Should President Bush be Impeached?
- Thread starter ITEOTWAWKI
- Start date
- Status
Rangefinder
New member
I never said I was OK with it, but seriously--it runs through nearly every sector of politics in one form or another. You can't throw a rock in DC without hitting at least one crooked politician. If we're talking about cleaning house, it's gotta happen through all parts, not just the convenient ones for the moment.
I'm already on record wanting the man impeached and removed from office, but not for that canteen of bilge you listed.
I want him impeached for his complete and utter refusal to enforce our borders in a time of war. Now that more is seeping out over the SPP initiative I am considering adding treason to the charges. What he did over the borders is clear cut. Where he is headed with the SPP is alarming. Your list is subject to honest discussion and differing interpretations.
I want him impeached for his complete and utter refusal to enforce our borders in a time of war. Now that more is seeping out over the SPP initiative I am considering adding treason to the charges. What he did over the borders is clear cut. Where he is headed with the SPP is alarming. Your list is subject to honest discussion and differing interpretations.
ITEOTWAWKI
Moderator
Hell, throw that one on the list. But do we file it under "Gross negligence" or "9/11/war on terror inconsistencies"?
Geoff Timm
New member
Lied on Iraq to Congress, the Public, and the United Nations.
Let's see, we have examined 1% of Iraq weapons storage areas and found Uranium and 500 chemical weapons that were under the agreement with the UN, destroyed or disposed of.
9-11 Cover-Up and Obstruction of Justice.
The Democrats placed Clintons all purpose traitor on the investigating body. If she couldn't fine a way to stick it to Bush, who will?
Violated Rights of Citizens including Habeas Corpus.
Only problem is was the "citizen" still a citizen?
NSA Program to Listen to Citizens without Warrant.
Not possible to get a warrant if one end of the conversation is in a foreign power.
Violated International Treaties Including Geneva Convention.
The US never signed the Geneva or Haig conventions.
Actively Encouraged, as a Policy, Use of Torture.
Depends on how you define "torture." Cross reference Gitmo housing standards and interrogation rules.
Gross Negligence on Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA was a Jame Earl Carter invention. You expected it to WORK?
Iraq Contract Corruption--Bremer "Lost" $8 billion in cash, sole source awards, and gross negligence in managing the peace.
How perfect do you think contracting is gonna be, when they try to apply rules written for the US of A in time of peace, to contracts in a WAR ZONE?
Geoff
Who figures Iraq is the Guadelcanal of the Terror War, where we learn what works and what doesn't.
Let's see, we have examined 1% of Iraq weapons storage areas and found Uranium and 500 chemical weapons that were under the agreement with the UN, destroyed or disposed of.
9-11 Cover-Up and Obstruction of Justice.
The Democrats placed Clintons all purpose traitor on the investigating body. If she couldn't fine a way to stick it to Bush, who will?
Violated Rights of Citizens including Habeas Corpus.
Only problem is was the "citizen" still a citizen?
NSA Program to Listen to Citizens without Warrant.
Not possible to get a warrant if one end of the conversation is in a foreign power.
Violated International Treaties Including Geneva Convention.
The US never signed the Geneva or Haig conventions.
Actively Encouraged, as a Policy, Use of Torture.
Depends on how you define "torture." Cross reference Gitmo housing standards and interrogation rules.
Gross Negligence on Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA was a Jame Earl Carter invention. You expected it to WORK?
Iraq Contract Corruption--Bremer "Lost" $8 billion in cash, sole source awards, and gross negligence in managing the peace.
How perfect do you think contracting is gonna be, when they try to apply rules written for the US of A in time of peace, to contracts in a WAR ZONE?
Geoff
Who figures Iraq is the Guadelcanal of the Terror War, where we learn what works and what doesn't.
I'm struck by the incredible irony of the original poster (ITEOTWAWKI) and his premise (hoping for) impeachment of the one man who is putting his neck on the line to keep this country safe and protect our way of life.
With Bush at the lead, we are actively engaged in fighting those who are literally attempting to CHANGE the world as we know it, so the original poster who seems to be hoping the most to get rid of those who would protect our way of life is "fighting" for getting rid of those who are the most serious about the security of America.
The incredible irony of this entire thread is that if the original poster had his way, then America would cease to be the country we all grew up in, and we would therefore ACTUALLY experience TEOTWAWKI.
(For those who aren't familiar with the acronym: "It's The End Of The World As We Know It".)
Carter
With Bush at the lead, we are actively engaged in fighting those who are literally attempting to CHANGE the world as we know it, so the original poster who seems to be hoping the most to get rid of those who would protect our way of life is "fighting" for getting rid of those who are the most serious about the security of America.
