Yeah, this is going to be a down and dirty wrestling match for prez this time around. This appeared last week and is getting a moderate amount of play. Kucinich has a slim to none chance of winning, but he’s setting a tone… No, it’s already pretty dirty. Just ask Obama. Or Hillary.
So, any of you think we should impeach Bush? Of course, we’d then get Cheney who I think it’s fair to say would not provide the kind of change impeachment seeks to implement.
UPDATE: Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, called for Bush to be impeached on CNN with detailed reasons for doing so. He also knocks fellow Democrats for not calling for impeachment. Watch video.
I simply cannot see how a reasonable argument can be made for impeachment. It’s more than clear that most of the posters here have a deep hatred of the President, but emotion is not justification for impeachment. I would like to note than I am not a particularly big fan of the President. (Quite honestly I wish McCain would have gotten the nomination in 2000) However, despite the fact that it may not have been a good idea, the war in Iraq was lawful. Iraq repeatedly violated the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War, effectively putting our nations back at war. While this was not the reasoning used to sell the war, it still applies from an international law point of view. Impeachment is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors, and while there is no lack of administration actions that I do not agree with, there is simply nothing that fits that description. If the war was an impeachable offense, then every member of Congress that voted for it should also be impeached by that logic. It’s also worth mentioning that it would be a horrible precedent, effectively handcuffing future presidents from protecting the nation. Remember our actions in Bosnia were not approved by the UN either, but I don’t think anyone would argue that it was wrong to try to stop the genocide there. Let’s use some common sense and keep the emotion out of serious discussion.
#41, Not quite true.
Remember our actions in Bosnia were not approved by the UN either, but I don’t think anyone would argue that it was wrong to try to stop the genocide there. Let’s use some common sense and keep the emotion out of serious discussion.
Action was approved by NATO. Russia exercised its veto power in the UN although the overwhelming consensus was that the Muslims were being slaughtered. Other NATO nations were involved before the US got involved. The same hold true with Kosovo.
The problem with the resolution Bush got from Congress for war also had the promise that he would try to get a negotiated settlement first. He immediately went on a war footing. I told the UN and Atomic Energy Commission inspectors to leave so he could commence his bombing. He told Congress there was irrefutable proof (remember “a slam dunk”) that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction. It is a felony to purposefully lie to Congress.
He and his Administration outed a CIA agent for political purposes. That threatened our national security. He and his Administration then tried to cover it up. That alone should be grounds for impeachment.
Bush authorized the torture of prisoners. This violates domestic and international laws.
Bush authorized the illegal interception of telecommunications.
Bush failed to provide summaries to Congress on national security issues.
I’ll cut the list short on WHAT laws Bush broke. But before you suggest the precedent it will set if he is impeached, just think of the precedent if he isn’t impeached. After Nixon, we believed NO President was above the law. Now with Bush it is NO law is above the President. Of all the reasons to impeach, that is the most important. No man is above the law.
Wow. I think we all knew Kucinich was insane, but I don’t think I fully appreciated just how demented he was.
> He told Congress there was irrefutable proof (remember “a
> slam dunk”) that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction. It
> is a felony to purposefully lie to Congress.
Bullshit. Bush did not lie to Congress. To tell a lie is to make a statement which you know is not true. That means you have to establish that Bush knew that Iraq had no WMDs which is clearly not true. Our intelligence agencies as well as almost every other country’s intelligence agency felt he had WMDs. The members of Congress that voted for the resolution to go to war saw the same intelligence as the President and came to the same conclusions as that of numerous other country’s intelligence agencies.
> Bush authorized the torture of prisoners. This violates
> domestic and international laws.
More bullshit. The core issue with torture entirely rested with what is meant by “torture.” To some holding someone at Guantanamo was considered torture. To some, having women guard moslems was torture.
> Bush authorized the illegal interception of telecommunications.
The President has always had the authority to intercept communications in a time of war. The issue is whether that authority extends to domestic surveillance and whether FISA is actually Constitutionally binding. In other words, it is not legally clear that what Bush did was against the law nor clear that the Administration did it knowing it was illegal.
> Bush failed to provide summaries to Congress on national
> security issues.
Again, not the whole truth. Congress as a rule is a sieve for information. When information was released to Congress it somehow miraculously found its way to the public.
