws.

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens.

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements.

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply.

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice.

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare.

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency.

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change.

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001.

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.Political Gateway (http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/153236)



You can add my name to that list, because all you are doing is mouthing administration talking points. There is so much evidence that completely destroys your arguments, frankly I am embarrassed for people still clinging to these completely uninformed positions. You appear to have formed your position and refuse to look at the facts. And, as a matter of fact, there are several foreign countries who have voiced a desire to try Bush for war crimes.

SMM, it's funny you should accuse mithrilfox of "mouthing admin talking points" when your avatar is Bush in hell devouring the earth. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and mithrilfox has stated his, and you've responded with veiled insults.

While Bush isn't the greatest president ever, many of these articles aren't so concise as "perjury to a grand jury under oath" as per the Clinton Impeachment. Secret Propaganda Campaign and Secret Laws? Do you really think these will pass thru the house and senate?

I'm no constitutional lawyer but don't they have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush is personally responsible for these things?

[mithrilfox]

You can add my name to that list, because all you are doing is mouthing administration talking points. There is so much evidence that completely destroys your arguments, frankly I am embarrassed for people still clinging to these completely uninformed positions. You appear to have formed your position and refuse to look at the facts. And, as a matter of fact, there are several foreign countries who have voiced a desire to try Bush for war crimes.

I don't want to add names unnecessarily. You don't seem that unreasonable, although you're very strong-willed on this matter.

Please point the individual points where you think I am mistaken, and briefly explain why. I'll look at it and consider it.

But I don't see anything I said as "wrong." Bush has NOT been tried for any crimes by ANY court to my knowledge, much less a court with legal jurisdiction. Kofi Annan is NOT a judge and cannot make judicial declarations. I didn't say whether I think it was legal or not, I am just saying some things that I believe to be simple facts.

Additionally, Clinton was NOT specifically put on trial for "lying about sex," but about lying under oath, otherwise known as the crime of perjury. Whether others had ulterior motives or not, he was legally tried for a valid case where it was substantially possible that he had lied under oath. He later APOLOGIZED for the lie, and evidence came to light as well. There's no question that he was guilty of the crime, but in the end it was not enough to remove him from office.

Where am I wrong in these statements? Please point them out for me.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Democrats are going to have to answer on why they wont hold Bush accountable for anything. By giving Bush a free pass they are screwing themself. I still say we should throw them ALL out!

[atszyman]

Couple important facts. Clinton was not impeached for lying about sexual misconduct; he was impeached for lying under oath and committing the crime of perjury. I want to make sure that is clear.


Additionally, Clinton was NOT specifically put on trial for "lying about sex," but about lying under oath, otherwise known as the crime of perjury. Whether others had ulterior motives or not, he was legally tried for a valid case where it was substantially possible that he had lied under oath. He later APOLOGIZED for the lie, and evidence came to light as well. There's no question that he was guilty of the crime, but in the end it was not enough to remove him from office.

You are not wrong but the only reason he was being questioned about his sex life under oath was due to a broad and expensive investigation into his financial and personal affairs in an attempt to try and find anything that the GOP could use against him.

Should he have lied? No, and he would have had a difficult time regardless of the lie, but it's not like everyone expected him to be a saint, since his sex life had come up before. However I do understand the desire to keep that matter private. Does perjury about one's private life constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor that is used as the bar for impeachment? That's a debatable question.

If there is all of this suspicion as to whether or not any of Bush's mistakes/missteps were actually intentional, I think we should appoint an independent investigator to look into these charges. Sure it will cost money but if it's all as obvious as some here believe it to be then it shouldn't be a long drawn out investigation. If the investigation turns up enough evidence then I say go ahead and impeach and prove that Congress can exercise it's Constitutional oversight duties even when under Democratic control. If they keep sitting back doing nothing it's only a matter of time 6-8 more years, before they Democrats start getting painted as indecisive and spineless and start losing their loose grip on Congress.

[leekohler]

You are not wrong but the only reason he was being questioned about his sex life under oath was due to a broad and expensive investigation into his financial and personal affairs in an attempt to try and find anything that the GOP could use against him.

Should he have lied? No, and he would have had a difficult time regardless of the lie, but it's not like everyone expected him to be a saint, since his sex life had come up before. However I do understand the desire to keep that matter private. Does perjury about one's private life constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor that is used as the bar for impeachment? That's a debatable question.

If there is all of this suspicion as to whether or not any of Bush's mistakes/missteps were actually intentional, I think we should appoint an independent investigator to look into these charges. Sure it will cost money but if it's all as obvious as some here believe it to be then it shouldn't be a long drawn out investigation. If the investigation turns up enough evidence then I say go ahead and impeach and prove that Congress can exercise it's Constitutional oversight duties even when under Democratic control. If they keep sitting back doing nothing it's only a matter of time 6-8 more years, before they Democrats start getting painted as indecisive and spineless and start losing their loose grip on Congress.

Exactly. All we're asking is that the government do it's job. There's a lot of questions that need answering. And dammit, for once we'd better get answers.

To mithrilfox- so am I to assume you think that investigating a President about private matters is OK, while investigating a President about public affairs that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands isn't? I think I already know your answer, and a simple yes or no will do. Anything else is dodging.

[Macky-Mac]

Exactly. All we're asking is that the government do it's job. There's a lot of questions that need answering. And dammit, for once we'd better get answers.

To mithrilfox- so am I to assume you think that investigating a President about private matters is OK, while investigating a President about public affairs that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands isn't? I think I already know your answer, and a simple yes or no will do. Anything else is dodging.

When it comes to "investigating a president", Congress has plenty of options other than impeachment.

The Clinton impeachment was little more than a show trial for political reason. Would impeaching Bush be any different?

[atszyman]

When it comes to "investigating a president", Congress has plenty of options other than impeachment.

The Clinton impeachment was little more than a show trial for political reason. Would impeaching Bush be any different?

If there is strong enough evidence that the "screw-ups" were intentional and criminal then impeaching Bush would be very different. Rather than a lie that really only had an effect on his wife and family, Bush's alleged criminal activity cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. If the evidence is there and Clinton set the precedent that perjury is a high crime worthy of Impeachment then not impeaching would be complete dereliction of duty on the part of Congress.

Of course if he gets out without any charges and there is sufficient evidence of a crime being committed I fear the day we get another president like Bush who gets to start with Bush's expanded executive powers.

[mactastic]

Couple important facts. Clinton was not impeached for lying about sexual misconduct; he was impeached for lying under oath and committing the crime of perjury. I want to make sure that is clear.
Glad to know we both think perjury is such a terrible crime. And since it is, wouldn't you agree that people who are convicted of such crimes should serve their sentences?

Wouldn't it be extremely unseemly for a president of the party who insisted that perjury was such an extreme crime as to warrant impeachment of a sitting president to allow someone serving in his own administration to escape a jail term for the crime of perjury?

I'd also point out that Clinton was never convicted of perjury; only that he was charged with it.

[solvs]

but I also don't actively hate him or encourage the smear and hate campaigns.
You really think this is just some sort of unjustified hatred, a smear campaign?

We got to have serious, hard core evidence of actual crimes committed
Which is what the investigations would be for.

Even IF the impeachment process begins... there is no chance it would result in the removal of President Bush.
All it has to do is show there's some oversight and that they're actually investigating what's been going on, even if nothing solid comes of it, at least they are investigating what we already know is there.

Well, history allows us to look back with 20/20 vision. Bush's two terms are almost up, and yet here we are, still alive, no nuclear war, no end of the world, no dissolution of all ties to the US by the UN .. or hardly any ties at all.
You think everyone who dislikes Bush, whether they can defend it with proof or not, actually believes any of this? Seems like a strawman to me. Most of us have legitimate reasons to dislike them.

After he's gone, the doomdays sayers will feel just a little bit dumber for having proclaimed the horribleness, and yet it just doesn't come to be.
I don't know, I think we already do have enough horribleness.

It's been debated
It really hasn't.

Instead of wasting time trying to impeach a president that will be out of office in seven months, how about Congressman Kucinich and Congress as a whole work to solve some of our country's current problems... Surely working on the economy, or lowering fuel prices, or figuring out what to do in Iraq is more important.
As if they can only do one thing at a time and aren't doing any of this, nor are being blocked by most of the GOP and some of the Blue Dog Dems when they try to.

Of course I'm anxious to see what happens if Obama wins and tries to use some of Bush's expanded executive powers? Do you think any of the GOP pundits' heads will explode? Are we going to be allowed to use "b..b..but Bush did it first" as a valid defense any time they attack Obama? or are we going to be held to a higher standard?
I joke that it'll be nice to have a Dem back as Pres for if no better reason than we can criticize them without being called a terrorist or unAmerican or something, but we all know the answer to those questions.

So, how come this HUGE story has not gotten any attention from the mainstream media?
Good question. The Daily Show mentioned it. And mentioned that almost no one else is mentioning it. Terrorist fist jabs are more important apparently.

More reason to get independent thinkers involved. The party line is what is killing this country.
You shouldn't have to be a liberal to dislike everything this administration has done.

Additionally, pretty much EVERYONE voted for the war.
Based on different intelligence than what the administration saw. Despite what the administration keeps saying. Not to mention the post 9/11 mentality, the constant rhetoric of a threat of attack, and the worry over loosing their jobs, which some still did. I don't defend them. They should have seen what many of us did from the beginning. But even if we're angry at them, which we should be, they just voted for it, they weren't the ones who presented it, then executed it.

