Articles of Impeachment

[Bonnie]

January 5, 2006
By Debra Saunders

The Left -- from The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- has pulled out the impeachment card and is brandishing it as the weapon that will drive George W. Bush from the White House. This could be more than talk. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is consulting with legal eagles as she explores the idea.
I must say, I am tickled at their efforts. I supported impeaching the perjury-prone President Clinton, but preferred censure to removing him from office. I also saw the damage to Republicans who pushed to chase Clinton out of office.

But the Bush-haters won't heed history, not when they see an opportunity to relive the glory days of Watergate: Republicans evil; Democrats uncorrupted; reporters respected. As Alter wrote after the story broke that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international calls in efforts to uncover possible agents of al Qaeda, "Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

Angry leftists are so hysterical that they cannot distinguish between government agents eavesdropping on a president's political enemies, and the data mining of international phone calls in an earnest effort to thwart another Sept. 11 terrorist attack. They don't see that Bush, rather then trying to hide his role in the effort, signed off on the program more than 30 times.

Warrantless wiretaps? Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, called CNN recently to note that the Clinton administration authorized the warrantless search of the house of CIA employee Aldrich Ames.

But the Dems didn't talk of impeachment then.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley offers the best argument for impeachment -- not because he is persuasive, but because he is consistent. Turley said he supported the impeachment, conviction and removal of Clinton, and is advocating likewise for Bush, as the Bush wiretaps constitute "a clear and undeniable crime." (He ignores lawyers and judges who see the issue either as far from settled, or come down in Bush's favor.)

Turley added that what the Bushies did "wasn't necessary." The administration could have won warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Out of tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests since 1979, Alter reported, FISA rejected only four.

Toensing countered that it was necessary. FISA's turndown rate is low because government lawyers don't push for warrants unless they know they'll win.

Don't forget that the feds wouldn't even ask for a warrant to tap the laptop computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French citizen who later pleaded guilty to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers. Turley says they should have sought a warrant. Toensing says officials knew they would lose because they could not establish Moussaoui was an "agent of a foreign power."

Turley also argues that if Bush had problems with the FISA law, then he should have gone to Congress to change it. But to do so, Toensing noted, officials would have had to reveal their surveillance methods.

Turley's best argument: If the president can circumvent FISA, then "he can circumvent any federal law."

Are we at war? I asked him. "That's a good question." Then, after deriding Congress for passing war resolutions -- not declarations of war -- Turley said, "As a constitutional matter, no."

As a practical matter, though, the answer is yes -- as any soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan can tell you. I respect Turley, but in the real world, it makes sense to monitor international communications to prevent another attack -- in America or against Americans abroad.

Instead, Washington delivers lowball partisan politics. Too many Democrats support Bush when polls support Bush -- the war, the Patriot Act -- then turn on his policies when they think they can get away with it. They don't think about the impact on U.S. soldiers on foreign soil.

This whole NSA story reinforces the fact that Bush is willing to be unpopular, risk the White House even, to get the job done, while too many of his Democratic critics will walk over anyone to stand up for their lack of principles.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_5_06_DS.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

January 5, 2006
By Debra Saunders



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_5_06_DS.html

Wow. Another right winger starting a thread with nothing but a copy of someone elses article - without even making a comment on it. How original.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Wow. Another right winger starting a thread with nothing but a copy of someone elses article - without even making a comment on it. How original.

Kind of like your original bitching of the same thing over and over.

 

[theHawk]

I really dont understand the hysteria either. What would be the point of getting Bush removed from office? To put in a true conservative like Cheney? :halo:
Its not like the guy is going to stay in office after 2008.

 

[Bonnie]

I really dont understand the hysteria either. What would be the point of getting Bush removed from office? To put in a true conservative like Cheney? :halo:
Its not like the guy is going to stay in office after 2008.

I think the whole point of the Democrat tactics is to strike out any way they can and somehow seize power back. Even if it means placing our troops and us in jeopardy. Secondly is to have Bush leave office with no accomplishments acredited to him.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I think the whole point of the Democrat tactics is to strike out any way they can and somehow seize power back. Even if it means placing our troops and us in jeopardy. Secondly is to have Bush leave office with no accomplishments acredited to him.

exactly. they will do what they wish in order to get power, no matter what happens and what negative consequences there will be.

I seriously think that they really do think that everything is fine and dandy and that everything will take care of itself if you throw enough money at it, when they are in power---Even if half of Los Angeles is burning and destroyed by rioters and inept police force...guys like Timothy McVey go unchecked because they were afraid of hurting his feelings...Minneapolis has the highest number of murders (thus the new nickname Murderapolis by MN residents) in 2005, which was like the highest in 10 years...guys like Alfonso Rodriguez kill innocent girls like Dru Sjodin because they were allowed back into society by liberal judges who think they can change the world and murder/rapist minds by giving them more chances than should ever happen...

with liberals, there seem to be no consequences to punish those who commit horrible crimes. You get more time in prison for embezzelment than you do for murdering someone. Money is more important than human life to these deranged, morally-bankrupt, hot-air balloons.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I think the whole point of the Democrat tactics is to strike out any way they can and somehow seize power back. Even if it means placing our troops and us in jeopardy. Secondly is to have Bush leave office with no accomplishments acredited to him.