Yes, he should be impeach and so should Cheney in a similarly timed event so we’d end up with Pelosi as the president.
But don’t stop there; impeach all members that you can impeach and bring others in the administration up on charges too. Look, we know they lied, they have conflicts of interest and they are gaining directly financially for do so many, many things plus they have demonstrably violated the constitution as well as deliberately planned to do so for so long that it outweighs any consideration for NOT impeaching them. Torture, wire tapping, on and on and on.
And, (need I say it?), we are not at officially at war here, but if we were any trading the admin has done with some people in the Mid East during this entire time is an act of treason. Yeah, reason your way out of that one. Either we are at war, which means treason for some admin officials OR we aren’t at war so wire tapping (a separate issue) is illegal and unconsitutional. Which is it guys? Choose your crime you want to go to prison for!
That said, I don’t think it will happen because of financial considerations and covering one’s own butt on the democrat side. They think, better I survive and stay employed over having a viable country democratically or economically.
#44, Thomas,
The really scary thing is you might actually believe what you wrote is true. Maybe you have been listening to Comedian Rush Limbaugh too much. Or any of the other right wing nut talking empty heads.
*
The CIA and retired agents have said that they presented evidence that what Bush was telling people was wrong. The White House ignored it. Almost everyone knew that Bush planned to go to war against Iraq long before the issue was raised.
Members of Congress do not get access to unfiltered classified information. The committee members that do get access to what is dispensed are sworn to secrecy and may not repeat what was told them or they may be charged with a National Security Violation.
*
Sensory deprivation, water boarding, religious degradation, physical assault, climate extremes, etc. have all been allegedly committed in “Gitmo”. Some have even been documented by FBI agents as well as released prisoners. The distinction you try to attribute to what is torture is just more hot air coming from your point masters.
Bush authorized torture and have impeded investigations into its use.
*
The President does not have unfettered right to intercept domestic communications without a court order. That has been the law since FISA was inaugurated in 1978. It is just fanciful bullshit to suggest the President has any other powers.
*
Congress is a sieve for information ??? Get real !!! The oversight committees have an obligation to review what is happening within their respective departments. If the information is wrong or missing, then they can’t do their jobs. Certain committees that deal with security or sensitive information are review in secrecy. It was these committees that did not receive full briefings.
Would you care to back up your “sieve” accusation and point out which Congressman or Senator leaked national security information to the public?
BTW, as for the sieve, remember who outed the CIA agent for political purposes? Excepting one person, the rest in the White House still have their security clearance. That exception will need a Presidential pardon to stay out of jail.
> The CIA and retired agents have said that they presented
> evidence that what Bush was telling people was wrong.
Proof? So you are saying that people working for the CIA told Bush (not another senior CIA person), point blank, “Hussein absolutely, positively does not have WMDs.” I call bullshit.
> The committee members that do get access to what is
> dispensed are sworn to secrecy and may not repeat what was
> told them or they may be charged with a National Security
> Violation.
The vote to invade was almost unanimous. So, that means everyone on said committees saw the same information given to Bush and came to the same conclusion along with almost every other nation’s intelligence community.
> Sensory deprivation
And that is worse than current US prisons how? Prisoners at Pelican Bay are confined 22-23 hours a day in sound proof cells.
> religious degradation
This is a great example of what I do not consider to be torture. Insulting someone is not torture.
> Water boarding, physical assault
I would fully agree that water boarding and physical assault (for reasons other than restraint) should be considered torture. Before we go any further down this road, where exactly did Bush positively authorize the use of all of the above techniques? I want to see where it specifically says, “you may use water boarding and physical assault etc…”
> The President does not have unfettered right to intercept
> domestic communications without a court order. That has
> been the law since FISA was inaugurated in 1978. It is just
> fanciful bullshit to suggest the President has any other
> powers.
But the Constitution has been around since 1787 and it gives the President the authority to protect the nation during a time of war. Since Congress cannot make laws which trump the Constitution it is not at all clear that the President is obliged to abide by FISA during war time.
RE: Congressional sieve.
Actually, it would have been more accurate to call Washington a sieve. No question that the White House is also to blame for many leaks. I would like to see the actual articles on Bush withholding information to Congress regarding national security. Anyway, here are some interesting reads:
Inquiry
FBI Investigation
Opinion Piece