Kerry basically would have done the same thing as Bush, try to withdraw slowly and methodically to prevent collapse.
Well, first of all, I doubt Kerry or Gore would have done what Bush did, and I doubt as badly. They probably would have continued what Clinton started. You do know he never stopped bombing Iraq right? And the sanctions? Not saying that was perfect either, he made a lot of mistakes too. Especially when he gave in to claims of wagging the dog to distract from the scandals. But I doubt he, or any of them, would have gotten anywhere near the quagmire we're in now. Bush Sr. didn't even do things that bad. And while Kerry wouldn't have been able to fix anything right away in Iraq were he elected in '04, and sure he might have made things worse too, I doubt we'd have the current escalation they're still trying to say is working even though it hasn't accomplished anything it was supposed to and at least we'd be working out some way to leave Iraq.

What should be the punishment of the generals in charge of the war? How about the soldiers who are obligated to refuse an order if it is morally wrong? Should they be punished, too?
Now you're just throwing out ridiculous strawmen again, because, as you even said, they were just following orders. Now, if those orders were against the laws and they didn't say anything to anyone else, sure, they can be prosecuted. It's already happening with things like torture, where they're getting the blame even though we have evidence it came from the top. In an investigation, we could actually help them, since instead of being thrown under the bus for playing "good soldier" they can get partial immunity for proving they were following orders, not perpetrating the acts on their own as is being alleged.

Bush and his administration are "100%" corrupt and wicked?
Name 1 thing they've done right.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. They have evidence against him. They should at least investigate it. He's more unpopular than Clinton was when the GOP didn't stop to worry about playing politics. More support impeachment against Bush. And Dems are looked down on because they're perceived, often correctly, as weak. If they do this against such an unpopular Pres, especially if they find even more, who's going to be mad? Those who wouldn't support the Dems anyway? Moderates who may not know exactly what Bush has done wrong, that investigations would show? I just want oversight. Be happy with what little we get.

And to think I used to be upset over lying over a bj. :rolleyes:

[obeygiant]

More support impeachment against Bush.

Impeachment is so popular its going to die a slow death in committee.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee.

He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee, to which it was referred Wednesday, doesn’t act on it.

“This one’s coming back from the dead in 30 days,” Kucinich said after the referral vote Wednesday. “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
Asked who those members were, he replied, “You’ll see.”

Democratic House leaders have been fending off impeachment efforts from Kucinich and left-wing activists since taking office more than a year ago. Republicans suffered politically from the impeachment of President Clinton, and Democratic leaders say they don’t want to be bogged down in messy impeachment proceedings.

Kucinich also has a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, which has been bottled up in committee since May 2007. The measure had 27 co-sponsors.

Kucinich’s 35-article impeachment of Bush has no co-sponsors, though several members were said to be planning to sign on Wednesday.

Kucinich himself made the motion to send it to the committee, saying his detailed allegations should be weighed in a hearing.

“Thirty days is a reasonable amount of time, not 30 minutes” of debate on the floor, he said. Attempts to get comment from committee officials on whether there will be a hearing were unsuccessful.

The vote on referral occurred without debate Wednesday. All Democrats voted to refer the bill, but Republicans split.

Most voted no, in an effort to highlight the ability of the “loony left,” in the words of a Republican aide, to force a debate and distract the House from pressing issues like gas prices and funding for the Iraq war. Democratic aides called the attempt to force a debate “a political stunt.”

But House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) had originally recommended a yes vote on referral, and some Republicans still voted yes, saying they wanted it gone.

“I believe the impeachment resolution is beyond ludicrous. Even the five minutes we spent on it were a waste of time,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas). “I wanted it off the floor and dealt with.”

linky (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-kucinich-not-giving-up-on-bush-impeachment-2008-06-11.html)

I think most people are more concerned with the economy and gas prices than a president who will be gone in 6 months and impeachment proceedings that smell of a PR stunt.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thats just like our Govt, lets not hold anyone accountable for anything, who care's we have a trillion dollar war, No Wmds,illegal spying,torture and holding people for years with no charges.Who care Bin Laden is still free, Might as well throw away the Constitution because this president & Congress dont use it.

[obeygiant]

Thats just like our Govt, lets not hold anyone accountable for anything, who care's we have a trillion dollar war, No Wmds,illegal spying,torture and holding people for years with no charges.Who care Bin Laden is still free, Might as well throw away the Constitution because this president & Congress dont use it.

BTW, speaking of accountability, the quote in your signature was from Richard Jackson.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."wikiquotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

:)

[Rodimus Prime]

Impeachment is so popular its going to die a slow death in committee.

linky (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-kucinich-not-giving-up-on-bush-impeachment-2008-06-11.html)

I think most people are more concerned with the economy and gas prices than a president who will be gone in 6 months and impeachment proceedings that smell of a PR stunt.

That is my though on it. It is nothing more than 100% per politics. All it will do is make things worse for the economy not better. reason being is by the time everything is all said and done he would be out of office any how. It would turn out to be a huge waste of time and money. It would hurt the economy even more.

It will piss off a lot of people not make them happy. It will do a heck of a lot more harm than good. It sends a message of politics play the most important factor.

This would make 3 presidents in a lot of people life time that have gone though impeachment or going to though them which starts showing politics play a role more than the truth. Of those 3 Nixon more than likely would of been the only one really worth the trouble at getting kick out of office. The others it pure politics plan and simple.

[Prof.]

If Clinton got impeached for getting a %& in the oval office, I'm sure we can have Bush impeached.

Can you impeach someone for being dumb ass?

:p

[solvs]

Impeachment is so popular its going to die a slow death in committee.
I was talking about the people, not Congress. ;) We all know Congress won't do anything. One of the reasons why they're so unpopular if you really look at the polls and what they're saying. If you really look at what people are feeling right now, they aren't happy with Bush, and really aren't happy with Cheney. I don't see how investigations into what they're doing that are pissing people off is going to turn anyone off except those who won't be supporting the Dems anyway. Call it a waste of money all you want, not like that can be used as a defense after the Clinton investigations anyway, but considering all the administration has been doing, don't you want at least a little oversight? :confused: Isn't that what Congress is for? To balance the other offices? Especially when they're abusing their positions?

And yes, of course it's political posturing. Kucinich's seat was in trouble because he was distracted by his futile efforts for the Presidency. Guessing he thought this could give him a boost. Maybe they should stop posturing, but should also stop worrying so much about political fallout and just do their jobs. Which includes oversight BTW. Saying they shouldn't even be looking into this, considering everything we already know about what the administration has done, well I just don't understand that. We can spend like crazy in Iraq, but we can't spend a little more to see what we're doing there and why? And what abuses are occurring that we didn't even know about? Why wouldn't we?

[Rodimus Prime]

I was talking about the people, not Congress. ;) We all know Congress won't do anything. One of the reasons why they're so unpopular if you really look at the polls and what they're saying. If you really look at what people are feeling right now, they aren't happy with Bush, and really aren't happy with Cheney. I don't see how investigations into what they're doing that are pissing people off is going to turn anyone off except those who won't be supporting the Dems anyway. Call it a waste of money all you want, not like that can be used as a defense after the Clinton investigations anyway, but considering all the administration has been doing, don't you want at least a little oversight? :confused: Isn't that what Congress is for? To balance the other offices? Especially when they're abusing their positions?

And yes, of course it's political posturing. Kucinich's seat was in trouble because he was distracted by his futile efforts for the Presidency. Guessing he thought this could give him a boost. Maybe they should stop posturing, but should also stop worrying so much about political fallout and just do their jobs. Which includes oversight BTW. Saying they shouldn't even be looking into this, considering everything we already know about what the administration has done, well I just don't understand that. We can spend like crazy in Iraq, but we can't spend a little more to see what we're doing there and why? And what abuses are occurring that we didn't even know about? Why wouldn't we?


See the reason I am against it and think it per political is 6 months - 1 year ago it would of been a better idea because then Bush would of been kick out of office before the end of his term. Now it a per political stunt and the real motivation behind it is not because Bush did things wrong but because it for politically and election.

Why else would they wait until this close to elections to go though with it.

[Thanatoast]

*Not* impeaching Bush is pure politics.

Impeaching Bush in order to find out whether he lied to us in order to start a war that's cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is not only called for, it's actually part of Congress' job description.

[themadchemist]

*Not* impeaching Bush is pure politics.

Impeaching Bush in order to find out whether he lied to us in order to start a war that's cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is not only called for, it's actually part of Congress' job description.

You're absolutely right; not impeaching Bush is pure politics. Impeaching Bush is largely about what you're saying above, plus a little bit of (misguided) politics. Sadly, Congress is not a court of law and has mainly non-judicial priorities. Therefore, impeachment must be weighed against the legislative responsibilities of Congress to determine what course of action is the most effective use of public funds and political capital.

[Rodimus Prime]

*Not* impeaching Bush is pure politics.

Impeaching Bush in order to find out whether he lied to us in order to start a war that's cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is not only called for, it's actually part of Congress' job description.



If that is the case then explain to me it takes until now to bother doing anything. Why was it not done 6 months to a year ago. instead of just a few months before the elections and when he has about 6 months left in office. This effectly makes it per political because by the time anything is finished Bush term will be up.

