Should GW be Impeached?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Michael, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. jumpercable 6EQUJ5 'WOW' Registered Senior Member

    I kinda believe that there 'will be' an honest effort by the House to try and impeach Bush and his retarted V.P. puppet Mr. Dick C. before their term is up. Let's just wait & see what really happens in 'The Bush Circus of Clowns'.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Gap in Justice, White House e-mails raises questions

    A 16-day gap in e-mail records between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of U.S. attorneys last year has attracted the attention of congressional investigators. In an investigation into whether seven U.S. attorneys were fired for political rather than professional reasons, the Justice Department on Monday handed over 3,000 pages of documents to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

    But the documents included no correspondence about the firings in the critical time period between November 15, 2006, and December 2, 2006, right before the attorneys were asked for their resignations. In addition, citing executive privilege, President Bush has refused a congressional request to have his key aide Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who was involved in the firings, testify under oath.

    Kind of makes one wonder? Is there something Impeachable in there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or, Oooo I don't know, perhaps Karl will go to jail for something?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've heard the fattest of canaries sing the most beautiful songs.. .. .. perhaps fat boy could sing about couple about Bush, Cheney, war, oil, Halliburton and money in exchange for not having to wear that drab orange jumper for a few decades.. .. ..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are we gonna have a Texas showdown in the WHoretown????
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Genji Registered Senior Member

    No. W should not be impeached. He should be hanged.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. jumpercable 6EQUJ5 'WOW' Registered Senior Member

  8. terryoh Registered Senior Member

    Should he be impeached? That's not my call, and I'm not quick to judge.

    Should an attempt be made? Sure, why not? If lying about sexual relations are grounds for an impeachment, why not lying about starting a war that we're currently not winning and won't in the near future?
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    He is impeachable for establishing the NSA wiretapping, and for lying to Congress about it - both of these actions violations of both criminal law and his oath of office.

    He is impeachable for violating signed treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, violations of both criminal law and his oath of office.

    He is impeachable for using the DOJ to persecute his political opponents, and for obstructing the prosecution of political supporters, violations of criminal law and his oath of office.

    He is impeachable for his oversight of government contract rigging and both private and public financial irregularities regarding corporations in which he has personal interests and with which he has political ties, violations of criminal law and his oath of office.

    He is possibly impeachable (pending further formal investigation) for betraying intelligence agencies and operatives to foreign powers, for personal and political benefits, a violation of criminal law and his oath of office.

    He is possibly impeachable (pending formal investigation) for arranging homosexual prostitution within the White House, a violation of criminal law and (if the security risk is demonstrated) his oath of office.

    He is possibly impeachable (pending formal investigation) for corrupt appointments in Government oversight agencies, benefitting corporations with which he has made personal and political arrangements; this may only violate his oath of office.

    He is possibly impeachable for arranging the suspension of Constitutional rights such as habeus corpus and cruel or unusual punishments in cases involving American citizens. This may only violate his oath of office.

    There are plenty of grounds for impeachment, without even touching the various betrayals of Constitutional principles, US military forces, and public interests involved in the launching of undeclared and preemptive war.

    The benefits of impeachment would include defense of the rule of law, balance of powers, role of the Presidency, and proper employment of military force traditional in the US. They would also include a curbing of further abuses of office and crimes against the people and the State, now being implemented by this administration.

    We have almost two more years of this administration to survive, and slowing it down with an impeachment battle would be a very good idea in itself. Additionally, if we make a serious example of this gang we might sober up the next crew. We went very easy on Reagan, and we are paying the price of that now.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2007
  10. Roman Banned Banned

    Better. He should be hung by an angry mob.
  11. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Okay it wasn't that Clinton got his dick sucked, congress wouldn't have given a shit about that. It was that under oath he lied to congress. He could have pled the fifth or said yes and been untouchable.
  12. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

  13. radicand Registered Senior Member

    As to your first point, NPR released this statement that says in part:

    "President Bush authorized the taps on domestic phone calls and e-mails shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the program remained secret until last December. Since then, the Bush administration has offered legal justifications for the surveillance that rest on two principal assertions. First, administration officials argue that the Constitution gives the president inherent powers to authorize warrantless wiretaps to protect national security. Second, they assert that Congress gave the president that power when, three days after the Sept. 11 attacks, it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate military force" against al Qaeda."

    Also, NPR provided this link:

    This discusses all the legalities that the president believes he is entitled to use under his authority to protect the country in a time of war. It also expresses the intentions behind this authority. Note: it does not say going after US citizens for the purpose of harassing and imprisoning them. It also dismisses another conspiracy theory of yours that the president seeks to use his authority to quiet political dissent. If anything, he goes way overboard in not responding to all dissent, including the vicious lies marxists claim about him personally on a daily basis.

    The wiretapping would be a huge issue, if we were not at a time of war. But we are, get over it. It is real and in your face.

    How about we withdraw our victory over the British and allow our country to return to colonialism. After all, according to you brain dead marxists, we clearly are a vicious culture incapable of doing anything right.

    Try reading the links, even if only partially, you might actually open your mind a little.

