Please pass the Impeachment.

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
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
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
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.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
"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."
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

try that.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
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.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
"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.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,649
Reaction score
17,720
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
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.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
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.

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.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
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.
Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?

So your saying bush is stupid? How can we go to war, without legitimate proof of WMD's. He said there was evidence, yet the weapons inspectors found nothing before they were pulled. He knew there was no physical proof, of WMD's therefore he lied. Maybe we cant proov it but why didnt he allow weapons inspectors to proov it? Why did he jump the gun, without proof? Even Republicans will admit that he knew there was no physical proof of a nuclear program. The mustard gas he used in the rebellion, was not a WMD, it was a chemical weapon. If that was the case, then why dont we go to war with iran, and north korea....at least we have physical proof of there weapons programs.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_11_19/ai_101941814

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12067487/page/7/

there are thousands of articles and facts that he knew there was no solid proof of WMD's before the war.

"Now, I’d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn’t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best. We had air superiority before we even—or actually air supremacy before we would even start an operation. So to say that this threat was imminent or grave and gathering, seemed like a great exaggeration to me."

What that means is, that even if we found chemical weapons, scuds and other bombs. These things would not present a strategic threat to us. Why would bush push for a war with an enemy that posed no real threat, had no proof of WMD's, had no real air support, and were outnumberd by Tens of thousands of troops. Was he afraid they were going to run more planes into our buildings?!?!? Well then how about beefing up boarder and air port security first! And then go after osama. The iraq war was just like the last 5 wars, unprovoked.
 

UnAmericanYOU

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
389
Reaction score
103
Points
78
Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?
Most four-year-olds can tell you the difference between lying and being wrong. You know you're reaching the pits when you have to defend Chuck Hagel, but even the article by the OP was "misleading":

Senator: Some see impeachment as option
That's the headline, then Keith Olbermann's employer continues with:

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.
So Hagel was really saying the left wing wanted to impeach Bush, doh. MSNBC is being duplicitious here, this is an old liberal dream, to "get" Bush for payback for Clinton's impeachment. It's not going to happen, running on this "Bush lied about WMDs" AGAIN will cause the Democrats to lose all in two years.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?

no one is saying that Bush KNEW that Saddam did not have WMD's ...the LIE is the conveyance of absolute certainty when no such certainty existed at any level.

One definition of lie is "something intended or serving to convey a false impression"

To convey that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's was a lie.... there always was some level of doubt, to say otherwise is to knowingly convey a false impression...and that is a lie.
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
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.
Yes Vintij but you're forgetting that the Republican definition of an actual "lie" has become as convoluted as Bubba's definition of "sex.":badgrin:
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Do you need a re-education in the definition of lie. I never thought I would actually see a lib, in writing no less, define the word lie the way conservatives accuse them of defining it.

For the record, to tell a lie requires knowing the truth before hand. There is no evidence that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. One saying something is the case then finding out it isn't is not a lie. If i say there is evidence someone's car is Blue, but it turns out to be red, does that mean I lied?
Doesn't that lead you to the question of why Bush didn't know?

Maybe it's possible if he didn't really "know" the truth that he didn't want to know.

He is the CIC of the armed forces. Don't you think he kind of owed it to our fighting men and women to do a little research before he sent them into harm's way?

I suspect, based upon what I've read, that the decision to invade Iraq was made as soon as bush took office (pun intended) and hyping the obsolete intelligence (the same obsolete intelligence that a few Dems had cited)instead of the most current intel which said that the old intel was probably wrong, was the best way to scare Congress into jumping on board.
 

UnAmericanYOU

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
389
Reaction score
103
Points
78
"Beating a dead horse".

no one is saying that Bush KNEW that Saddam did not have WMD's ...the LIE is the conveyance of absolute certainty when no such certainty existed at any level.
No, that's called "estimating", "assuming", "guessing", "banking on", "postulating" et al. All those words have a subtle difference between them but none involve deception. "Lying" does.

One definition of lie is "something intended or serving to convey a false impression".
That involved deception. At worst, you can say he hoped Saddam had WMDs so he'd have a case for a war. But all those violations of UN resolutions by a REAL liar and Saddam's own track record was enough.


To convey that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's was a lie.... there always was some level of doubt, to say otherwise is to knowingly convey a false impression...and that is a lie.
Everyone - including you - thought at the time he did have WMD's, revisionism is another type of lie.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
"Beating a dead horse".



No, that's called "estimating", "assuming", "guessing", "banking on", "postulating" et al. All those words have a subtle difference between them but none involve deception. "Lying" does.

saying that there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam has WMD's when there always was some degree of doubt is a conveying a false impression. That is a lie. spin all you want.... it is still a lie



That involved deception. At worst, you can say he hoped Saddam had WMDs so he'd have a case for a war. But all those violations of UN resolutions by a REAL liar and Saddam's own track record was enough.

and if he had said that he was pretty sure that Saddam had WMD's if he had conveyed anything less than absolute certainty, he would not have lied. but oops... he did say there was no doubt...he did convey a false impression...he did LIE. Just fucking deal with it.




Everyone - including you - thought at the time he did have WMD's, revisionism is another type of lie.

don't put words in my mouth asshole. I did NOT think that he had WMD's... I felt from day one that the whole "get Saddam" line was bullshit.... and I saw it all as nothing more than a PNAC plan and a way to use 9/11 and fear and revenge to jumpstart the PNAC agenda...
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
Can you be impeached as a nimrod for making unsupported accusations under false pretenses?

He got a DUI and paid his debt to society. Done deal. You sure didn't want to hold Kerry accountable for either participating in the commission of war crimes, or lying to Congress.

I guess I should also point out that whether or not one is charged with DUI is completely irrelevant to whether or not one is a Christian.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top