[SMM]

If that is the case then explain to me it takes until now to bother doing anything. Why was it not done 6 months to a year ago. instead of just a few months before the elections and when he has about 6 months left in office. This effectly makes it per political because by the time anything is finished Bush term will be up.

It is important to bear in mind, much of the evidence against Bush, has only become available recently. That coupled with the fact, the DoJ, who should have investigated many of these charges, is no more than the administration's investigation force. In fact, they have their dirty little mitts involved in many of them.

With that being said, Congress has been taking a very conservative position on the whole thing (with a few notable exceptions). I can understand their reluctance, even though I do not agree with it.

Finally, there is a fact few people are aware of. After Ken Starr's prolonged witch-hunt against President Clinton, the House rules were changed, and the House no longer has authority to appoint a special prosecutor. That was left to the DoJ. While few want to see a repeat of what Starr did, which really was no investigation at all. Yet, it is now evident that the rules change was too quick, and not the best way to solve the problem. They should have modified the rules governing the use of the special prosecutor, even perhaps limiting the scope of what could be investigated. The net result is, if the DoJ refuses to do their job, the ability to perform a thorough investigation has lost some of its teeth.

[mithrilfox]

You are not wrong but the only reason he was being questioned about his sex life under oath was due to a broad and expensive investigation into his financial and personal affairs in an attempt to try and find anything that the GOP could use against him.

That is one opinion, and I don't want to say it's right or wrong, but it is only one opinion.

Does perjury about one's private life constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor that is used as the bar for impeachment? That's a debatable question.

Once again, trivializing the issue is the name of the game with Clinton's impeachment. Clinton lied under oath in front of a grand jury. There are reasons courts ask the questions they do, and whether or not you thought the question appropriate, the court considered it relevant to the case at hand. Clinton's perjury was a crime, plain and simple. No debate, no sides to the issue discussing whether it was illegal or not; it was.


If they keep sitting back doing nothing it's only a matter of time 6-8 more years, before they Democrats start getting painted as indecisive and spineless and start losing their loose grip on Congress.

Democrats losing (lose, not "loose") their grip on Congress is fine by me. Republicans losing it is also fine by me, as long as it is for the right reason. Democrats in control is not necessarily a good thing, and they screw a lot of things up as a party.

[SMM]

That is one opinion, and I don't want to say it's right or wrong, but it is only one opinion.



Once again, trivializing the issue is the name of the game with Clinton's impeachment. Clinton lied under oath in front of a grand jury. There are reasons courts ask the questions they do, and whether or not you thought the question appropriate, the court considered it relevant to the case at hand. Clinton's perjury was a crime, plain and simple. No debate, no sides to the issue discussing whether it was illegal or not; it was.



Democrats losing (lose, not "loose") their grip on Congress is fine by me. Republicans losing it is also fine by me, as long as it is for the right reason. Democrats in control is not necessarily a good thing, and they screw a lot of things up as a party.

1) No, it is not 'one opinion'. It is the majority opinion.

2) The court was not asking the questions, it was Ken Starr and he was out to get Clinton, at any cost.

3) Now that is one opinion. The documented and visual evidence, right in front of our faces, leaves little doubt as to the total disaster of republican rule.

[Iscariot]

Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict.

[SMM]

Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict.

Why don't you do your own homework? You can easily find the full transcript of the articles of impeachment. They are very well documented and will give you all of the information you need. It would be a daunting task to repeat it here. Consider this, it took him 4 hours to read it in the House. It is very detailed and includes the charges, and a considerable amount of evidence. You may find other members willing to answer your question. If you just want an 'executive summary', go my post on this very thread (#52). You can listen to Keith's interview with Georgetown's constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley.

[Iscariot]

Why don't you do your own homework?

Nice. Certainly an appropriate and tempered response to a completely non-partisan and wholly unassuming request for you to provide evidence for an impeachment maneuver.

[SMM]

Nice. Certainly an appropriate and tempered response to a completely non-partisan and wholly unassuming request for you to provide evidence for an impeachment maneuver.

Iscariot, I did answer your question, and told you why it would be a very time consuming task to properly respond to what you wanted. If the detailed information is omitted, it will just create a fertile ground for disagreement. I provided you with two good sources to have your question answered in full detail. That is your best option to get the answers you want. I listened to 30 of the 35 articles on C-Span. Posting any one of them would take up nearly a page on the board. I did not have any personal attack agenda, when I made my post, and thought I explained my reluctance to repeat the information, which is easily available. I am sorry if you took this personally.

[Iscariot]

Iscariot, I did answer your question

You didn't, really. Post #52 links to a video, of which I have (already) read the transcript. Turley alludes to the case being "made", as well as detailing how some of the offenses listed are not impeachable. But other than very broad statements, even in this supposedly "target rich" environment, he's not making one solid and straight-forward argument. It's as if they're throwing everything they have and are hoping something will "stick".

If impeachment is such a no-brainer with the evidence currently held, then surely a single concrete offense can be laid out in less than 4 hours. Surely of the 35 articles, at least one must stand out and can be presented here.

Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict.

This is, interestingly similar to "name one thing President Bush has done right".

[themadchemist]

Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict.

Despite everyone's continued insistence that this is some sort of clear and methodical judicial proceeding, I think that Gerald Ford had it right in 1970:

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." (University of Texas (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/700415f.htm))

[sushi]

It's as if they're throwing everything they have and are hoping something will "stick".

If impeachment is such a no-brainer with the evidence currently held, then surely a single concrete offense can be laid out in less than 4 hours. Surely of the 35 articles, at least one must stand out and can be presented here.

Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict.

This is, interestingly similar to "name one thing President Bush has done right".
Most interesting observation.

Despite everyone's continued insistence that this is some sort of clear and methodical judicial proceeding, I think that Gerald Ford had it right in 1970:

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." (University of Texas (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/700415f.htm))
Probably more correct than we would like to think.

Politics...

[Iscariot]

Despite everyone's continued insistence that this is some sort of clear and methodical judicial proceeding, I think that Gerald Ford had it right in 1970:

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." (University of Texas (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/700415f.htm))

That is a small portion of what I'm driving at, yes.

[Macky-Mac]

....Those in favour of impeachment, please give me one concrete example of an impeachable offense that Congress is in position to properly convict....

It takes 67 votes to "properly convict" in the Senate trial that follows impeachment and the votes simply aren't there.

[obeygiant]

Kucinich on the O'Reilly Factor about the impeachment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgbYgAfVh0A

[leekohler]

Kucinich on the O'Reilly Factor about the impeachment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgbYgAfVh0A

I can't believe I just wasted minutes of my life watching that. O'Reilly is a turd.

[obeygiant]

I can't believe I just wasted minutes of my life watching that. O'Reilly is a turd.



**** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!! rofl

[themadchemist]

Kucinich on the O'Reilly Factor about the impeachment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgbYgAfVh0A

Wow, new respect for Kucinich. He is a man of great patience.

[iJohnHenry]

Patience does not play well to the drooling masses.

O'Reilly knows his audience, and his sponsors even better.

[skunk]

Patience does not play well to the drooling masses.We are all members of the drooling masses, and we would do well to remember that.

[blackfox]

We are all members of the drooling masses, and we would do well to remember that.

My bib and sippy-cup are right by my wallet and cellphone.

[skunk]

My bib and sippy-cup are right by my wallet and cellphone.Glad to hear it: there's nothing worse than a wallet covered in drool.

[obeygiant]

Glad to hear it: there's nothing worse than a wallet covered in drool.

Actually my wife somehow got her wallet soaked in Orange Juice. That was a sticky mess.

[skunk]

Actually my wife somehow got her wallet soaked in Orange Juice. That was a sticky mess.OK, there are one or two things worse than a wallet covered in drool. :rolleyes:

[iJohnHenry]

We are all members of the drooling masses, and we would do well to remember that.

Speak for yourself.

That is ahead for me.

:rolleyes:

[solvs]

because then Bush would of been kick out of office before the end of his term.
It's not even about Bush being kicked out of office, which won't happen, it's about the investigations that aren't happening but should.

Most interesting observation.
You never did name an actual good thing he's done.

For those who are still wondering what actual case could be made, I'm guessing you haven't read the Case For Impeachment (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Impeachment-Argument-Removing-President/dp/0312360169), seen the PBS video (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html) from last year, or read the Wiki (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush). The case can be made for it, and they've definitely done enough to at least be investigated. The Downing (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) Street (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1) Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo) itself should have been enough. But the Dems deserver their reputations for being wussies who don't do enough, and when they do it's far too little far too late. Of course it's political posturing (http://www.theseminal.com/2008/06/12/why-impeachment-is-good-electoral-strategy/), though as said, not holding investigations is playing politics too.

Though I do also find it funny that those who support the political posturing against Clinton have such a problem with what should be an obvious case against the Bush administration.

[Iscariot]

You never did name an actual good thing he's done.

Nor have has anyone for this question.

Though I do also find it funny that those who support the political posturing against Clinton have such a problem with what should be an obvious case against the Bush administration.

Stupid as Clinton's impeachment was, they actually had him on committing perjury.

[atszyman]

Stupid as Clinton's impeachment was, they actually had him on committing perjury.

But they only got him on perjury after a lengthy and expensive investigation into his personal affairs and they only managed to catch him lying about something almost anyone would lie about when put on public display.