    As for the Geneva Accords, we are not liable to them. Our signing has never rendered us legitimate status under the accords. Check it out. Do not just take my words for it.

    As for the silencing of dissent, already dealt with this in the wiretapping paragraph.

    As for the contract rigging, specious at best. This begins the total speculative portion of your rant.

    Grow up!! Develop your own mind and think for yourself. And, find solutions for our current troubles, instead of adding problems. That is a popular tactic with the marxists on this board. Let’s add to our problems, instead coming up with solutions!!

    Get over your hatred of Bush, and come up with solutions. The first possibility is to stop the pettiness and decide to support the war effort by allowing the military to do their jobs.

    If you crybabies and whiners had done this in the first place, we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan already!!!!!!!!!!!!
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    It doesn't.
    Within the constitution he swore to uphold.
    Of course if he had the intention of doing so, he wouldn't admit it.
  15. radicand Registered Senior Member

    The onus is on you to make the case. It doesn't does not qualify as a burden of proof.

    Dude, you cannot fight a war constitutionally. What does that even mean? The enemy is also an enemy of that same constitution. Thusly, the burden is on us to protect it. Not subvert for the purposes of subjugating ourselves to the enemy. Think about that, I know it will take a long time. But, I trust it will come to you. Then again, maybe not!!

    Again the burden of proof is you, he has to make a legal case and show legal cause. Beyond that, this president does not use his powers or his office to quell political opposition. Please note the certainty of the period. Any response not germain to the legality of the issue is fodder and conspiracy.

    You idiots keep making these claims, but you never want to back it up with anything substantive. Instead, you respond the way you responded to me.

    It is tantamount to saying, Oh yea well he did!!! Show some proof for a change. Otherwise, shut your fucking mouth!!!!

    I, personally, am sick and tired of your (general) mindless rants about how wicked Bush is. Bush sucks, I agree. His domestic policy, other than tax cuts, and his foriegn policy, other than taking on our enemy, sucks.

    But the issue really is, what are we going to do about it? Mindless rants solve nothing!!

    How about uniting as a country defeat the enemy and go from there?

    Of course, this is problematic you idiots cannot even admit there is an enemy.

    Or, if you would rather. Why not just rescind our victory in the Revolutionary War and return our rights back to the king. How about that?

    America sucks all the same to all you asshole leftists, so why not just return to the colonial period?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    You start first. What are 5 of Clinton's policies that have turned out good?
  17. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    The leftists ant to always believe that america will stay powerfull and great if it leaves everyone else alone in the world , and that no-one else will ver bother them . this is their problem ; short-sighted.
  18. Genji Registered Senior Member

    After 7 years under the Rightists we've proved we are incompetent and incapable of winning a war against a 3rd World country, again. No one has anything to fear from the rightist US. We can't even secure Baghdad, or any other city in Iraq OR Afghanistan. All the muscle flexing and arrogance has revealed a weak and naked Emperor.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That pretty much summarizes the actual righty rant viewpoint, I think. The fact that there is no war - legally - doesn't matter, either.

    And that includes starting the war, apparently. So much for the former Constitution, as we enter an endless "war" in which the Constitution will be indefinitely suspended.

    Meanwhile, yet another one lands in the inbox - again, not touching the war issue at all:

    Evading the legal requirement to keep records of all White House government business is an impeachable criminal offense, and a violation of the oath of office.

    Also, use of non-governmental email serviers invalidates any claim of executive privilege on the communications.
  20. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Dude, you cannot fight a war constitutionally. Again, what does that even mean?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Do not follow that up with that pretty much sums up the righty rant, you think. What the fuck does it mean??????????

    Explain how you fight a war constitutionally???????

    When you can explain that, we may be able to have a conversation.

    What wars have been fought constitutionally?????????

    President was given authority by the congress to fight this war? The war is legal. This argument is such a closed case it is ridiculous to be discussing it.

    The onus is on you.

    Explain what it means to fight a war constitutionally?

    If you can't, shut the fuck up!
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    LOL you have to be joking?

    F*ck Clinton.
    Who said I supported Bill Clinton? What does Bill Clinton have to do ewith the Impeachemnt of GW Bush? We'll just say Bill couldn't even get Monica to swallow so he probably didn't do anything noteworthy. Done.

    Now back to the Topic - What are 5 of GW Bush Junior's policies that have turned out good?

  22. jumpercable 6EQUJ5 'WOW' Registered Senior Member

    I believe the Impeachment policy that Congress will probably pursue in the near future will turn out to be real 'good' for the country and definetly 'not' good for Bush and Cheney.
  23. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Do you know what "High Crimes" means? I get the impression that you are confusing the term with "worse than misemeanors".

    Think more "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer", and less "Treason and murder".

    If you're looking for Clinton polocies that worked out well, I'd recommend checking out the violent crime statistics, poverty statistics, most economic statistics, AIDS and underage pregnancy trends during the 1994-2002 time period (since the rule of thumb is to allow 2 years for a president's actions to play a majority role).

    Clinton was far from a perfect president, but we've got a very low bar to compare against, currently.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2007

Share This Page