Impeachment - Bush and Cheney

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Jul 15, 2007.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    I refer you to an outstanding video from Friday's Bill Moyers Journal . There is a very pointed discussion about whether Bush and Cheney should be impeached. Lest you think this is probably a liberal spin presentation, I assure you it is not.

    Tough talk on Impeachment
    "Bill Moyers explores the talk of impeachment with Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT."

    This subject is coming up frequently on the PRS forum. I think viewing this would provide some enlightened perspective for everyone.
     
  2. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    Personally I believe impeachment is going light on two of the biggest genocidal leaders since Hitler.

    They should be in The Hauge.
     
  3. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #3
    Retaliation can take place AFTER they are out of office. That is the critical thing right now.
     
  4. ghall macrumors 68040

    ghall

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    #4
    We definitely need those 2 out of office. Not just for our own good, but the good of the entire world. In my opinion, they should have been impeached long ago.

    Actually, they shouldn't even have been elected in the first place. :)
     
  5. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #5
    Well not quite the two biggest but they are definitely deserved of such a trial.

    I was both happy and unhappy to hear about the percent of the population which would favour impeachment, happy that at least that percent are aware of their heinous crimes but unhappy that the majority are still unaware. Can we place all the blame for this on the media as is normal on these boards?
     
  6. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #6
    Go ahead and impeach. The process will be completed by at least Jan 1, 2009. Frankly I think its too late. Congress should continue to try and get troops out of Iraq so that by the time a democrat takes office (unless the dems screw it up which is a possiblity) the issue of Iraq will be how to move forward without troops there.

    Not even close.
     
  7. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #7
    So you don't think the U.S. Military has murdered more than a few hundred thousand innocent civilians in Iraq?

    Oh.That's right.We don't know because it's "classified" as part of the "Patriot Act".
     
  8. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #8
    Paddy,

    The media has definitely played a role in allowing this to continue. If you watch this discussion, they deal with this subject, and they are part of the media. Bill Moyers will be the first to admit the media has failed the American people. Did you watch "The Buying of the War"? It can be found on the same link, in the April timeframe.
     
  9. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #9
    No I don't think anyones denying that and that they are indeed vile murderers but to call them the two biggest genocidal leaders since Hitler is a bit much. What about Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao to name but a small few.
     
  10. rhagen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    #10
    I hope you are joking. Comparing our 2 leaders right now to Hitler..... that is a shame. I really cannot take you serious after saying that.
     
  11. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #11
    No don't get me wrong they have played a major role in this, but there comes a point where people have to make it their duty to turn off American Idol and learn about what there leaders are up to, the internet is fairly accessible after all and there are some honest reporters out there, you just have to look. Thankfully 45% of Americans seem to have done this.
     
  12. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12

    Re-read my post.

    I said two OF THE biggest.I never said THE biggest.

    Please do not mis-quote me. ;)
     
  13. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    Iraq is just one issue, but not the most import reason impeachment should take place. The need for impeachment stems from the administrations total disregard for the law. Regardless of whether you are democrat, or republican, conservative, or liberal, we cannot have a government that thumbs their nose at the law. It may be your party today, but it will not be at some point. Do you want a government that has no accountability? We may be democrats, or republicans, but first and foremost, we are Americans.
     
  14. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    Study english..scheesch..

    I NEVER called them the "TWO BIGGEST".I called them "two OF the BIGGEST".That puts them in a long list.

    "Two of the biggest" is different than "the two biggest".

    To say "The two biggest" puts them at the top of the list.
    To say "Two of the biggest" puts them in a list.NOT at the top.

    Understand ?
     
  15. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #15
    At the very least begin impeachment proceedings and seize all their records
    before they have any chance to destroy more of them.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    i thought this (though slightly edited on that moyers page) was a good bit:
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    With half of Congress Republican this is going nowhere. Thats the reality.
     
  18. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #18
    The other half being Democrats with no intestinal fortitude solidifies that reality.
     