Whether or not that instance of perjury constituted an infraction worthy of impeachment is debatable.

However, solvs, myself and others here are simply asking for investigations that aren't happening. Surely you can at least admit that the investigations are warranted, or even required if Congress were actually doing it's job?

[Iscariot]

Surely you can at least admit that the investigations are warranted, or even required if Congress were actually doing it's job?

An investigation might actually get somewhere. These articles of impeachment are nothing but a silly waste of time, and their lack of tooth is indicative of the Democrats massive failure to their constituents and America. Of course, investigations might implicate the Democrats, so, there it is.

Your country was not hijacked by the Republicans.

[leekohler]

Your country was not hijacked by the Republicans.

Nope- it was hijacked by Neocons.

[Macky-Mac]

It's not even about Bush being kicked out of office, which won't happen, it's about the investigations that aren't happening but should.
.....

Given the realities of the politic divide in Congress, is there any surer way to prevent these investigations from happening than to put them forward as part of an impeachment resolution?

Anyway, are you saying that the oversight committee under Henry Waxman isn't actually investigating so many of these things? Am I remembering wrong when I recall that you've provided link after link to reports related to his investigations?

[Iscariot]

Nope- it was hijacked by Neocons.

So Congress, the media and political anaylists came down with some kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome?

[skunk]

Nope- it was hijacked by Neocons.Willingly hijacked. Supinely hijacked. It assoomed the position.

[Gelfin]

Nope- it was hijacked by Neocons.

QFT. I've often said that I'm not strictly opposed to Republicans. I only hope that I live long enough to get an opportunity to vote for one.

Through all this, I've never quite understood why Republicans haven't rioted. If the Imperialist Theocrat party is so popular in the United States, let them run under their own brand instead of hijacking an existing one. It's like somebody came through and filled Coke cans with sewage, and Coke drinkers shrugged and said, "can says Coke, so I must like it."

[leekohler]

So Congress, the media and political anaylists came down with some kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome?

Wow- things must really be different in Canada. I want to live there. You really seem to think that the population here is smarter than they actually are.

The answer to your question is "yes".

[mithrilfox]

1) No, it is not 'one opinion'. It is the majority opinion.

Even despite all the dislike for Bush, he won the presidency for the second term. To say it's the "majority" position is an impossible OPINION to prove. Polls only poll the people who come to them or are found by them, which is not necessarily representative of the general population.



2) The court was not asking the questions, it was Ken Starr and he was out to get Clinton, at any cost.

Despite what people feel Ken Starr's goals were, he was chosen to pursue the issue. Clinton lied to a grand jury, which is a crime; it's called perjury. Whether the rest of the issue was handled properly or not is not the question; Clinton DID commit a clear crime.

3) Now that is one opinion. The documented and visual evidence, right in front of our faces, leaves little doubt as to the total disaster of republican rule.

It does not. There is just far too much that factors into play here to label it as a "Republican failure." Additionally, even if that were true, it would only mean it was Bush and some other congressmen. You would label the entire party at fault for the actions of a few? I don't believe that is true, but if it is, you are practicing a very obvious and common type of discrimination: penalize the majority of people with a label because of a few who also share that label.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Republican party is at fault here and has been a failure, they allowed Bush everything with no oversite. No matter what he did he was given a pass, The Constitution doesnt say a President can do anything he wants with signing statements yet this is what he has done. Throw out all the Republicans is a good first step to taking back our country from these elite.

Then the next step is to throw out all the democrats, make partys illegal and eliminate the prostitution ring known as Congress.

Get regular working people making decisions for this country and perhaps we can straighten this out but as long as Greedy corporations run greedy Constitution ignoring politicians/lawyers we are Doomed.

$$$ is the root of all evil.

Yes we have had a Republican failure, its called Iraq.

[themadchemist]

Then the next step is to throw out all the democrats, make partys illegal and eliminate the prostitution ring known as Congress.

Get regular working people making decisions for this country and perhaps we can straighten this out but as long as Greedy corporations run greedy Constitution ignoring politicians/lawyers we are Doomed.


How do you plan to manage that one?

[Dont Hurt Me]

How do you plan to manage that one?
Got me but this was our forfathers thought. They didnt plan for our govt to be made up of Bought off Lawyers.

[Iscariot]

QFT. I've often said that I'm not strictly opposed to Republicans. I only hope that I live long enough to get an opportunity to vote for one.

Through all this, I've never quite understood why Republicans haven't rioted. If the Imperialist Theocrat party is so popular in the United States, let them run under their own brand instead of hijacking an existing one. It's like somebody came through and filled Coke cans with sewage, and Coke drinkers shrugged and said, "can says Coke, so I must like it."

While I agree with the latter and the Coke analogy, I really have to disagree with the idea that the country was "hijacked" by Neocons. A more fitting analogy would be falling asleep at the wheel. "Hijacked" by XXX ignores the culpability of the entire system and the American people who were along for the ride.

Wow- things must really be different in Canada. I want to live there. You really seem to think that the population here is smarter than they actually are.

Different perhaps, but I don't know if things are necessarily better. I think that the difference in the quality of general education as well as certain social factors like religious fundamentalism and the perception of rural traditions plays a role in crafting any sort of "difference". However, right now we have a very weak and secretive government, and voter apathy is at or very near an all time high. I'm hesitant to believe that a Canada with the same level of economic and military might would act in a significantly more responsible manner.

[solvs]

Nor have has anyone for this question.
Well, I'm not really arguing it, again more just the investigations, but it's there in the links I gave.

Though the Downing Street memo should have been enough.

Stupid as Clinton's impeachment was, they actually had him on committing perjury.
They did, and I won't defend it, especially considering how mad I was at the time about it.

Given the realities of the politic divide in Congress, is there any surer way to prevent these investigations from happening than to put them forward as part of an impeachment resolution?
I guess not.

Anyway, are you saying that the oversight committee under Henry Waxman isn't actually investigating so many of these things? Am I remembering wrong when I recall that you've provided link after link to reports related to his investigations?
I'm not saying there are no investigations. There have been. But there are more that should have been, yet still aren't. Nor do they seem to go anywhere even if there is an investigation. A few fines here and there, maybe even a bunch of administration officials having to step down. But then we go right back to normal. I don't know what I should expect, but it should be more than what we've been getting.

Senate Dems won’t block FISA compromise (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-dems-wont-block-fisa-compromise-2008-06-17.html)

[SMM]

Different perhaps, but I don't know if things are necessarily better. I think that the difference in the quality of general education as well as certain social factors like religious fundamentalism and the perception of rural traditions plays a role in crafting any sort of "difference". However, right now we have a very weak and secretive government, and voter apathy is at or very near an all time high. I'm hesitant to believe that a Canada with the same level of economic and military might would act in a significantly more responsible manner.



Is this influenced by pressure from the US?

[Iscariot]

Is this influenced by pressure from the US?

It'd be pretty hard to determine which social factors are necessarily from US influence, but there is certainly a significant amount of economic and politic influence coming from South of the border right now.

[Iscariot]

Report: Exams reveal abuse, torture of detainees

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured, according to medical examinations detailed in a report released Wednesday by a human rights group.

The Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached that conclusion after two-day clinical evaluations of 11 former detainees, who had been held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan.

The detainees were never charged with crimes.

There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html)

[solvs]

An article that furthers what we were talking about:

Time for a Grand Inquest into Bush's High Crimes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/time-for-a-grand-inquest_b_109021.html)

And more on another why:

Audit: DOJ Weeded Out Liberals, Dems (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/national/main4205538.shtml)

Illegally using the DOJ, beyond the political appointees, for partisan politics.

[solvs]

Speaking of impeachable offenses:

Rove Rips NYT For Outing CIA Agent’s Identity And ‘Putting Our Country At Risk’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/rove-nyt-cia-agent/)
Rove critical of NY Times for ‘outing’ CIA agent (http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/25/rove-critical-of-ny-times-for-outing-cia-agent/)

Really? :confused:

[Cleverboy]

How about misrepresenting and fabricating intelligence to start a war that has killed thousands of americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars? We've now seen the intelligence Bush saw, and it doesn't say what he told us it did.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. Unfortunately, you can't impeach a President for stupidity. Worse, you can't impeach a president for incompetence. As for intentionally misleading the American public as a pretense for a disastrous war, refer to my last post... we need a smoking gun, or prepare to be slain by the mindless pablum of an army of lawyers. Even Bill Clinton tried to redefine one of the shortest words in the English language. Bush, for what its worth, has a wee-bit of more wiggle room.

~ CB

[Macky-Mac]

Unfortunately, you can't impeach a President for stupidity.....

aw heck, you can impeach a president for anything if you can get enough congressmen to vote for it. Basically, they get to decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense

[Thanatoast]

Unfortunately, you can't impeach a President for stupidity. Worse, you can't impeach a president for incompetence. As for intentionally misleading the American public as a pretense for a disastrous war, refer to my last post... we need a smoking gun, or prepare to be slain by the mindless pablum of an army of lawyers. Even Bill Clinton tried to redefine one of the shortest words in the English language. Bush, for what its worth, has a wee-bit of more wiggle room.

~ CB
Are you kidding? How much more evidence do you need than literally inventing reasons to go to war? Using "intelligence" from a known liar? Telling us certain people met others when he *knew* they didn't? Heck, even incompetence counts when you frakking kill soldiers! Literally. That's still a high crime.

