Bush Impeachment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Thorn, impeachment is an indictment, not a trial.... The house impeaches, the Senate tries.

The leftards will try to get Bush forever. They LOVE the government and when they are out of power they are like fish laying on the bank flopping around, looking for air, and not realizing that they AREN'T Swimming.

The lefties will try anything. BTW, I have to laugh out loud that Kerry had a grade point LOWER THAN BUSH'S AT YALE.

But he can 'Nuance'. What a crock of crap. Will SOMEONE find out why he was talking to the North Vietnamese in Paris when he was being paid as a Naval Reserve Officer. Can you spell "aid and comfort". See Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1. :cuss:
 
Brett hit it square on the head.

Pick up a copy of "Sellout" by David Shippers. Shippers is a Democrat district attorney who was hired by the House Managers to make the case to the senate to remove Clinton from office. He was the fly on the wall when the senate luminaries were deciding to dive or not. It is a great read. But beware. It should not be read on a full stomach. I thought I was going to puke the whole time was reading the book. "Honorable" senators come out looking like sniveling cowards. No one receives honorable mention in Shippers' view.

Great and disgusting at the same time.
 
Signing McCain-Feingold, after first saying it was probably un-Constitutional, deserved impeachment, if anything ever has.

Follow with me:

Bush is sworn to defend and protect the Constitution.

He says McCain-Feingold is probably un-Constitutional.

He then signs it anyway, basically as political payback for McCain's support.

Now, how is this anything less than dereliction of duty? As president, he should not sign laws against the Constitution, if he really believes that in his heart.
 
Bush has done more for the average Mexican than he has for the average American. For that he should be impeached.
Biker
 
Couldn't care less if Shrub is impeached and removed. He's served his purpose: He stopped Gore and Kerry. If he goes now we get Cheney with Rice as VP(yes, my assumption, which I will guarandamntee you would be correct) and then, probably, Rice as president(again, my assumption, but Hellery can't beat her...). Just a slight modification on the idea of Cheney stepping down and Shrubby appointing Rice VP to provide her needed "gravitas". Neither Shrub nor Dickey are worth working up a sweat to defend...and the Dems lack the balls anyway.
 
Wahh!
[whiney voice]
Bush is against clean air- he should be impeached.
Bush has poor pronunciation of words- he should be impeached
Bush was president when airplanes were flown into 3 different building- he should be impeached
Cheney is a successful businessman- Bush should be impeached
Gas costs $2.25 a gallon and everyone drives a SUV and we all know Bush's ties to the oil industry- he should be impeached
Bush comes from Texas but not really- he should be impeached
[/whiney voice]

waaaaaaahhhhh


:neener:
 
The fact that Bush supporters stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Bush has violated his oath of office by signing un-Constitutional legislation is amazing to me, and a reflection of how badly partisan our politics have become.

Republicans only want to impeach Democrats, and vice versa, and it is not for the right reasons. The real reason Clinton was impeached was not because of terrible things he had done to our country, it was simply an attempt by Republicans to grab power and hurt the Democratic Party.
 
The fact that Bush supporters stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Bush has violated his oath of office by signing un-Constitutional legislation is amazing to me, and a reflection of how badly partisan our politics have become.
The Supreme Court said it's constitutional, be tough to impeach Bush over it after that you must agree.
The real reason Clinton was impeached was not because of terrible things he had done to our country, it was simply an attempt by Republicans to grab power and hurt the Democratic Party.
The man lied, in front of a grand jury, on videotape. He got impeached because he thought he was above the law, and he could weasel out of anything. He was only half right.
 
Rebar, do you think McCain-Feingold is constitutional?

The fact the the SC says it is constitutional does not change the fact that Bush thought it was NOT and signed it anyway. If he believes it is un-constitutional, then how could he justify signing it, and still honor his oath of office?

As far as Clinton is concerned, do you think the Republicans would have gone after him for lying about sex if he had been a member of their party?
 
If he is going to be impeached, and I'm not saying he should be, it ought to be over the illegal alien invasion that he refuses to put a stop to
.

I am not sure about illegal, but it was probably not the best expenditure of people and dollars. It seems silly to me to invade another country when we can't even secure our own borders. :confused:

So, now we have two (three with Afghanistan) countries with borders we cannot control.
 
FWIW, Lieing to your wife about fooling around isn't a crime but lieing to a federal grand jury about anything, including sex, as sworn testimony or as a deposition is. Heck, even lawyers that still have a license to practice and former lawyers like Clinton, know that.

If Bill had just admitted it and said "Yeah, I did it. Look who I am married to."

Not a single warm blodded man in America would have faulted him for that considering Hillary Clinton.
 
How about we just outsource the Iraq war to India? They've got a problem with an overabundance of cannon fodder anyway.

Clinton certainly screwed up when he lied, and I've never been a fan of the man, but in my book people who butt their noses into the sex lives of consenting adults are the creepiest perverts out there. Why were they asking a grown man about getting his helmet polished in the first place? I would be nervous if Bill Clinton was dating my 20-year-old daughter, but not nearly as nervous as I would be if I saw Ken Star hanging around my five-year-old son's playground.
 