  19. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #19
    I too liked that. I also think that republicans will find it difficult to not vote for impeachment when the facts are presented. Most republicans are honest people of principle. They will not forth with a criminal (two in this case). What people forget, over half of the republicans in the house and senate, were ready to vote to impeach Nixon. It was Goldwater who basically talked Nixon into resigning. It is reported that Nixon asked him, "How many votes can you get right now to not impeach?" Barry is alleged to have said, "I am one of the ones voting to impeach, Mr President".
     
  20. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #20
    I just read the entire transcript.

    I wrote Pelosi's office last week saying it was time to put the "I" word
    back on the table.

    This is important and it will take non-stop public pressure to make a difference.

    You must demand that your elected representatives carry out their sworn duty. Period

    An impeachment is an investigation, AN OPEN investigation.

    We the people deserve that much
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    from here:
    similar to what nichols was saying in the interview.
     
  22. FrankBlack macrumors 6502

    FrankBlack

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    Looking for Lucy Butler
    #22
    I'd like to see them both removed from office as well, but I really don't think it's going to happen. But,,,

    Just supposing it does. Just supposing the house votes to impeach, and the Senate has the two-thirds majority needed for removal. Well, Bush and uncle Dick would be removed from office immediately, right? Heck, given the behavior of these two, I have some doubt that they would go quietly. Bush is pretty convinced that the congress has no power over the executive branch. I'm just speculating here.
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    i've wondered the same thing. that'd be a heck of a constitutional crisis, eh? especially if bush ordered the marines to defend the WH against any/all invaders?
     
  24. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #24
    In my Watergate thesis, I devoted a whole chapter to this very subject. Indeed, what would happen if the president absolutely refused to vacate office? Of course back then, the VP would have become President. But, for sake of discussion, let's assume the VP was Spiro Agnew, or in this case Cheney.

    Agnew was under investigation and would end up pleading 'no contest'. Cheney would be bounced before GW. The order of the Presidential succession is:

    VP - Cheney
    House Speaker - Pelosi
    Senate SPT - Byrd
    State - Rice
    Treasury - Paulson
    Defense - Gates
    Attorney General - Gonzales

    When a President is impeached, the Chief Justice immediately swears in the new President. That establishes the legitimacy of the transfer of power. The VP would normally be the one to inherit. In the case of a dual impeachment, the timing would be everything.

    Say for instance, Cheney is impeached first, and God help us if he is not. The President could name a new VP, but the individual would have to be confirmed by the Senate.

    Now the political fun begins. Republicans willing to vote for impeachment are unlikely to remove Bush before a republican VP is in place. Otherwise, they would be handing the WH to the democrats. That means it is highly unlikely the position of 'Commander and Chief of the Arm Forces' would leave the executive branch. The Joint Chiefs would be obliged to accept orders from the new President. Bush would not be able to use the military to remain in power.

    Now, if a situation arose where the House Speaker was sworn in as President, the Chief Justice would again be transferring legitimacy to the new President. The former Speaker would now become the 'Commander and Chief of the Arm Forces'. And again, the Joint Chiefs would be obliged to accept orders from the new President. If they did not do so, it would be a military coup, an unlikely event for a orderly, legal proceeding.

    There is a wildcard in all this. It is the private military and intelligence forces, the administration has built. These people are mercenaries. Their allegiance is to a paycheck. The ideology of their leadership is well-known to be neo-conservative, borderline extremist. Could they be ordered to protect an ousted President, and would they do so? They have no legal status, but hey also do not have any oversight. The quicker they are abolished, the better.

    (The first thing I would do as a new President is cut-off all funds to these groups).
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    i think this right here is why pelosi says impeachment is off the table. how would it not look like a power play by her to gain the presidency? further, knowing she would, i have a galatically hard time imagining the senate (in its current makeup) voting to put any democrat, especially a woman, from california no less, into the WH.

    i think the idea would be to impeach them at the same time, as nichols explained.

    an interesting scenario, but really i think the rest of the military matters more. if, as i posited above, bush orders the marines to barricade him in the white house, and they agree, then who *really* holds power? the command in chief, i reckon.

    if it's mercenaries, though, the gov't can run w/o actually having the executive occupy the WH. president pelosi (going w/ the theme above) could be sworn in and run the branch from anywhere: if she's recognized as commander in chief. otherwise...
     

Share This Page