[Iscariot]

Are you kidding? How much more evidence do you need than literally inventing reasons to go to war? Using "intelligence" from a known liar? Telling us certain people met others when he *knew* they didn't? Heck, even incompetence counts when you frakking kill soldiers! Literally. That's still a high crime.

Any investigation would reveal the (not so IMO) startling complicity of the Democratic party.

[Thanatoast]

Any investigation would reveal the (not so IMO) startling complicity of the Democratic party.

NO argument there. Gutless wonders... :mad:

[Cleverboy]

Are you kidding? How much more evidence do you need than literally inventing reasons to go to war? Using "intelligence" from a known liar? Telling us certain people met others when he *knew* they didn't? Heck, even incompetence counts when you frakking kill soldiers! Literally. That's still a high crime. So... you're saying Bush should be impeached for poor judgement and reckless endangerment? Mm. Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Those are reasons not to elect him, but they didn't seem to hold enough water (and some people chose to NOT ). Considering his re-election in 2004, the measure of complicity across the nation would be staggering. I'm FAR more angry at people who don't vote for a candidate they're "not so happy with" and allow a candidate they would NEVER vote for to be elected. I'm left thinking, "WOW". Then we get to hear the whining public gnash their teeth as the ideolog wastes thousands of lives and billions of dollars on bad judgement. If McCain gets elected, I'll be the first one to moan as people who didn't vote or voted for him call for his impeachment on the grounds that he continued to waste American lives on battles that didn't serve to gain us any measureable ground, lose American jobs in the dogged pursuit of the ideal of free trade, and allowed preventable disasters to occur due to his relative disconnect with the application of modern technology and the efficiencies of good organization and decisive execution of policy and vision.

Complicity. I feel complicit when I choose inaction or ambivalence because I feel that no one really cares about anything other than the constant affirming of their own beliefs and that voicing my warnings are pointless and irritating to those around me. I feel complicit when I buy into the notion that a democracy works even when people say they're waiting for "real choices" and opt out of genuine participation in the process. I feel complicit when I settle for being a lone voice in the wilderness, instead of pushing for raging success in my own professional ambitions, as a means of elevating the visibility and gravity of my views.

--And on that note, back to the grind.

~ CB

[mactastic]

Unfortunately, you can't impeach a President for stupidity. Worse, you can't impeach a president for incompetence. As for intentionally misleading the American public as a pretense for a disastrous war, refer to my last post... we need a smoking gun, or prepare to be slain by the mindless pablum of an army of lawyers. Even Bill Clinton tried to redefine one of the shortest words in the English language. Bush, for what its worth, has a wee-bit of more wiggle room.

~ CB
Hey, give me a prosecutor as rabidly Democratic as Ken Starr was rabidly Republican, an unlimited budget, an unlimited scope of investigation, and subpoena power... and I'll find you your smoking gun. Or at least manufacture one satisfactory for an impeachment vote.

[themadchemist]

Got me but this was our forfathers thought. They didnt plan for our govt to be made up of Bought off Lawyers.

Sadly, that's government for you. In one iteration or another, it's always been this imperfect mix of corruption, idealism, failure, and productivity. We can't "fix" Washington because Washington is like Paris is like Tokyo is like New Delhi is like Canberra is like Addis Ababa.

[Thanatoast]

So... you're saying Bush should be impeached for poor judgement and reckless endangerment?
Since those are in fact crimes, particularly when they concern the military, yes.

[leekohler]

Since those are in fact crimes, particularly when they concern the military, yes.

Agreed. When you're talking about the lives my friends and family especially.

[Cleverboy]

Since those are in fact crimes, particularly when they concern the military, yes.Agreed. When you're talking about the lives my friends and family especially. I have family in the military as well. It sucks to have such an incompetant and "wrong-headed" CIC, but we do.

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/impeach2.htm

In U.S. history, only two sitting presidents out of 43 have been impeached and NONE have been removed from office through conviction (though Nixon resigned). Both were acquitted.

1867 Andrew Johnson Acquitted 1868
"Attempted illegal removal of war secretary, inducement of a
General to violate an act of Congress and contempt and
reproach of Congress."

(1974) Richard Nixon President Resigned 1974 before impeachment
"Obstructing justice, abusing constitutional authority, and
failing to obey subpoenas."

1998 William J Clinton President Acquitted by Senate in 1999
"Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury & Obstruction of Justice
(the other two charges, Perjury in Paula Jones case & Abuse
of Power were not upheld)."

Just don't shoot the messenger here, but Bush is a long way from impeachment. If you went on a fishing expedition with no clear direction on an indictment, the degree of risk is ginormous. Ken Starr was investigating a genuine series of "issues" with the Clintons that had to do with areas where their hands weren't entirely clean.
In August 1994 Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation-- Starr would later receive authority to conduct additional investigations, including the firing of White House Travel Office personnel, potential political abuse of confidential FBI files, [6], Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones law suit and, most notoriously, possible perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Bush has managed to avoid direct involvement in the whole debacle with Valerie Plame, and no real connection or offense exists in connection with the attorney firings. Other than poor judgement with regards to Iraq, Katrina and any number of other screw-ups... acts done in the execution of his duties as President... he doesn't have any real breadcrumb trail of illegality going on. Most anything that smacks of "issues" had mostly to do with Donald Rumsfeld and even MOREso, Dick "Haliburton" Chaney. Rumsfeld was replaced, and Chaney... the easier target, isn't even sweating. Poor whats-his-name lost his job trying to report on a possibly huge Bush story. Got blasted all the way to NPR for his trouble.

Totally sucks, but its the unvarnished truth.

~ CB

[Thanatoast]

I believe I have come up with a "compromise". Let's say we don't impeach Bush, even though everyone knows it should be done. Let's say instead that Barack Obama becomes President next January and pardons him. This way the people who know he should be tried get the satisfaction of knowing that his name will live in infamy and those who still believe he's pure as driven snow don't have to deal with an impeachment, but still get a thumb in their eye.

Sound okay?

[Cleverboy]

I believe I have come up with a "compromise". Let's say we don't impeach Bush, even though everyone knows it should be done. Let's say instead that Barack Obama becomes President next January and pardons him. This way the people who know he should be tried get the satisfaction of knowing that his name will live in infamy and those who still believe he's pure as driven snow don't have to deal with an impeachment, but still get a thumb in their eye.
Sound okay?
Bush SCREWED us, and anyone who didn't vote Gore or Kerry should be ashamed of themselves if they thought their vote didn't really matter (choosing to withhold support as a luxury we could easily afford). At this point, we have FAR more important things to get done than degenerate our politics into a highly partisan witch hunt.
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html

The country is fragmenting, our debt is out of control, we're losing our edge in the global economy, the list goes on. In the end, its a judgement call. Its not about big balls, its about making sure you don't do more than you can adequately manage on your list of priorities (unless there is clear, willful, unambiguous criminality).

--Yeah, we wanted to get universal healthcare done, but the whole Bush impeachment caused a lot of ill-feelings across the country, and no one wants to agree on anything or have anything to do with politics. Who knew it would get so messy? A bunch of leading Democrats were implicated in the charges. We're now in a bit of gridlock. Oh, well.

There's Tic-Tac-Toe and then there's Chess. We know how the game is played. We know how things look. Are we at all concerned about the cost of certain actions, or is it all about payback and to hell with the consequences?

~ CB

[Thanatoast]

There's Tic-Tac-Toe and then there's Chess. We know how the game is played. We know how things look. Are we at all concerned about the cost of certain actions, or is it all about payback and to hell with the consequences?How is ensuring the President doesn't degenerate into a strong-armed dictator not on your list of priorities? You think there's not going to be any consequences from not impeaching an executive branch that willfully and brazenly broke the law, lied to the public, and started a war for political purposes? You think that letting Cheney and Bush off the hook for killing thousands and spending billions on a lark with no other plan than "it'll work itself out" won't come back to bite us? You think that allowing these war criminals, whose heads should be on pikes mind you, to walk free won't affect our standing and influence in the world community?

Jesus, dude, take a step back and think about those consequences why don't you. Talk about ****ing checkers....

[leekohler]

How is ensuring the President doesn't degenerate into a strong-armed dictator not on your list of priorities? You think there's not going to be any consequences from not impeaching an executive branch that willfully and brazenly broke the law, lied to the public, and started a war for political purposes? You think that letting Cheney and Bush off the hook for killing thousands and spending billions on a lark with no other plan than "it'll work itself out" won't come back to bite us? You think that allowing these war criminals, whose heads should be on pikes mind you, to walk free won't affect our standing and influence in the world community?

Jesus, dude, take a step back and think about those consequences why don't you. Talk about ****ing checkers....

A lot of people aren't concerned with the long-term consequences of letting presidents get away with whatever they want. They just want their guy to win the next time around.

[Cleverboy]

How is ensuring the President doesn't degenerate into a strong-armed dictator not on your list of priorities? You think there's not going to be any consequences from not impeaching an executive branch that willfully and brazenly broke the law, lied to the public, and started a war for political purposes? You think that letting Cheney and Bush off the hook for killing thousands and spending billions on a lark with no other plan than "it'll work itself out" won't come back to bite us? You think that allowing these war criminals, whose heads should be on pikes mind you, to walk free won't affect our standing and influence in the world community?

