Impeachment
This letter has not been edited.
Because there claims to be no laws broken.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 02:10 PMRachel - If you actual looked at the facts and not the hype you wuld understand the the members of congress and the senate would have to impeach themselves as well.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 02:22 PMBecause protecting us from terrorism and giving us a great economy is not impeachable offenses.Unlike clinton.He never lied to us are broke any laws like clinton.So should he edbe impeach because he won't dessert our troops like the dems?
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 04:00 PMBecause protecting us from terrorism and giving us a great economy is not impeachable offenses.Unlike clinton.He never lied to us are broke any laws like clinton.So should he edbe impeach because he won't dessert our troops like the dems?
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 04:00 PMBecause protecting us from terrorism and giving us a great economy is not impeachable offenses.Unlike clinton.He never lied to us are broke any laws like clinton.So should he edbe impeach because he won't dessert our troops like the dems?
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 04:00 PMThe only people screaming for impeachment are Kucinich, the liberal media and those who listen to the liberal media. And that ain't gonna get 'er done.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 04:05 PMExcept for that pesky little WMD's one, and the one about how Iraq played a role in 9/11, and just recently about Pat Tillman. Dang why do the libs always have to bring up things? Yes it takes a great economic genius to turn a multi billion dollar surplus into a multi trillion dollar deficit. Oh and don't forget his protection, you know that thing that makes us less safe than before.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 04:07 PMBecause don't you see that getting a bj is so incredibly horrible we can't turn a blind eye away from it? I mean people's lives and security of the country are so insignificant compared to consentual sex between two adults.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 04:09 PM4:07 - You can't impeach for liberal mantra. There has to be actual high crimes and misdemeanors.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 04:52 PMKW,
But, as 04:09 pointed out, albeit obliquely, the Ruling-Class Party did manage to take the impeachment process all the way to trial in the Senate for a bj. What was the "mantra" then?
Never mind the Ruling-Class party Presidents who had mistresses while in Office, and even a bastard or two along the way. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are dependent upon who wants to call them such.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 08:54 PMKW,
Wiretapping US citizens in violation of FISA qualifies in my eyes. He's admitted to it.
The rule of law must be upheld despite the crushing need by Authoritarian Bush Cultists to be ruled by a unitary executive; to be plundered by the "Prince".
Posted by Charles B on May 3, 2007 08:58 PMbecause rachel there is no reason to impeach cheney because he is a great vice president.Because of your lack of education you make dumb-ass comments like that dumb-ass drew.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 11:13 PMbecause rachel there is no reason to impeach cheney because he is a great vice president.Because of your lack of education you make dumb-ass comments like that dumb-ass drew.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 11:13 PMbecause rachel there is no reason to impeach cheney because he is a great vice president.Because of your lack of education you make dumb-ass comments like that dumb-ass drew.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 11:13 PMKeith,
I hear one of your 12,000 empoyees calling you.
...
Or is that your mommy?
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 07:46 AMOG - Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the impeachment over a lying about a bj. That was a complete waste of time. But that doesn't mean it's ok for our new majority to go down the same path. So far they've embarked on more witch hunts than the reps did.
CharlesB - It may seem like a crime in "your eyes" but that doesn't make it a crime. This is all posturing. Just like the Gonzales witch hunt, trying to force Rice to testify, etc... I just wish they'd get over themselves and get back to work.
We're in the 5 month and the only bill to reach Bush is the one he forewarned them he'd veto. Lets see Congress earn their living for a change.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 08:49 AMThe problem KW is that there seems to be no limit as to what you will allow your leader to get away with. Trying to force Rice to testify about anything is only because the truth will finally be told. That's not wasting time, it's getting the truth. What is wasting time is bush saying that's it's his way or no way. It seems that the only person that doesn't need to cooperate with anybody in your eyes is bush. Why is that ok with you?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 08:57 AMKW,
But, on the other side of the coin, how about all the fuss, furor, and calls for "impeachment" of the current Speaker of the House over her trip to Syria?
Like kids on the playground: "It's her fault!" "NO! It's his fault!" "He started it." "NO! she did!" So forth. I don't really see anyone in the Ruling-Class Party stepping in to try to stop it. Do you?
At least so far, the Democrats haven't gone out and spent millions of the taxpayer's dollars on a Special Prosecutor and the like. (If that be any mitigation, that is.) They do ask for testimony, and for some answers; but they haven't opted for outright persecution, yet anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 4, 2007 09:26 AM"At least so far, the Democrats haven't gone out and spent millions of the taxpayer's dollars on a Special Prosecutor and the like"
OG - That's only because the witch hunts haven't provided any fodder for the dems yet. They never will. I just wish they'd do the jobs they're elected to do.
8:57 - The dems already new Rice didn't have to testify, they were only posturing. This has absolutely nothing to do with trying to get at the truth, whatever you mean by that.
Why would you have a problem with my demand that ALL of congress, reps AND dems get to work and quit wasting time and money? Are you in need of revenge for 2000 & 2004 like the dems seem to be?
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 09:36 AMI don't want revenge, I could care less what party bush belongs to, I simply want people to be held accountable for their actions, especially when people are dying. I would love for everybody to get to work and solve this, not draw it out as long as possible as is what's going on now. Of course Rice doesn't HAVE to testify, but the fact that she is so unwilling to as long as there are people there who actually listen to her and take her word for what it is, not what it's supposed to be, is what is so bothersome. She is obviously hiding something or covering for something if she can't bear all to the American public.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 09:46 AM9:46 - Rice already answered the questions previously. She even said she will answer them again but only in writing.