President Bush could cure cancer and end world hunger and they wouldn't give him credit for it anyway.

It's the same, tired crap from the Democrats. Rather than actually come up with ideas or lay out any plans, they put all their energy into trying to make the Republicans look bad. Cuz, ya know, that worked so well in 2004...

 

[manu1959]

Wow. Another right winger starting a thread with nothing but a copy of someone elses article - without even making a comment on it. How original.

the things we most despise in others are often the things we are most guilty

 

[The ClayTaurus]

President Bush could cure cancer and end world hunger and they wouldn't give him credit for it anyway.

It's the same, tired crap from the Democrats. Rather than actually come up with ideas or lay out any plans, they put all their energy into trying to make the Republicans look bad. Cuz, ya know, that worked so well in 2004...

When the dems put Howard Dean as chairman, it showed just how little they "get it."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

When the dems put Howard Dean as chairman, it showed just how little they "get it."

So why are you still a dem?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

the things we most despise in others are often the things we are most guilty

This doesn't apply with people who hate gays; don't know why it would suddenly apply here...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So why are you still a dem?

I'm not.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Let's impeach him for lying to the American people.

 

[manu1959]

Let's impeach him for lying to the American people.

to lie means to know the truth and tell something other than the truth....

what was the truth?

what was told to the american people?

 

[manu1959]

This doesn't apply with people who hate gays; don't know why it would suddenly apply here...

interesting.......there is a possibility here that you are not considering

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the whole point of the Democrat tactics is to strike out any way they can and somehow seize power back. Even if it means placing our troops and us in jeopardy. Secondly is to have Bush leave office with no accomplishments acredited to him.

Problem is he has already accomplished alot of things. I still am waiting for a Democrat to tell me what was so great about what Clinton supposedly accomplished.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's impeach him for lying to the American people.

Well in order to do that you need to have found a lie he intentionally told the American people.

Fact is you can't. And you have cried wolf so much i doubt the American public would believe you if you did find one.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well in order to do that you need to have found a lie he intentionally told the American people.

Fact is you can't. And you have cried wolf so much i doubt the American public would believe you if you did find one.

Yes I can.

He told us that Congress had access to the same intelligence regarding Iraq that he did.

This is not true. And you know damn well he knew it wasn't true, unless of course you honestly believe George Bush isn't aware that Congress doesn't get copies of his daily intelligence briefings - which would make him dumber than a stack of bricks.


He also said in April of 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Now we know that in 2004 he was authorizing wiretaps w/o a court order, so that's another lie.


He also said a wiretap requires a court order. So either he is a) lying or b) willfully breaking the law. Which is it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html


Anyone who doesn't see these two lies for what they are is seriously brainwashed.

 

[no1tovote4]

Congress is not helpless against the President, and the minority party is not helpless in Congress either. This idea that they had the wool pulled over their eyes is simply disingenuous. They have access to their own intel sources, according to Ben Campbell they do at least. The reasons that they voted the way that they did and gave away their power of declaration was so that they could have a way to point fingers and say it was "Bush's War".

I still believe we should not be in a nation when we haven't declared war against them, but I will not let these people say things like, "He didn't provide me with good intel." When they had other sources. They knew they were voting for war, unless they were retarded they did.... They should have checked, instead of being deliberately ignorant so they had plausible deniability. Especially those of the minority party on the Intel Committee... (the marjority party dropped the fricking ball too....)

 

[Gunny]

Yes I can.

He told us that Congress had access to the same intelligence regarding Iraq that he did.

This is not true. And you know damn well he knew it wasn't true, unless of course you honestly believe George Bush isn't aware that Congress doesn't get copies of his daily intelligence briefings - which would make him dumber than a stack of bricks.


He also said in April of 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Now we know that in 2004 he was authorizing wiretaps w/o a court order, so that's another lie.


He also said a wiretap requires a court order. So either he is a) lying or b) willfully breaking the law. Which is it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html


Anyone who doesn't see these two lies for what they are is seriously brainwashed.

You would be incorrect. Congress has access to the same classified information the President does. What they do NOT have access to the President's Daily Intelligence Briefings.

Basically, they have to do their own homework; however, their access is the same as his.

And I really have no idea, besides partisan whining, why you lefties care if he listens in on phone calls between terrorist organizations and suspected collaborators. The only people I see who should care about it are the terrorist organizations, terrorists, and/or their collaborators.

Y'all just keep throwing "hash" against the wall trying to get something -- anything -- to stick, and you get more and more desparate each time.