Jesus, dude, take a step back and think about those consequences why don't you. Talk about ****ing checkers....
Just because you SAY your intention is to "ensure the President doesn't degenerate into a strong-armed dictator", doesn't mean that you are in FACT ensuring any such thing, --and by extension, it hardly means that such bombast wouldn't be on my list of priorities if that were in fact, what "attempting" to impeach Bush would amount to. I don't buy your high rhetoric on this, sorry. I can claim to support a "war on drugs", and demagogically lambaste anyone who criticizes my approach as having weak morals, but that doesn't mean I'm on any moral high road by anyone's measure of the actual facts.

Also, I didn't say anything about not impeaching Cheney. He's a much clearer target than Bush. I'd certainly favor a thorough investigation into the office of the vice-president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701888.html

I'd also like to see more charges brought against Rumsfeld and his piss-poor handling of the invasion, aftermath, and prison policies.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

The question is... will attempting to impeach Bush yield any positive results, or is it a recipe for either failure or Pyrrhic Victory? All the information I've seen points to the latter. Rumsfeld and Cheney are something else.
A lot of people aren't concerned with the long-term consequences of letting presidents get away with whatever they want. They just want their guy to win the next time around.And some people are more concerned with actually MAKING a difference, rather than doing something they know will either be counter-productive or an empty gesture. This thread is about Kucinich filing articles of impeachment. Where is his avalanche of "attaboys"? If he's doing it "wrong", then maybe we should be focusing on some senator open to doing it "right". Anyone care to suggest anything proactive or constructive, or is thumping one's chest about principles the limits to what any realistic citizen can expect? I can thump my chest and holler too. In the end, it isn't a measure of my commitment and ideals, so much as its a measure of my emotion.

Until then, the beat goes on.

CONGRESS PASSING A BILL FOR
RETRO-ACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR WAR CRIMES?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc&NR=1

~ CB

[leekohler]

Just because you SAY your intention is to "ensure the President doesn't degenerate into a strong-armed dictator", doesn't mean that you are in FACT ensuring any such thing, --and by extension, it hardly means that such bombast wouldn't be on my list of priorities if that were in fact, what "attempting" to impeach Bush would amount to. I don't buy your high rhetoric on this, sorry. I can claim to support a "war on drugs", and demagogically lambaste anyone who criticizes my approach as having weak morals, but that doesn't mean I'm on any moral high road by anyone's measure of the actual facts.

Also, I didn't say anything about not impeaching Cheney. He's a much clearer target than Bush. I'd certainly favor a thorough investigation into the office of the vice-president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701888.html

I'd also like to see more charges brought against Rumsfeld and his piss-poor handling of the invasion, aftermath, and prison policies.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

The question is... will attempting to impeach Bush yield any positive results, or is it a recipe for either failure or Pyrrhic Victory? All the information I've seen points to the latter. Rumsfeld and Cheney are something else.
And some people are more concerned with actually MAKING a difference, rather than doing something they know will either be counter-productive or an empty gesture. This thread is about Kucinich filing articles of impeachment. Where is his avalanche of "attaboys"? If he's doing it "wrong", then maybe we should be focusing on some senator open to doing it "right". Anyone care to suggest anything proactive or constructive, or is thumping one's chest about principles the limits to what any realistic citizen can expect? I can thump my chest and holler too. In the end, it isn't a measure of my commitment and ideals, so much as its a measure of my emotion.

Until then, the beat goes on.

CONGRESS PASSING A BILL FOR
RETRO-ACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR WAR CRIMES?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc&NR=1

~ CB

I don't understand how enforcing the rules and investigating this administration is "revenge" or "political". It's the rules. Why do you think so many people are angry right now? Because they personally hate Bush? Are you kidding? No- they hate what he's done and what he's not being held accountable for.

And I don't understand what's so impossible about enforcing the rules and making a a difference at the same time. Actually, enforcing the rules would be "making a difference" these days, in the sense that it sure would be different.

[Iscariot]

I don't understand how enforcing the rules and investigating this administration is "revenge" or "political". It's the rules. Why do you think so many people are angry right now? Because they personally hate Bush? Are you kidding? No- they hate what he's done and what he's not being held accountable for.

And I don't understand what's so impossible about enforcing the rules and making a a difference at the same time. Actually, enforcing the rules would be "making a difference" these days, in the sense that it sure would be different.

Cleverboy is totally correct. As much as I would love for "the rules" to be enforced, the rules in this case are about as clear as a 16 year old's skin. I've repeated it numerous times without satisfactory answer: what impeachable offense is the president guilty of?

[leekohler]

Cleverboy is totally correct. As much as I would love for "the rules" to be enforced, the rules in this case are about as clear as a 16 year old's skin. I've repeated it numerous times without satisfactory answer: what impeachable offense is the president guilty of?

1. Attacking and occupying a foreign land without provocation (and lying about the reasons for it)
2. Permitting torture
3. Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant
4. Giving money to religious organizations under the guise of "charity" when those organizations then took the money and used it to promote such things as abstinence only education, a direct violation of what the money was intended for.

Shall I go on? Of course, an investigation would have to be conducted first. But anyone who thinks we wouldn't find a lot of dirt in that laundry is kidding themselves.

[Cleverboy]

I don't understand how enforcing the rules and investigating this administration is "revenge" or "political". It's the rules. Why do you think so many people are angry right now? Because they personally hate Bush? Are you kidding? No- they hate what he's done and what he's not being held accountable for.

And I don't understand what's so impossible about enforcing the rules and making a a difference at the same time. Actually, enforcing the rules would be "making a difference" these days, in the sense that it sure would be different. You ever want to WIN so bad you can taste it? There was a game playing, that you knew you were ACES at, and your opponents were SLOBS. What if you saw the game was rigged? The game itself was fine, but the playing field was not even the slightest bit neutral, and the referees had an unmistakable record of bias. Would you play that particular game, or would you pass in favor of a different playing field... outrage be damned?

You can run out there and playing your ********** heart out... and I'm sure your fans would love you for your spirit. But if you're playing to win, to make and build upon measurable progress and not simply occupy your time and stir up pointless animosity... Then you have to CHOOSE. And there is NO shame in demanding results, just the dry ticking of cynical calculation.

~ CB

[obeygiant]

Shall I go on? Of course, an investigation would have to be conducted first. But anyone who thinks we wouldn't find a lot of dirt in that laundry is kidding themselves.

You could. But dirt in the laundry won't impeach a president. A smoking gun would/could impeach although there are many more fingerprints on the gun than just GW. See, when you dig all you get is dirty. Perhaps thats why Denny can't get the votes he needs.

[leekohler]

You ever want to WIN so bad you can taste it? There was a game playing, that you knew you were ACES at, and your opponents were SLOBS. What if you saw the game was rigged? The game itself was fine, but the playing field was not even the slightest bit neutral, and the referees had an unmistakable record of bias. Would you play that particular game, or would you pass in favor of a different playing field... outrage be damned?

You can run out there and playing your ********** heart out... and I'm sure your fans would love you for your spirit. But if you're playing to win, to make and build upon measurable progress and not simply occupy your time and stir up pointless animosity... Then you have to CHOOSE. And there is NO shame in demanding results, just the dry ticking of cynical calculation.

~ CB

I'm not sure I see your point, but no- I don't worry about others. I let my abilities and talent speak for themselves, and it works. If "winning" is all that matters to you, and it looks like it might be- then go ahead, just don't expect me to play with you.

Furthermore- politics isn't a sport. Lives are at stake. Stop looking at it as a game, it's not.

[Iscariot]

1. Attacking and occupying a foreign land without provocation (and lying about the reasons for it)
2. Permitting torture
3. Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant
4. Giving money to religious organizations under the guise of "charity" when those organizations then took the money and used it to promote such things as abstinence only education, a direct violation of what the money was intended for.

Shall I go on? Of course, an investigation would have to be conducted first. But anyone who thinks we wouldn't find a lot of dirt in that laundry is kidding themselves.

Technically speaking, none of those are undeniably impeachable. The problem is not that the president's hands are too clean, it's that there is no concrete measure of dirty. Checks and balances indeed.

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." – Gerald Ford

[leekohler]

Technically speaking, none of those are undeniably impeachable. The problem is not that the president's hands are too clean, it's that there is no concrete measure of dirty. Checks and balances indeed.

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." – Gerald Ford

If they aren't then I need to get out of this country, and quick because there's nothing worth saving.

[Cleverboy]

I'm not sure I see your point, but no- I don't worry about others. I let my abilities and talent speak for themselves, and it works. If "winning" is all that matters to you, and it looks like it might be- then go ahead, just don't expect me to play with you.Unless its for the pure thrill of enjoying a good game, I wouldn't participate in any contest where my teammates had no commitment to winning. If it involved a legal dispute, I would abandon any co-defendant that felt pure righteousness and raw indignation could assure a favorable resolution. It's the sad story of every lawyer that's tried to save a defendant from themselves. It also applies when your lodging a case against someone. Impotence isn't always easy to recognize, but it'll waste your time just the same. Why fire a gun if you're not absolutely sure whether its filled with blanks or real ammunition?