The incredible irony of this entire thread is that if the original poster had his way, then America would cease to be the country we all grew up in, and we would therefore ACTUALLY experience TEOTWAWKI.
(For those who aren't familiar with the acronym: "It's The End Of The World As We Know It".)
Carter
I voted yes.
Breaking the law and violating the Constitution must never be allowed to go unpunished even if the alternative is worse. This is not the sort of behavior we want to encourage in our leaders regardless of party. And surely not impeaching him will embolden our future leaders to do the same (if not worse).
If we do not have a Dem president in January '09, we will surely have one again someday. Just how comfortable are you folks with the thought of a gun-grabber who can break the law with impunity?
Breaking the law and violating the Constitution must never be allowed to go unpunished even if the alternative is worse. This is not the sort of behavior we want to encourage in our leaders regardless of party. And surely not impeaching him will embolden our future leaders to do the same (if not worse).
If we do not have a Dem president in January '09, we will surely have one again someday. Just how comfortable are you folks with the thought of a gun-grabber who can break the law with impunity?
Gary Conner
New member
What a President SHOULD be impeached for doing.
Source: www.spp.gov
The one Impeachable act which the President has committed, and in my opinion, undeniably, is "make" a treaty without authorization from Congress. And Article II, Section II sets out the legal method in which a President can "make" a treaty.
The language therein states as follows, (and is where the words “make” treaties is important to this issue): "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
A treaty, by definition, is an "agreement between two or more states relating to trade, defense, or similar issues."
The North American Partnership Agreement is a Treaty. Regardless of the denial by many who claim it is "not signed" nor is it an "enforceable" treaty due to it being a so-called "non-binding" agreement, it is nevertheless, a treaty. And in fact, it is not an unsigned agreement, since there are at least four "Memorandum of Understanding" documents signed by (either) the Ambassadors of each Country, or the heads of the Government Agencies appointed by the President, who are Signators of those memorandum of understandings, and those documents are complete with the flag of each represented country clearly imprinted on them, and posted on the Federal Government web site announcing the “making” (or as they like to call it, "inauguration" of this "agreement) in March of 2005.
This treaty is simply unconstitutional (due to not one vote being taken in Congress, much less a majority vote in the Senate) and when an Administration posts a dedicated web site (www.spp.gov) announcing to the entire world that they have collectively entered into an "agreement" entitled the “North American Partnership Agreement” with Mexico and Canada regarding Border issues (emigration is regulated by Congress, not the President according to Article II) "tri-lateral law enforcement" agreements, then it is a very, very weak and misleading argument by them to state “a treaty does not exist” because George Bush appointed his Agency heads to sign it, rather than him personally signing it, which is what their “myth vs. fact” page attempts to do.
The documents can be viewed by clicking on the "documents" link on www.spp.gov which is about three spaces below the "Myth vs. Fact" link on their web site. (That is the portion that denies any documents were signed regarding this treaty, which they in fact, were, since they are posted right below the denial.)
The "agreement" is a treaty, made without a single vote in the Congress. And that is the reason he should be impeached in the House, and removed by the Senate.
Just because folks say "Well, Cheney would be just as bad" is no reason not to remove a President for violating his oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States. In fact, by not doing so, we encourage the successors to that office, to pretty much do what they wish.
Intentionally violating the Constitution, is not demonstrating an effort to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. And in my opinion, doing that is a felony which reaches not only the level of, but the MEANING of, "high crimes" or "misdemeanors” committed by a Chief Executive.
The Democrats want to impeach him for Iraq. The Democrats voted in an overwhelming majority, for the war in Iraq. They had the EXACT same info the President did. You can’t impeach him for something the Congress ALLOWED him to do, by majority vote.
You CAN, and SHOULD impeach him for completely subverting the U.S. Constitution.
Source: www.spp.gov
The one Impeachable act which the President has committed, and in my opinion, undeniably, is "make" a treaty without authorization from Congress. And Article II, Section II sets out the legal method in which a President can "make" a treaty.
The language therein states as follows, (and is where the words “make” treaties is important to this issue): "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
A treaty, by definition, is an "agreement between two or more states relating to trade, defense, or similar issues."
The North American Partnership Agreement is a Treaty. Regardless of the denial by many who claim it is "not signed" nor is it an "enforceable" treaty due to it being a so-called "non-binding" agreement, it is nevertheless, a treaty. And in fact, it is not an unsigned agreement, since there are at least four "Memorandum of Understanding" documents signed by (either) the Ambassadors of each Country, or the heads of the Government Agencies appointed by the President, who are Signators of those memorandum of understandings, and those documents are complete with the flag of each represented country clearly imprinted on them, and posted on the Federal Government web site announcing the “making” (or as they like to call it, "inauguration" of this "agreement) in March of 2005.