Considering she is a national security advisor, how much military intelligence should she be required to divuldge and be laid bare as public information? I don't think the terrorists need to know all of our secrets.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 09:53 AMThe dems already gave them the legal NSA wire taps.I wonder how many innocent Americans will die because of that one.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 10:21 AMThe dems already gave them the legal NSA wire taps.I wonder how many innocent Americans will die because of that one.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 10:21 AMOh you mean the illegal wire taps that weren't even supposed to be happening under law? oh yeah those ones.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 10:58 AMKW,
It is duly noted that you haven't answered the pertinent question posted at 08:57 AM.
Posted by Charles B on May 4, 2007 11:27 AMTo quote George Tenet, impeachment of Bush and Cheney seems like, "a slam dunk."
Keith - I strongly suggest a couple of things. You come across like an ignoramus. Type in complete sentences in proper english and people are more likely to listen to you.
Posted by PR on May 4, 2007 11:31 AMCharles B - I responded, just not the way you'd prefer.
You see, it's not a true question. The writer (is that you since you're so concerned?) creates a false premise, implicates me in that premise and wants to know why I support that premise.
I've seen those kinds of questions on Hardball. Usual trapping tactic like when did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 12:15 PMNo, that wasn't Charles B, it was me. The reason I asked that is because you don't seem to think that there should be any accountability or responsibility when it comes to supporting your president. He should just be able to go do whatever he wants whenever he wants and because he's the president, he shouldn't have to answer to anybody.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 12:26 PMI guess I don't know what false premise has to do with working with other people. The president can (and has) veto everything that comes across his desk, but somehow it's up to the other guys to work with him?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 12:29 PMNo Name,"The reason I asked that is because you don't seem to think that there should be any accountability or responsibility when it comes to supporting your president."
This is a false premise considering I've never said Bush shouldn't be held accountable if he does something illegal. But there's a huge difference between actually doing something illegal and a dem witch hunt that seems to occupy so much time they can't get any work done.
So far Bush hasn't done anything illegal. Now insert your list of false accusations that you parrot so well. I'm just curious as to when you'll stop making things and realize you're the ones who are lying.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 01:57 PMWell you support him so much that you are willing to spew the same thing he does, but when accountablity comes into play it's "bush who?" He has done many illegal things, one of them being wiretaps on citizens. But I'm sure you will come back with he is the president and can do what he wants. There isn't a single thing that I have made up, unlike your boy who was so darned sure that Iraq was a threat to the US.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 02:09 PMNo name - Are you trying to make a point or just parroting? Try not taking what they say at mediamatters, moveon, daily kos, etc... as news. Branch out and try developing a more informed opinion next time. You'll be more respected that way.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 02:44 PMConsidering that I don't value those things news, I will say "yes sir". Sorry that my informed opinion is based on facts and not on what somebody else tells me.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 02:54 PMBush lied, illegal war, etc... are not facts no name but your apology is accepted.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 02:56 PMBut basically I don't care if you respect my opinion. I don't want or need your approval to want people to take responsibility for themselves. I don't simply fall in line with what I'm told.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 02:56 PMso what do you consider a fact then dub?
Posted by on May 4, 2007 03:03 PMFact:
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
At least it has to be something consisting of more than opinion.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 04:46 PMKW,
Bush violated FISA and admitted as much.
If you believe he didn't break the law then you must believe in the "Unitary Executive" theory, in which case you aren't alone.
It's really quite simple. Does Bush have to follow the law or not?
As Thomas Paine famously said: "...in America, the law is King" I agree. I reject any theory that would invest power in the President above that of the Constitution and the laws he is sworn to faithfully execute.
"Bush violated FISA and admitted as much"
And that's why Kucinich wants to impeach Cheney?
Posted by KW on May 5, 2007 09:24 AMAs I understand Kucinich's position, it is that Cheney led the country into war under false pretenses and that that constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don't know whether that would stick or not. Certainly what Cheney has done is a crime in the general sense of being an egregious and extremely damaging wrongdoing to all of the American people, both present and future. But I don't know if his actions constitute a crime within the meaning of the constitutional use of the word. I would think that his various untrue and misleading statements would constitute false official statements and be a violation of some law or other but it would take someone smarter and more knowledgeable than me to speak to that. I do know that in some states malfeasance can be an impeachable offense by virtue of specific language in their constitution.
I would certainly support legislation or a constitutional amendment that would make malfeasance an impreachable offense, at least aggravated malfeasance such as Cheney, and Bush, are guilty of.
I am glad that Kucinich is filing his articles of impeachment simply because that helps highlight what a disaster this administration is causing America. From a common sense standpoint, it makes sense that what Cheney has done to all of us and our children should be punishable in some way.
Finally the last post addresses the impeachment article ennis Kucinich has filed. Yes they seem vague, bu tthe other isseu is that our mainstream press has paid little attention to these articles, and indeed the overall corruption of this adminsitration is huge.(including violating our constitution - a high crime, lying and government for sale to the highest bidder. )While not new, Bush administration abuses far outweigh thos eof previous administrations including Clinton's, and Reagan's (Previously the most corrupt administration to occupy the White House.) and even Nixon's - although we never got to the bottom of that one due to the resignation.
Unfortunately our mainstream corporate media does not do a responsible job of reporting objective news. Impeachment would not be good for the corporate world and the corporate policies they promote.
As for those who advocate greatness or say fighting terroism is well worht the crime and corruption think again.
There is no real evidence Bush policies are preventing terrorism - in fact most Intelligence reports indicate Iraq and other U.S. efforts to fight what is identified as fighting terror by the administration are actually giving Al; qiaeda what it needs to recruit new members and promote their cause.
We do not have to give up our Constitutional liberties and guaantees from government intrusion to accomplish security. In fact if we negate our Constituiton in the so called process of "fighting terror" we lose the legitimacy we have as a nation, and give up th every cause we claim to be promoting.
George Bush has created a U.S. that is abusive of th very elements he claims o promote.