Bush Impeachment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RealGun,

For sake of discussion we will say you do not think it is impeachable for the president to sign an un-constitutional law...

The question I am asking is would you sign a bill you thought might be un-constitutional if you knew you would not be impeached for it, if it would be politically advantageous for you to sign it?
 
For sake of discussion we will say you do not think it is impeachable for the president to sign an un-constitutional law...
Click to expand...

Give it a rest. That is not my context at all. You are ignoring what I already wrote, so don't expect more from me.
 
Ok we can drop it if you don't want to answer... I guess you didnt make it clear to me what context you were talking about.

Personally, I think it would wrong for a president to sign bills he think might violate the Constitution, and therefore violate his Oath of Office, but I see some people consider that a gray-zone issue.
 
Getting back to the idea of Bush getting impeached...

People keep making comments about the fact that other "world leaders", and "even Kerry" believed there were WMD in Iraq. Of course they did. I'd believe it, too, if my President came to me and said, "Hey... I have evidence that there are WMD in Iraq. I can't actually show you the evidence (national security, you understand), but I have it."

At least I would've believed it back in 2001, or maybe even in 2002. Seeing as how Bush did exactly that, it's no wonder that everybody thought Saddam still had WMD.

Fact is, the Downing Street memos show that the current administration was going to attack Iraq, no matter what... no ifs, ands, or buts. They just needed a rationale so they wouldn't look too terribly much like baby killers.

Another fact is that the world now has tens of thousands more terrorists in it that it had in September, 2001. And they've all dedicated their lives to harming the United States. People here have taken the position that if we do see another attack, and it can be traced back across our unguarded border, then Bush should definitely be impeached, and somebody more competant brought in to do the job. (Condi, maybe?) Why wait? This President's policies have already killed more Americans than any other single cause since we left Viet Nam to "Peace with Honor".

We need that competant person to take over the helm NOW... before the next attack comes!
 
And that competant person is Dick Cheney?

Let's get real. Bush is the kind of CEO who believes that to suceed, all you need is the right people and the vision. As we're seeing now, that kind of management style can lead to problems.

He's surrounded himself with "true-believers" in his policies. Cheney's knee-deep in the operations and policy formation. Impeaching Bush would change nothing.

And, there's no way in hell he could be impeached. He's got the Republicans too tightly under control. Sure, that control is slightly slipping lately, but he's got the majority. And that's what matters.
 
I don't see why the memo is even seen as news. Richard Clark has been saying the exact same thing since before the election. He's never been discredited, and his allegations have never been disproven, or even credibly challenged. The Bush Administration tossed out a few half-hearted ad hominem attacks, and that was it. At that point any sane person knew that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since the day he came into office. If that had been important to most people Bush would not have been re-elected. Why would they impeach the man now for what they knew before the election? Sure the war is going badly, but we also knew that the hubris with which Rumsfeldt conducted the war would lead to a bad outcome. That's what a lot of his top generals were saying in 2002. again, if people are so butt stupid that they didn't know this prior to the 2004 election, then they really are too stupid to be allowed to vote, or reproduce for that matter.

But I can't believe people are really that butt stupid. I have to believe that they made an informed decision that Bush generally supported policies they believed in and that Kerry didn't.

Me, I unapologetically voted Libertarian. I know this fact puts some of you into a frothy-mouthed rage, but if I wanted to live in a country where some jackass could tell me how I must vote, I wouldn't be living in the United States. Last I checked, except for a few hundred folks in Gitmo, most of us still live in a country where we're free to vote however we believe is right.
 
about the fact that other "world leaders", and "even Kerry" believed there were WMD in Iraq. Of course they did. I'd believe it, too, if my President came to me and said, "Hey... I have evidence that there are WMD in Iraq. I can't actually show you the evidence (national security, you understand), but I have it."
Click to expand...
Most of them had reached that conclusion long before Bush began making his case.

At that point any sane person knew that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since the day he came into office.
Click to expand...
Look, here's what is not disputed about Saddam Hussein:

1. He had WMD in the past.
2. He used them.
3. He was actively trying to develop them again.
4. He tried to have a US president assassinated.
5. He sponsored suicides bombers in Israel by paying their families twenty-five thousand dollars.
and last but not least (and this one alone would be enough),
6. Weekly, his military forces fired on American planes enforcing the (UN-mandated, BTW) no-fly zones. An act of war.

Hell, I don't care if Bush decided even before he took office that Saddam had to go. The justifications were there all along; the rest was just politics.
 