This treaty is simply unconstitutional (due to not one vote being taken in Congress, much less a majority vote in the Senate) and when an Administration posts a dedicated web site (www.spp.gov) announcing to the entire world that they have collectively entered into an "agreement" entitled the “North American Partnership Agreement” with Mexico and Canada regarding Border issues (emigration is regulated by Congress, not the President according to Article II) "tri-lateral law enforcement" agreements, then it is a very, very weak and misleading argument by them to state “a treaty does not exist” because George Bush appointed his Agency heads to sign it, rather than him personally signing it, which is what their “myth vs. fact” page attempts to do.
The documents can be viewed by clicking on the "documents" link on www.spp.gov which is about three spaces below the "Myth vs. Fact" link on their web site. (That is the portion that denies any documents were signed regarding this treaty, which they in fact, were, since they are posted right below the denial.)
The "agreement" is a treaty, made without a single vote in the Congress. And that is the reason he should be impeached in the House, and removed by the Senate.
Just because folks say "Well, Cheney would be just as bad" is no reason not to remove a President for violating his oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States. In fact, by not doing so, we encourage the successors to that office, to pretty much do what they wish.
Intentionally violating the Constitution, is not demonstrating an effort to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. And in my opinion, doing that is a felony which reaches not only the level of, but the MEANING of, "high crimes" or "misdemeanors” committed by a Chief Executive.
The Democrats want to impeach him for Iraq. The Democrats voted in an overwhelming majority, for the war in Iraq. They had the EXACT same info the President did. You can’t impeach him for something the Congress ALLOWED him to do, by majority vote.
You CAN, and SHOULD impeach him for completely subverting the U.S. Constitution.
Last edited:
one would think so.....
Introduction:
Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton
under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also
under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton
under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton
under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton
by (i)
in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
The poll isn't about Clinton, it's about Bush, and he hasn't done anything impeachable. Dimwittedness and gawdawful appointments are NOT high crimes and misdemeanors.
A remarkably good read on this topic is the current book A State of Denial by Bob Woodward, and before ANYBODY says ANYTHING about mainstream media and bias, blahblah, Peggy Noonan recommended it. I rather trust her take on things. And she was right. It's a very good, informative read. And sad.
He's not impeachable. I think he's over his head, but he's not impeachable.
Springmom
A remarkably good read on this topic is the current book A State of Denial by Bob Woodward, and before ANYBODY says ANYTHING about mainstream media and bias, blahblah, Peggy Noonan recommended it. I rather trust her take on things. And she was right. It's a very good, informative read. And sad.
He's not impeachable. I think he's over his head, but he's not impeachable.
Springmom
DonR101395
New member
+1
He loved to use the old tactic of deny, deny, deny then make a counter-accusation. Now his cronies are doing the same thing. They were all in this together, they voted to go to war. Now they deny, deny, deny then make the accusation they were lied to about the war.
The proposed articles of impeachment against Clinton involved perjury and obstruction of justice (soliciting perjury) in formal court proceedings. Perjury is a criminal offense and any President that lies under oath in court should be impeached.
BTW, Clinton admitted giving false testimony (note the fine line between false testimony and perjury) in the Paula Jones case on his last day in office, but most people missed that little tidbit in the hoopla surrounding Clinton's departure and Bush's inauguration.
added: I am disturbed that so many people call for impeachment when they don't like the results of actions. That turns impeachment into nothing more than a cheap form of referendum on the direction or results of political decisions. I believe that impeachment was intended to be reserved as a method to address grave cases of criminality and not as a measure of popularity.
Last edited:
LOL. ALL writers want to make money. It's just that not many of them make ENOUGH money (voice of experience here....
)I wish I had a copy of the link to Noonan's article. (EDIT: HERE IT IS: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009048) She recommended this book, IIRC, not just because it isn't a ponderously over-wordy bad read like the first two apparently were, but because it got a better overall picture of what has happened. As I've been reading it, I've wondered pretty much what you did...why three books to get around to documenting this? As I go through it (still reading it, I'm about 3/4 of the way through) I think the answer is that as people have left the administration, as personnel have retired from the military and CIA, etc., sources have become available that weren't so much in the first four years. Plus, let's face it, as this thing becomes the Everready Bunny War (just keeps going and going and going....) that in itself is data that wasn't there two years ago.
I'd recommend it. It's a good read, and while I tend to trust any mainline journalist about as far as I can throw them (with my arthritis!
) he has done a remarkable job of documenting this book, he got an editor to cut out the verbosity he's famous for, and it manages to show the mistakes and screwups without ever demonizing anybody (even Rumsfeld, which takes some doing).It's worth reading, IMO.
Springmom
- Status