Articles of Impeachment for Bush

[carolaa]

And we will all look back and call you a prophet. hehehe

[Woody]

I will gladly be added to the list of prophets by saying that Bush will not be impeached. He will not be because he is not guilty. Bush is a man of integrity. Clinton was a convicted felon. The choice is yours. Clinton's admin. was built on lies and deception. How easy we forget. He even thought he could get away with lies before a grand jury. But he was deceived.

[Neil D]

Well the proof is in the pudding. Clinton was impeached. Bush has not been and isn't going to be. The facts of history will be recorded as thus.

Well, he should be...He and Cheney and placed on trial for treason to boot. ANYONE who outs one of our CIA operatives needs to be placed on trial for treason.

And then there is the mass killing of Iraqi citizens 0that he has caused. not to mention the number of our guys killed and wounded for his blunders.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you think Lincoln was right to do what he did under the circumstances?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I'm not an expert on the Civil War. I know he declared martial law. Did he lie to Congress, deceive the American public, commit treason?

He suspended the law regarding habeas corpus, and that was for American citizens. Do you think he was right to do it?

[Bravus]

Just two quick points:

1. I do agree that actual impeachment is improbable at this point, and probably pointless at this point. But that doesn't mean clearly laying out these articles of impeachment and getting them into the public record is a futile exercise. Laying out the clear record of this amdinistration's malfeasance in one place is important.

2. It's not all about the Iraq war. Sit down and read through all the articles thoughtfully. Even if you believe the intelligence absolutely justified the war, there is still torture and rendition, and there is still the illegal spying on Americans. The offences are wide-ranging and are *not* all tied up with the war.

[John317]

What is the difference between a president trying to build a case for a particular foreign policy and one where the president uses "propaganda"?

Isn't the president under obligation to build the case that he believes is right for US interests?

Didn't Wilson do it for WW1? Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam? Truman for Korea? None of those men were ever Impeached.

What did Bush do that proves he was trying to deceive the American people into believing a lie? I believe even the President's worst critics do not say Bush was lying, and we don't impeach president's for being wrong or making a mistake in judgment.

(By the way, the Democrats in 1864 wanted to make peace with the South and if they had won the election-- which we can thank God they did not--this country would now be split into two nations, and slavery would have continued a while longer. Lincoln had the good sense to do what he did and not follow the decisions of the US Supreme Court. It would simply have been impossible to prosecute the war if he had followed them. For one thing those decisions would have made it necessary for the courts to make public knowledge all the secret information about the Confederates, a foolish thing to do when you're seriously fighting a serious war.)

[Neil D]

What is the difference between a president trying to build a case for a particular foreign policy and one where the president uses "propaganda"?

Isn't the president under obligation to build the case that he believes is right for US interests?

Let me put it this way....

Isn't the president obligated to dominate the world due to US interests? Surely, global domination is in the US interests....

The problem is that the US people recognises that other countries want to be ruled in thier own ways by thier leaders rather than some place far away that doesnt understand thier culture, nor thier norms/values.

We [the US people] are more interested in fairness. If supplies are running out, then all should share equally in resources. If we can renew those resources, then the US should take the lead in preserving those resources.

We have history that shows us that a leader should not dominate, but rather lead and share equally for all. The result is fewer wars, less dead loved ones that we have to bury and all share equally.

US Leaders who would grab all would tend to be removed rather quickly...Although, the conservative religious right has proped up Bush these last eight years...

[Dr. Shane]

I do not see that global domination is in the US interests nor do I see that President Bush is a "grab-all" President although I disagree with some of his foreign policy.

[carolaa]

I do not see that global domination is in the US interests nor do I see that President Bush is a "grab-all" President although I disagree with some of his foreign policy.

I see Bush as one who would prefer to "grab all" but knows we don't have the resources or manpower (or public support) to do it. So instead we go underground and try to run a bunch of puppet governments that will do what we want. And we hire hit men to take out leaders who won't cow-tow to our game. That's how we can achieve globalization. Brilliant. And I can say brilliant, because that stuff started long before Bush.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

I'm not sure what you're referring to' date=' and I'm not an expert on the Civil War. I know he declared martial law. Did he lie to Congress, deceive the American public, commit treason?[/quote']

He suspended the law regarding habeas corpus, and that was for American citizens. Do you think he was right to do it?

Honestly, I'm not sure. And I would hesitatingly say there might possibly be a time and place for that. But it's been over 5 years now. That's just a little ridiculous, and I think enough is enough by now.

[carolaa]

What is the difference between a president trying to build a case for a particular foreign policy and one where the president uses "propaganda"?

What did Bush do that proves he was trying to deceive the American people into believing a lie? I believe even the President's worst critics do not say Bush was lying, and we don't impeach president's for being wrong or making a mistake in judgment.

Are you kidding? It is so well established that Bush clearly knew there were no wmd, that he manipulated CIA reports to fit his agenda.

[carolaa]

It's not all about the Iraq war. Sit down and read through all the articles thoughtfully. Even if you believe the intelligence absolutely justified the war, there is still torture and rendition, and there is still the illegal spying on Americans. The offences are wide-ranging and are *not* all tied up with the war.

...treason...

[Bravus]

Was Lincoln a great president *because* he did the things you mentioned, John, or *despite* those things?

[John317]

Even Saddam's own officers believed that Saddam had WMD. So did President Clinton, Senator Clinton, etc., and virtually every major world intelligence service.

