Please pass the Impeachment.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Superlative, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    This is coming up more and more.....

    Senator: Some see impeachment as option


    WASHINGTON — With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.
    Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

    "We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

    GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

    "Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

    The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a non-binding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

    That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

    On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

    In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

    In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

    "We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

    "This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

    Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

    "There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

    Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

    "That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

    "People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

    Hagel spoke on ABC's This Week, Feinstein and Lott appeared on Fox News Sunday, and Nelson was on CNN's Late Edition.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-25-hagel-iraq_N.htm
     
  2. GeeWhiz
    Offline

    GeeWhiz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24
    Cheney was on Chris Matthew's show Hardball, by the way the show should actually be called Softnuts because of Matthew's undying love for anything Bush.

    Anyway Matthew pointed out to Cheney that the Legislative Branch was handed over to the Democratic Party because the People do not like the way the current administration is handling this Iraqmire. Cheney responded, 'I don't listen to polls". Matthew pointed out to Cheney that it wasn't a poll it was an election. There was no way Cheney could have misunderstood what Matthew said. Cheney replied, "I told you I don't listen to polls". Cheney without a doubt dodged the reality of the People's voice.

    Bush and Cheney are thumbing there noses at the People meanwhile Bush and Cheney's war profiteer friends are laughing all the way to the bank.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    "Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict."

    Democracy literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people", and kratos, "rule"[1]

    "Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referenda. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. While considerations such as party alignment, perception of voter wishes or the public interest, re-election prospects and other factors can be of influence, there are generally few binding restrictions."
     
  4. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    Can he be impeached as a war criminal on charges of going to war under false pretences? Or is lying to the american people, a form of free speach? If he does get impeached, wont cheney and Rumsfeld be charged too? I dont get why conservatives voted for him, he had a DUI at the age of 30! Whats so christian about that? What if he ran someone over? I guess nobody in america Reads anymore, they just see what looks good.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    try that.
     
  6. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    So basically he cant be impeached, unless the house of reps musters up enough votes and a legitimate misdemenor or felony charge. I dont think he can be charged without someone actually investigating him, which wont happen any time soon, he is very very private. The white house is like an island of its own on the country of captiol hill.
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
  8. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    "The Constitution, history, and common sense teach the same lesson. Impeachable offenses are limited to the serious corrupt misuse of the powers of government, that is, grave derelictions of official duty. That excludes private adulterous affairs even if the President lies about them and urges others to do likewise. Punishment for sin--and even crime--belongs elsewhere, and are not subject to impeachment under the Constitution of the United States."

    If this is true, then why was clinton impeached?

    And if clinton can be impeached, why cant BUSH, for abusing his presidential power to conduct war with random countrys? That is definitively a public matter, not a private one.
     
  9. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,775
    Thanks Received:
    12,768
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,732
    I don't recall the part of The Consitution that says that the President's power to act as Commander In Chief requires an international coalition.
     
  10. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105

    Your right, but we did not find weapons of mass destruction like he claimed they had. Therfore he lied to the american people on a public defense matter, while clinton lied on a private matter and got impeached.
     

Share This Page