The "no fly zones" were totally outside the UN mandate and they were NEVER related to anything the UN did.

There were arbitrarily imposed on Iraq at the whim of the US/UK/France after the Gulf War.

The "UN justification" is resolution 688. Except for the small detail that there is never mentioned anything called a "no-fly zone" or says absolutely anything about Iraq being prevented from using their airspace.
RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991

The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Click to expand...

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement
 
You're considering the Downing Street Memos credible??

June 19, 2005
Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?

The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

What kind of idiot destroys the originals and expects anyone to believe that a copy is legitimate? Oh wait, that would be the same type of idiot that faked the Bush documents.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html#

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.
Click to expand...

If they're fakes then the British Prime Minister is in on it.

The British government has had over a month to dispute the authenticity of the documents, the Prime Minister has been asked direct questions about their contents and not ONCE has he denied their contents or suggested that they were fabricated or inauthentic in any way.

Tony Blair was at the meeting described in the DSM. If no such meeting took place, or the issues discussed at the meeting were different then the ones that are referenced in the DSM, then I'm sure the eloquent and unbashful Prime Minister would of had no trouble educating the British (and American) public of such facts since the DSM became public on May 1, 2005.
 
CeeTee, your time line is off by a decade and your glee to impugn President Bush is wrong:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."

Mr. Clinton went on to sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which specifically called for the military removal of Saddam.
 
People here have taken the position that if we do see another attack, and it can be traced back across our unguarded border, then Bush should definitely be impeached, - CeeTee
Click to expand...

So you want to make it about unprotected borders? To me, a more genuine proposal would simply be "because I can't stand the guy...how dare he win the election". All the rest is rationalizing. There is no impeachment opportunity here. Move along.

Bush is actually a pretty competent President, some policies with which I strongly disagree. As a gun owner, he has caused me no problems whatsoever. The war in Iraq is not the problem some would like to make it. I have always supported it and still do.

Like you, controlling immigration is a high priority for me. I don't appreciate that GW is not spending the appropriation for that purpose. I blame Congress for not inquiring about it.
 
The "no fly zones" were totally outside the UN mandate and they were NEVER related to anything the UN did.
Click to expand...
OK, ya got me on that one; I'd assumed it was a UN thing. Nonetheless, the suthern no-fly zone was put in place to prevent any further military aggression against Kuwait, and the northern no-fly, no-drive zone was to prevent Hussein from engaging in any further "ethnic cleansing" against his own people, the Kurds.

What about my other points?
 
+1 for what Realgun just said.

The "Bush lied Children died" line is getting pretty old. The liberal/left chanted it when the war stated, they chanted it during the election, they're still chanting it. Rediculous.

As for this memo, I consider it on the same order as the CBS documents. The left so hates Bush, they'll certainly lie, forge, or do anything to smear the man.

They're going to have to put a 24 guard over Bush's grave, the Bush-hate is so strong with these nutcases, they'll dig him up and hang his corpse out of pure spite.

As for the border, if it was once secure, and Bush made it less so, then there would be a case. But the border has never been secure. And would Kerry have done something? No. Badnarick? He'd remove all control. Let it be a big issue for the next election cycle, by all means, but to make impeachment noises is just dumb.
 
Most of them had reached that conclusion long before Bush began making his case.
Click to expand...

Really? According to whom? I can't claim to speak for "most of them", but I vividly recall numerous press conferences held by Blair, and our own Congressional leaders in which they affirmed that despite his inability to confirm where he recieved his intelligence from, due to U.S. national security, Bush had, indeed, convinced them that Iraq still possessed WMD.


1. He had WMD in the past.
2. He used them.
3. He was actively trying to develop them again.
4. He tried to have a US president assassinated.
5. He sponsored suicides bombers in Israel by paying their families twenty-five thousand dollars.
and last but not least (and this one alone would be enough),
6. Weekly, his military forces fired on American planes enforcing the (UN-mandated, BTW) no-fly zones. An act of war.
Click to expand...

1. So? The past is just that. The past.

2. For which Grampa Bush sent over a congratulatory Rumsfeld, and probably a magnum of champagne, along with a note that read, "See? I told you they would work when you bought 'em!"

3. Not according to the U.N. inspectors on the ground in the days just before we attacked.

4. That's what despots do. Think maybe we should've struck while the iron was hot? Oh, yeah... that's right Clinton did. He passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for (specifically):

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE

(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.