Rebar, do you think McCain-Feingold is constitutional?
In my opinion, no. But my opinion, and for that matter Bush's opinion, doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court says it's consititutional, it is, until if/when they change their minds.
The fact the the SC says it is constitutional does not change the fact that Bush thought it was NOT and signed it anyway. If he believes it is un-constitutional, then how could he justify signing it, and still honor his oath of office?
The fact is, it had to first pass the house and senate before he got to sign it, which means everyone who voted for it would have to be impeached too. Considering that most of those are still in office, and they are the same exact ones who would have to hold the impeachment trial, it's an idea that has zero chance of working.
Why were they asking a grown man about getting his helmet polished in the first place?
Because his "activity" took place in the people's office, he was on the job supposedly doing the people's business. If, on my lunch break I took a secretary into the broom closet and engaged in "activity", and got caught, wouldn't you fully expect me to get fired? Of course.

The oval office is my office, the peoples office, not a place for one mans private pervertions. Clinton, despite what he thought, wasn't a king or a dictator, he worked for us. Then he had the gall to lie in front of a grand jury, he got better than what he deserved.
but not nearly as nervous as I would be if I saw Ken Star hanging around my five-year-old son's playground.
A rediculous statement. Starr wasn't "hanging around" Clinton looking for sexual misbehavior, he was given the job of investigating him by congress. The man was just doing his job to the best of his abilities, dispite massive stonewalling and personal attacks by the administration.
 
The fact is, it had to first pass the house and senate before he got to sign it, which means everyone who voted for it would have to be impeached too.

No, everyone would not have to be impeached. I don't think you understand my point.

Laws have previously been passed that were struck down by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional. The legislators and/or president were not impeached. Presumably, the they believed these laws were Constitutional, only to be corrected by the SC. There was no willful, intentional, and public attempt to violate the Constitution.

Bush's situation is different. He said up front he thought McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional. Based on that and that alone he should not have signed something he thought violated the Constitution. I mean, would you sign un-Constitutional legislation if you were president? I suspect you would not do so knowingly, which is what Bush has done.

The fact that he admitted to signing a law that he thought was un-Constitutional is dereliction of duty. Even if he thought it, I can't imagine he would be dumb enough to say that out loud.

So, the legislators do not deserve impeachment, if they believed it was a constitutional law, as they did not violate their oaths of office. By saying that this was un-Constitutional, and then signing it anyway, I think Bush basically said he didnt give a damn about the Constitution, but would sign anything, if it was politically popular.
 
You want a "rediculous" statement? How about:
his "activity" took place in the people's office

That's childish. If you believe it's "the people's office," try wandering in and setting up shop. It's the office of a public employee. You quote Freud in your tagline. What would Freud say about your infantile preoccupation with the physical location of where Clinton got his knob washed?
 
It's politics in a decaying Republic. Clinton provided a way for rational people to remove his pathetic self. The "way" provided wasn't important, just that it existed. Those we tasked with doing the job(they are good for little else) proved themselves too incompetent to do even that, and his supporters mustered up to save his ass.

Meanwhile Bush may have provided the means for the JackAss Party to remove him. It remains to be seen if they are competent enough to do it and/or if Shrub's supporters are strong enough to keep him safe. As I said above, I don't care, he's served his purpose. There are a lot of other conservatives who feel similarly, so maybe he will lack enough defenders? If so the replacement can't be much worse(so long as it isn't a Leftist Democrat in '08).

It's all about partisanship to achieve specific short-term goals, since the long-term looks unremittingly bleak no matter what is done. If you doubt that go take a look at the C-Span thread, or C-Span itself...
 
That's childish. If you believe it's "the people's office," try wandering in and setting up shop. It's the office of a public employee
That attitude is emblematic of the problem. Clinton, a self-centered narcisstic megalomaniac, had no respect for the office he held.

It is said Reagan, OTOH, cognizant of the trust he held, never entered the Oval Office without a coat and tie.
 
United States Code, Title 18:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.
U.S. Constitution:
Section. 4.

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.

War Crimes(from the U.N.)
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.



Lying to congress to start a war is a felony and an impeachable offense. Killing thousands of innocent people in the commission of such an offense is a war crime. BTW, The conyers hearing on the downing street memo is on C-Span2 tonight, here's the link.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
 
Last edited:
Bush's situation is different. He said up front he thought McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional.
So what? I'm sure most, if not all, of the congress and senate knew that also, they just didn't say so, or if they did it wasn't recorded. The fact is it was ruled to be consitutional, if it wasn't then you might have a case, as is there's nothing.
It's the office of a public employee.
That's right, it is the office of a public employee, not a king, not a ruler. It's for the people's business. Sorry if you don't understand that. For anyone else, getting caught doing something like that, be it a public or private job, would get you immediately fired. Anyone else caught bald-faced lieing to a grand jury, would be put in prison for contempt and perjury. He got off way too light.
You quote Freud in your tagline. What would Freud say about your infantile preoccupation with the physical location of where Clinton got his knob washed?
Don't get personal with me buddy, it's a can of worms you don't want to open.
 
If youre going to talk about supporting unconstitutional ideas there is an American born citizen in a naval brig. He's been there for three years and has never even been charged with a crime. For the majority of that time he has been denyed access to anyone, even a lawyer.

According to this administration and the DoJ your constitutional rights are wiped out when they suspect you've done something bad and can be categorized as an "enemy combatant".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top