~ CB

[leekohler]

Unless its for the pure thrill of enjoying a good game, I wouldn't participate in any contest where my teammates had no commitment to winning. If it involved a legal dispute, I would abandon any co-defendant that felt pure righteousness and raw indignation could assure a favorable resolution. It's the sad story of every lawyer that's tried to save a defendant from themselves. It also applies when your lodging a case against someone. Impotence isn't always easy to recognize, but it'll waste your time just the same. Why fire a gun if you're not absolutely sure whether its filled with blanks or real ammunition?

~ CB

Not sure what your gun analogy has to do with it, but you've shown what you're made of. At least you're honest.

[Cleverboy]

Not sure what your gun analogy has to do with it, but you've shown what you're made of. At least you're honest. Ok... :confused:
You could. But dirt in the laundry won't impeach a president. A smoking gun would/could impeach although there are many more fingerprints on the gun than just GW. See, when you dig all you get is dirty. Perhaps thats why Denny can't get the votes he needs.Not all gun analogies are created equal I suppose.

~ CB

[leekohler]

Ok... :confused:
Not all gun analogies are created equal I suppose.

~ CB

In other words, you put winning above all else.

[Cleverboy]

In other words, you put winning above all else.No I don't. That's what you read. I very clearly indicated that when it comes to an unfavorable playing field with unacceptable losses being the most likely outcome, sometimes... the smartest option is not to play. But, now I'm just paraphrasing movies from the 80's and Brady Bunch episodes. How picking ones battles comes across as putting "winning above all else" isn't really what I leave with. Were I to harshly characterize your stance, it sounds like you'd rather fight than work out a rational strategy for getting most of what you want. All or nothing strategies belong to the realm of Hollywood endings in my book.

My biggest criticism of Hillary Clinton is that she was more "soldier" than "general". More for action than for planning (think things like her gas tax holiday, her want to conjure tales of sniper fire, or her health care loss during the Clinton administration). My feelings have always been "think twice, cut once". And sometimes I still won't be satisfied, but I'll know I did my best to minimize the damage a tough decision can otherwise make. When the smoke clears, someone's got to be accountable for the risk and reward calculation of what took place, and whether history sees those decisions as vision or vacuousness. In some twisted way, that's Bush's stone to roll.

~ CB

[leekohler]

No I don't. That's what you read. I very clearly indicated that when it comes to an unfavorable playing field with unacceptable losses being the most likely outcome, sometimes... the smartest option is not to play. But, now I'm just paraphrasing movies from the 80's and Brady Bunch episodes. How picking ones battles comes across as putting "winning above all else" isn't really what I leave with. Were I to harshly characterize your stance, it sounds like you'd rather fight than work out a rational strategy for getting most of what you want. All or nothing strategies belong to the realm of Hollywood endings in my book.

~ CB

No- here's the difference: I'm not playing a game. Politics is NOT a game. People need to stop treating it like it is. It's far too serious to even compare it to a game- but politicians, rather than doing what's right, decide to treat it like a game. They do it because we keep allowing them to do it. So when do we put our foot down? When do we show them that they can't do anything they want and get away with it? When does the law apply to them?

Or do we just dismiss it and say, "Oh well, they all do it. We'll just have to get someone in there who will promise not to and then everything will be peachy!"

Well, I'm sorry- that's not a good enough solution. "Well, Bush did it so I can too" will become a valid excuse for anyone who wishes to do the same things he's done. The precedent has been set, and we've done nothing about it.

[obeygiant]

sometimes... the smartest option is not to play. But, now I'm just paraphrasing movies from the 80's

Wargames, Professor Falcon? :)

[Cleverboy]

No- here's the difference: I'm not playing a game. Politics is NOT a game. People need to stop treating it like it is. It's far too serious to even compare it to a game- but politicians, rather than doing what's right, decide to treat it like a game.Anytime there is winning, losing, and concepts like "zero-sum" gain, you enter the realm of something called "game theory". It may offend your sensibilities to have life quantified in such harsh and unemotional terms, but it doesn't change the fact that these concepts are used to run the very markets and systems that govern your life. If you want to pretend being "serious" means that you can't acknowledge the context in which we all operate, I can't say that makes much sense to me.
Bill Clinton in an interview with Wired Magazine:
The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win–win solutions instead of win–lose solutions.... Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well — so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other. Just because the stakes are life and death, doesn't mean it does not subscribe to basic rules of "play".

~ CB

[leekohler]

Anytime there is winning, losing, and concepts like "zero-sum" gain, you enter the realm of something called "game theory". It may offend your sensibilities to have life quantified in such harsh and unemotional terms, but it doesn't change the fact that these concepts are used to run the very markets and systems that govern your life. If you want to pretend being "serious" means that you can't acknowledge the context in which we all operate, I can't say that makes much sense to me.
Just because the stakes are life and death, doesn't mean it does not subscribe to basic rules of "play".

~ CB

However, there should be considerations other than "winning". Right, wrong and justice also need to come into play. Again, this is government, not a game- even if sometimes it resembles one.

[Thanatoast]

It seems as though we have a disagreement as to what goal we should be reaching for and what consequences would be better or worse long term.

Pardon me for putting words in your mouths, Cleverboy and Iscariot, but it sounds like you've decided that having a deadlocked Congress or having McCain in charge is a worse result than leekholer's and my fears, which is a tradition of lawlessness and strong-arming in the office of the President.

In 2004 I secretly hoped that Kerry would lose, the Republicans would have four more years to drag us down and the people would get to *really* see how bad it would be. I hoped that the people would then realize that this kind of behavior from government officials is descrutctive to the nation and the rule of law and insist that it never happened again. Well, it seems that I got half my wish. We've continued down the rabbit hole but a lot of people still won't choose the rule of law, which will admittedly be painful, over the expediency of immediate goals.

I think that in the long term it will be much more harmful to let the many misdeeds perpetrated by the Bush administration to go unpunished than to deadlock the Congress or even to elect McCain. If we've not fallen deep enough for people to wake up and demand better government and a return to the rule of law, then further down we need to go. The majority of America needs to see what having a lawless and limitless government really means. Not enough people feel their asses are on the line, apparently.

Number three on leekholer's list above is, in fact, impeachable - since it is in direct violation of the fourth amendment. And Bush's guiding principle, that his highest duty is to "protect the people" is wrong. His highest duty is to uphold the Constitution - it's the first thing mentioned in the oath of office. Our founders knew that upholding the law, above all other considerations, is the only way to truly guarantee our freedoms.

[Cleverboy]

However, there should be considerations other than "winning". Right, wrong and justice also need to come into play.Right, wrong, and justice are the ONLY considerations.
Again, this is government, not a game- even if sometimes it resembles one.Government is not a "game", its a means of conducting the affairs of a civilization. We were talking about "politics" (the forces that shape our government), and politics doesn't "sometimes resemble" a game, its behavior is absolutely defined by it.

This is a BASIC and IMMUTABLE fact... not some idle "happy" concept to be discarded as opinion. Elections are a series of "contests". "Campaign strategists" are the ones in charge of choosing a path to victory for a particular side. The "rules" are set in place by our democratic process, founded in the crux of our constitution. The fundamental challenge of politics, is that people are different, and in appealing to our common interests, politicians have to do a very complicated balancing act that achieves a result that is both effective AND beneficial.
It seems as though we have a disagreement as to what goal we should be reaching for and what consequences would be better or worse long term.This thread is littered with people who are outraged and want impeachment no matter what, people who are outraged and wish to do what is warranted given available evidence, and people who wish to simply do nothing and move on. I'm in the second category, just for the record.

The goals of the first category and the second category overlap the moment there is what any objective person would consider "credible evidence" (which amounts to more than accusation) that improper or criminal behavior has taken place, regarding which speculation, intense dissatisfaction with the perceived course of justice and deep suspicion do not comprise the entirety of its foundation.
I think that in the long term it will be much more harmful to let the many misdeeds perpetrated by the Bush administration to go unpunished than to deadlock the Congress or even to elect McCain. If we've not fallen deep enough for people to wake up and demand better government and a return to the rule of law, then further down we need to go. The majority of America needs to see what having a lawless and limitless government really means. Not enough people feel their asses are on the line, apparently.
Let's do away with all of this chatter, though. It all seems so useless.

Someone who wants to impeach Bush right now... let's say I'm WITH you (because I am). What do you want ME to do, right now? Should I be sending out letters to my representatives? Want me to lead an impeachment group in my area? I've been off my ass this campaign season trying to do my part for changing government in a way that makes sense to me. Not simply VOTING, but canvassing... talking to voters about issues, and doing my part to affect turn-out (and learning a lot in the process).

Instead of all this lip service, could someone give me some direction... and um, just a note, but I'm going to expect that the same type of thing be done by the person suggesting it. Anything less seems profoundly disingenuous to me.

~ CB

[leekohler]

Right, wrong, and justice are the ONLY considerations.
Government is not a "game", its a means of conducting the affairs of a civilization. We were talking about "politics" (the forces that shape our government), and politics doesn't "sometimes resemble" a game, its behavior is absolutely defined by it.

This is a BASIC and IMMUTABLE fact... not some idle "happy" concept to be discarded as opinion. Elections are a series of "contests". "Campaign strategists" are the ones in charge of choosing a path to victory for a particular side. The "rules" are set in place by our democratic process, founded in the crux of our constitution. The fundamental challenge of politics, is that people are different, and in appealing to our common interests, politicians have to do a very complicated balancing act that achieves a result that is both effective AND beneficial.
This thread is littered with people who are outraged and want impeachment no matter what, people who are outraged and wish to do what is warranted given available evidence, and people who wish to simply do nothing and move on. I'm in the second category, just for the record.