......

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Click to expand...

As you can see, this Act specifically DOES NOT call for the military removal of Saddam Hussein... Iraq Liberation Act


5. Now, suicide bombers are blowing up our kinsmen for free. Great trade.
6. Already been addressed... (thanks, davec!)

CeeTee, your time line is off by a decade and your glee to impugn President Bush is wrong:
Click to expand...

Why do Republicans always have to drag Clinton into a discussion about Bush?

I don't want to make it about unprotected borders. I want to make it about war crimes. I want to make it about invading a sovereign nation without just cause. I want to make it about weakening our nation. I want to make it about lying to Congress, us citizens, and the rest of the world. I want to make it about a government that over 60% of us don't trust any more. I want to make it about Sensenbrenner uninlaterally declaring that the minority members of the Judiciary Committee just don't matter. There are a thousand things I want to make it about... but that's not for here and now.

Other people have stated that we have to wait until we're attacked again, and it's proven that the attack has come across our border... I asked "Why wait?" Are you saying that squandering Border Patrol money overseas has not weakened our Borders? Creating tens of thousands of new terrorists, all dedicated to harming you and me has not weakened our borders? Espousing a program whereby any foreigner is free to cross our border to work at will has not weakened our borders?

It was said best on another shooting forum... not by me, I admit to my chagrin:

Substituting slavish emperor-worship for a consistent devotion to liberty is a recipe for disaster.


Florida Shooters Network
Click to expand...
 
1. So? The past is just that. The past.

2. For which Grampa Bush sent over a congratulatory Rumsfeld, and probably a magnum of champagne, along with a note that read, "See? I told you they would work when you bought 'em!"
Click to expand...
My point is that when he had them, he used them, and was actively seeking to develop them again. The inspectors said they hadn't found any, which only meant that he hid his attempts well (Trucks leaving buildings right before the inspectors showd up?). Hell, even he thought he had them.
 
But yet on other matters, conspiracy theories are discredited.

You know, I think critics are mostly mad because military money could be spent on "welfare" instead. It is no coincidence that the big hearing last week, chaired by Conyers, was attended by most of the CBC, all Democrats. Why is it suddenly a CBC issue? Are they anti-war by definition? Since when? I didn't hear introductions of anyone but CBC members.

Who was it said Conyers never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like? It is true that the CBC is his power base.
 
My point is that when he had them, he used them, and was actively seeking to develop them again. The inspectors said they hadn't found any, which only meant that he hid his attempts well (Trucks leaving buildings right before the inspectors showd up?). Hell, even he thought he had them.
Click to expand...

He did have them... a decade ago. He may (or may not) have been actively seeking to develop them again; we'll never know.

The impetus to attack was imminent threat. WMDs, and delivery systems potent enough to get them here. The one guy in a position to know best was William Scott Ritter, a retired Marine, and the longest US weapons inspector in Iraq. He told Time magazine, in 2002, "...no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has constituted weapons-of-mass-destruction capability with anything that resembles substantive fact."

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." Charles Duelfer

After no overt weapons were used (or even found), Condoleeza Rice said the weapons programs are "in bits and pieces" rather than assembled weapons. "You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there," she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities. Condi Rice

After no "assembly lines" or even raw materials were found, the original reason for the attack morphed out in dozens of different directions.

Yes, Saddam was a baddie. Yes, he deserves a death too horrible for description. No, it's not legal for America to go an invade a sovereign nation, without being attacked first. The leader that does so breaks the law, and should be punished.
 
1. refusing to let inspectors into facilities
2. broken UN resolutions, 14 I think
3. mass graves

Sour grapes are hard to swallow. They (the President, his advisors, Congress) all had the same intelligence information. It's not like Bush read the report and then told everyone else something that wasn't on the report.
 
That's debatable.
Click to expand...

That they didn't read the intelligence report or weren't provided the report?

We all know there are Congress people who do not read the bills that are presented to them, but if they chose not to read the report, then get misled by exaggerated catch phrases, the president isn't the one who is an idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush
Replies
1
Views
402
Art Eatman
A
K
  • Locked
...And now for something Completely different:
Replies
2
Views
478
KC
K
P
  • Locked
The Triumph of Ideology Over Reality
Replies
3
Views
499
JohnBT
J
D
  • Locked
Did Bush lie to us about Iraq's WMD?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
M1911
M
R
  • Locked
The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
188
Views
7K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Back
Top