Again, what is the evidence that he falsified information and clearly intended to mislead the American people? What reports did he manipulate? Does CIA head George Tenet believe that?

You say it is clearly established. If that is the case it should be fairly easy to give that information in a few sentences.

Was he and others wrong? Yes. But being wrong about the WMD is not grounds for impeachment.

I would be in favor of impeaching and punishing Bush if I believed that there is proof that he knew ahead of time that Iraq had no WMD and that he intentionally misled the American people into believing a lie.

[Bravus]

Again, leave the Iraq war and WMD entirely on one side and go back and read the list. Is there not plenty there even aside from those issues? (I'm not leaving it aside because I agree with you but because I know we can never reach agreement on those issues.)

[John317]

Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong to do what he did-- that is, to hold American citizens suspected of betraying the Union in jail and without trial indefinitely until the war's end?

If not, do you know of any significant American historians who argue that Lincoln's policy was the wrong one under the circumstances and that he should have allowed all those people to be tried in open court?

[John317]

Each article deserves and should be discussed individually and separately. Some of those articles are so ridiculous on their face that they actually help make it certain that none of them will be considered seriously. For instance, Article IX-- no grounds whatsoever for impeachment. The same could be said, among others, about the following articles:

VII, VIII, XI, XII, XVI, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIV, XXXV. Consequently, these and all the other articles will die in committee.

Check this out: http://lyansroar.blogspot.com/2008/06/vote-on-impeaching-bush-tomorrow.html

[John317]

I'm assuming that every nation's leader has a right and obligation to look out for his nation's interests.

I don't think history shows that the US is only out for its own interests. If we were, history would today look a lot different. If you want to see nations who were out only for their own interests, look to the Nazi's in 1938-'45 and the USSR during the Cold War.

Contrast that with what the US did to help Europe and especially Berlin in 1948. Contrast what the USSR did in East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland with what the US did to help Japan become a strong and prosperous democracy after the war. Many such examples could be given.

It is the Left who would have people think the the US is an evil country and that America is the main problem in the world. But to believe that, you have to ignore much of history.

[Bravus]

Check my sig on that topic

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It is so well established that Bush clearly knew there were no wmd, that he manipulated CIA reports to fit his agenda.

That has not been established. This is the problem with not getting our news from a variety of sources. When I say "liberals say this..." or "conservatives believe that..." I am not talking about anyone here on this forum. I am referring to the talking heads in the media - both liberal and conservative. When I refer to "talking points" either liberal or conservative I am referring to little catch phrases I hear repeated over and over again by different people in the media. Right now, for example, a liberal talking point is "We can't drill our way out of this." I have heard that on the media from various sources over and over. It is becoming a liberal cliche.

The problem is when we limit our news intake. Many conservatives, for example, will only listen to conservative talk radio and watch FOXNews. There is nothing wrong with those forms of media but taken alone, one is not going to get a balanced view. There are liberals that only listen to NPR, read the New York Times and watch CNN. They are not going to get a well-balanced view of the news either.

When someone actually believes that it is well established that President Bush lied, that tells me that person is not getting their news from a variety of sources. If we get our news from conservative radio or liberal blogs we are not going to have a balanced perspective. There are those with idealogical motives that lie to their viewers and listeners. I am talking about the Rush Limbaughs and Micheal Moores of this world. We need to be aware of this when we listen and watch them. I have even caught Bill O'Reilly in a lie and he is one of the better ones.

[Bravus]

I had a thought. My friends on the right, read through the list of articles again, but imagine that it's Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat president that is being talked about. Can you in absolute honesty say that you would be willing to dismiss each of these issues as lightly as you do now? Really?

[there buster]

Read 'em. Looks like maybe Kucinich got them from that UFO he saw.

These are just a part of the continuing effort of the Left to criminalize policy differences.

Many of Clinton's policies were dangerous and damaging. And his lies contributed to the deaths of half a million Rwandans. That didn't make them impeachable. Perjury, however, is a felony. As is rape (Juanita Broadrick, anyone?). But the rape wasn't committed while he was in office, so that wouldn't even be an impeachable offense. It was certainly reprehensible, but not impeachable.

there is this thing called the Constitution. We can't just make up 'impeachable offenses' because we don't like someone.

[carolaa]

Each article deserves and should be discussed individually and separately.

Check this out: http://lyansroar.blogspot.com/2008/06/vote-on-impeaching-bush-tomorrow.html

Wow, that's a fantastic article. Thanks for sharing.

I found it interesting that he considered only a few of the articles to be not true, or without sufficient proof. Several are not crimes (unethical, incompetent, or neglectful, perhaps, but not crimes). Several Congress was complicit in (so no chance they'd be used for impeachment) - but no disputing that they were true.

So, based on that one article, I believe he said 9 were absolutely impeachable offenses. Let's see, wasn't Clinton impeached on only two articles?

But impeachment aside, I find it so very sad that our president and our Congress have shown such a disregard for both the law and the spirit of the law.

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't believe the accusations against Clinton until the blue dress. The Clinton enemies then, like the Bush enemies now, looked for any scandal they could cook up on him. I wasn't buying it until the blue dress. Monica's dress with Bill's DNA. Yea, that was convincing evidence for me. That kind of evidence doesn't exist against Bush.

[there buster]

Wow. So "that one article" trumps the clear meaning of the Constitution.

While you're worried about losing freedoms, you might want to think about those who continually want to criminalize disagreements.