The goals of the first category and the second category overlap the moment there is what any objective person would consider "credible evidence" (which amounts to more than accusation) that improper or criminal behavior has taken place, regarding which speculation, intense dissatisfaction with the perceived course of justice and deep suspicion do not comprise the entirety of its foundation.

Let's do away with all of this chatter, though. It all seems so useless.

Someone who wants to impeach Bush right now... let's say I'm WITH you (because I am). What do you want ME to do, right now? Should I be sending out letters to my representatives? Want me to lead an impeachment group in my area? I've been off my ass this campaign season trying to do my part for changing government in a way that makes sense to me. Not simply VOTING, but canvassing... talking to voters about issues, and doing my part to affect turn-out (and learning a lot in the process).

Instead of all this lip service, could someone give me some direction... and um, just a note, but I'm going to expect that the same type of thing be done by the person suggesting it. Anything less seems profoundly disingenuous to me.

~ CB

Yes- write letters, sign petitions. I've been doing it for years now, unfortunately to no effect. Most likely because people feel helpless and don't bother. I have a personal stake in this as Bush's actions in Iraq have affected my family and friends, so yes- I've been trying.

[Cleverboy]

Yes- write letters, sign petitions. I've been doing it for years now, unfortunately to no effect. Most likely because people feel helpless and don't bother. I have a personal stake in this as Bush's actions in Iraq have affected my family and friends, so yes- I've been trying. They always have an affect, but the affect might not get the results you want. I can only suggest that you play "bigger". I haven't seen you petition anyone on this forum to join you in some action you were participating in. I'd love to hear about it whenever you're doing it. I want to be abused by your incidental announcements.

~ CB

[leekohler]

They always have an affect, but the affect might not get the results you want. I can only suggest that you play "bigger". I haven't seen you petition anyone on this forum to join you in some action you were participating in. I'd love to hear about it whenever you're doing it. I want to be abused by your incidental announcements.

~ CB

Oh! Are you begging for abuse? You only need ask. :D Well, normally the petitions come to me via e-mail. The letters to congressmen and reps I just sent on my own. Next time one comes up, I'll let you know!

[Iscariot]

If they aren't then I need to get out of this country, and quick because there's nothing worth saving.

I'm sincerely hoping that as a positive outcome, the impeachment process and the "checks and balances" will be reviewed and strengthened for future presidencies.

Pardon me for putting words in your mouths, Cleverboy and Iscariot, but it sounds like you've decided that having a deadlocked Congress or having McCain in charge is a worse result than leekholer's and my fears, which is a tradition of lawlessness and strong-arming in the office of the President.

You're confusing recognizing the futility of the means with disagreeing with the ends. I want to see President Bush impeached. I just recognize that it's simply not going to happen the way I want it to.

[leekohler]

I'm sincerely hoping that as a positive outcome, the impeachment process and the "checks and balances" will be reviewed and strengthened for future presidencies.


It's obvious you don't live in the US. You have far too much faith in our political system. If it isn't done now, it will only get worse. Guess which I'm thinking will happen? Color me cynical...

Once Bush gets his war in Iran, it's all over. And do I think he'll do it? Yes, I do. He'll at least try. What's to stop him? He can do what he wants now. It's not as if anyone will challenge his authority. It would be too politically "inconvenient". God knows, no one wants to look "unpatriotic".

[Iscariot]

It's obvious you don't live in the US. You have far too much faith in our political system.

I lived in the States, albeit briefly, during part of his first term and the earlier part of his second term. I don't have faith in your political system, your political parties or your citizenry, which is no small part of why I don't think impeachment is going to happen.

If it isn't done now, it will only get worse. Guess which I'm thinking will happen? Color me cynical...

The thing is, it's not that I don't want it to happen, it's that I recognize the massive improbability. Your impeachement process is impotent.

[Cleverboy]

It's obvious you don't live in the US. You have far too much faith in our political system. If it isn't done now, it will only get worse. Guess which I'm thinking will happen? Color me cynical...
No, I'm afraid "cynical" is reserved for those that agree with the aim of impeachment, but who are absolutely convinced, absent material evidence directly implicating the President himself, that any impeachment attempt would be more than an a spectacularly impotent exercise. Which is exactly the act that this thread is discussing.

Just look how it happened the last two times. Nixon's guilt had already been established by recording. It was so bad that he resigned before he was impeached. With Clinton, they tricked him into testifying before a grand jury and then produced DNA evidence to cement the perjury charge such that he had to apologize directly to the American people. Is Bush in ANY form of similar position? Nope. I remember awaiting with baited breath when these moments came... and went...

Wiring Tapping
Bush faces eavesdropping subpoena
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

Politically motivated U.S. attorneys firings
Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/
Leahy, Senate Panel to Subpoena Bush Officials
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8939254

Valerie Plame, CIA leak
A House committee has subpoenaed FBI transcripts of interviews
with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/061708b.html
Conyers issues subpoena to DOJ for Bush-Cheney
interviews on Plame leak
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Conyers_issues_subpoena_to_DOJ_for_BushCheney_interviews_on_Plame_leak.html

It's not about the indignation. Plenty of that. It's about being realistic. And cynical. Really cynical. I wouldn't even characterize impeachment as a massive improbability. If there were implicating evidence of a crime, Bush's wildly unpopular ratings would make it a more than easy task to do in my opinion. But the evidence HAS to be there.

Note the date on the stories from the last item though. Not expecting anything riveting, but these are the types of investigation that would yield an impeachment... NOT simply accusing the President of crimes with more inference than evidence.

~ CB

[leekohler]

No, I'm afraid "cynical" is reserved for those that agree with the aim of impeachment, but who are absolutely convinced, absent material evidence directly implicating the President himself, that any impeachment attempt would be more than an a spectacularly impotent exercise. Which is exactly the act that this thread is discussing.

Just look how it happened the last two times. Nixon's guilt had already been established by recording. It was so bad that he resigned before he was impeached. With Clinton, they tricked him into testifying before a grand jury and then produced DNA evidence to cement the perjury charge such that he had to apologize directly to the American people. Is Bush in ANY form of similar position? Nope. I remember awaiting with baited breath when these moments came... and went...

Wiring Tapping
Bush faces eavesdropping subpoena
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

Politically motivated U.S. attorneys firings
Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/
Leahy, Senate Panel to Subpoena Bush Officials
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8939254

Valerie Plame, CIA leak
A House committee has subpoenaed FBI transcripts of interviews
with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/061708b.html
Conyers issues subpoena to DOJ for Bush-Cheney
interviews on Plame leak
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Conyers_issues_subpoena_to_DOJ_for_BushCheney_interviews_on_Plame_leak.html

It's not about the indignation. Plenty of that. It's about being realistic. And cynical. Really cynical. I wouldn't even characterize impeachment as a massive improbability. If there were implicating evidence of a crime, Bush's wildly unpopular ratings would make it a more than easy task to do in my opinion. But the evidence HAS to be there.

Note the date on the stories from the last item though. Not expecting anything riveting, but these are the types of investigation that would yield an impeachment... NOT simply accusing the President of crimes with more inference than evidence.

~ CB

I fail to see your point. All I see in these articles is Bush ignoring subpoenas and doing what he wants. I don't get what you're trying to say.

EDIT- I got you now. Nevermind. ;)

[solvs]

Technically speaking, none of those are undeniably impeachable.
At the very least, they are unConstitutional, and deserve investigation. That is the issue here. Impeachment wouldn't proceed without further investigation and actual proof. Again though, things like the Downing Street Memo should be it. But there is an implicit Congress, Dem and GOP, no one is defending that. Look at the FISA vote. Won't even fight against the most unpopular President in history because they don't want to be painted as pro-terrorists or whatever they let themselves be painted as. And he and his aids simply claim Executive Privilege and decide not to show up to subpoenas, if they even get served with them, yet nothing comes of it but some showboating and a collective shrug. Part of why Congress has a single digit approval rating right now, and why we're disappointed with even the Dems right now.

There are reasons though:

Bush Justice Department sued for partisan hiring (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/bush-justice-de.html) (and firing)

Things like that are blatantly illegal.

[Macky-Mac]

Kucinich has a new resolution. This time it seems there's only one article; "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Perhaps he and Pelosi have worked out a deal that allow some sort of limited hearings?

here's a report;

Pelosi says House Judiciary may hold hearings on Kucinich impeachment resolution

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Kucinich is expected to offer a "privileged resolution" this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Pelosi has said previously that impeachment "was off the table," so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush, although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has only six months left in this term.

"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," Pelosi told reporters. "Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."

Pelosi added: "My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee."

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee had no immediate comment when asked whether Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman, planned hearings on Kucinich's impeachment resolutions.

Update: Conyers said he had just gotten Kucinich's new impeachment resolution, and he was not sure of when hearings would occur, or what kind of hearings be held. Democratic aides said they would examine "abuses of power" by the Bush administration, although it is unclear why or how that is different from what has taken place already throughout the 110th Congress.

One thing is clear, however — there will be no move to remove Bush from office, despite Pelosi's comments this morning, or Kucinich's resolution.


link to Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Pelosi_says_House_Judiciary_may_hold_hearings_on_Kucinich_impeachment_resolution.html)