impeaching bush

[sabbat hunter]

a few questions

1) what charges would you put up against him (remember they have to meet the criteria of high crimes or other misdemenors). since he didnt lie under oath about Iraq, that probably doesn't meet the standards
2) do you think we can get enough votes in the senate to convict. remember you need 67 votes to convict a 2/3rds majority. do we have the votes? I think not

3) you would have to simultaneously impeach and convict bush and cheney and that would mean Pelosi would become president. can you say COI (conflict of interest)

4) if you are going to impeach him on iraq, are you going to try and impeach everyone who voted for the iraq war resolution? (that would NEVER happen btw)


Instead of venting all this fury at trying to impeach bush, how about instead we focus our energies in a postive way, health care for all, etc. Let bush veto the bills. It would then put the democratic party back on the initiative, make us look like we are trying to do something for the greater good.

Bush is already going to go down as the worst president in the last 100 years if not in our entire history, we dont have the votes to impeach and convict. Focus our energies people on something positive!

[againes654]

1. Impeachment

would wake up alot of people who aren't paying attention. Even if it didn't work, it would make people look. Impeachment is one of those catch words that people latch on to.

Watch.....impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. See how I got your attention. J/K

[MissWaverly]

2. oh, how about the death of 1 million innocent Iraqis

Since we based our invasion of Iraq on faulty intelligence then he is responsible for this.

not impeaching him and the Vice President Cheney is a dangerous precedent to set for future presidents.

[sabbat hunter]

6. I dont think

you can impeach a president based on the deaths of citizens of another country, unless you say that he ordered our troops to kill them.

Most of the Iraqis killed have been due to insurgents not US forces.

[MissWaverly]

8. check out the Nuremberg indictments

Charter of the International Military Tribunal
August 8, 1945
(Selected Articles)
ARTICLE 1
there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereafter called "the Tribunal") for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis.

a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

ARTICLE 7
The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

ARTICLE 8
The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine that justice so requires.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

[sabbat hunter]

10. those are international law

you need US constitutional law to impeach someone.

Not to mention the Nuremberg trials were thrown together to bring to justice the Nazis, after their government was overthrown.

[MissWaverly]

12. it's also a violation of US Law

This site explains it better than I can

George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the U.N. Torture convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land;"

George W. Bush has conspired to deny due process to prisoners of war, indiscriminantly bomb cities, transfer prisoners of war from an occupied territory, and planned, prepared, initiated and waged of a war of aggression in violation of U.S. Military Code section 2441, Geneva convention (I Art 3, II Art 18, Art 19, III Art 13, Art 17, Art 33, Art 34, Art 49, IV Art 3), and the 1945 Nuremberg Principles articles 6(a) and (b);

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=340571&rel_no=4

[Steve_in_California]

16. There is a defense for every charge raised.

So, stop wasting your time and effort on misguided notions of revenge. The very last thing this country needs right now is to shut down the entire government for 6 months to a year only to lsoe the impeachment battle and the Democratic congress along with it.

Do you ever think for yourself? Or do all your ideas come from others?

[terisan]

19. OOOOH We are supposed to be afraid of the Big Bad Impeachment shutting down govt?

Let's just convince ourselves nothing is possible so we can just sit here hoping we don't get crushed. Hey, is life in Burma so bad?

[Steve_in_California]

25. Open your mind and all sorts of better ideas will come falling through the door.

Bush stays in office. Would you want to be the Republican nominee with that legacy sitting in the chair you want for your own? Ask Al Gore what he thinks.

[terisan]

27. Gore lost to Bush's brother's fix-among other schemes, not Clinton legacy.

Even Putin in Russia knew the fix was in, and issued his warning.

Legacy is overrated.

As you know, in any case, former and current veeps are not running. Do you really think Romney, Brownback,Thompson and Guliani are worried about being confused with GW?

[Steve_in_California]

28. No more photo finishes.

Wise up.

[terisan]

29. Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

[MissWaverly]

20. this is not about revenge, it is about accountability

and reparations for the damages done to Iraq.

[MissWaverly]

21. how about wasting the time of those sitting in GITMO

who were never tried, did you ever think about that? How is that supposed to go, just let them rot there with
no trial, why because it's the last thing this country needs, what more bad pr for Bush. What we need is
capable leaders who can turn this around and lying about it is not going to solve anything.

[terisan]

3. Impeachment Now. I don't agree with most of your statements.

The initiation of impeachment investigation will tie up Bush/Cheney and also make it more difficult to wage war.

Those who voted for IWR were lied to, plus impeachment doesn't apply to them.

I am not interested in Bush's place in history. I am interested in preventing further damage to us now.

Conflict of interest is not a legal issue in regard to impeachment. Plus we don't know whether they will be convicted or will decide to resign.

Impeachable offenses are what the Congress decides they are. This is a Constitutional procedure to save our counrty from the disasterous effects of an unfit president.

Impeachment track is not a venting of anger; it is a strategy to stop the train and switch to a different track.

Another year of digging the holes Bush/Cheney are digging is going to create a sinkhole so massive our country is going to disappear into it.

[sabbat hunter]

7. do not impeach

if you impeach it will also tie up congress and prevent them from getting anything done as well.

What impeachable offenses do YOU think bush has done?


Then there is the probablility of fallout from it and making bush look sympathetic to some people and actually raising his standings.

Impeachment is supposed to be there for when the president commits a crime in office, that is what hte constitution says flat out.

[terisan]

11. Our situation is critical now. As Euro replaces dollar we are going to go into a tailspin.

US big money will protect itself by unloading dollars adding to our woes.. We critically need foreign investment now but it isn't going to come until Bush and Cheney are gone.(Our least worse scenario is an influx of investment by traditionally friendly countries).

Do you really want to be owned by the Dubai government?

You are thinking its business as usual and that we have time. We don't. The world needs for us to signal we are done with Bush and Cheney.

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors-------as decided by Congress. It is seperate from the justice system.

[sabbat hunter]

14. none of that

is a crime.

We actually have TOO much foreign investment. China owns billions upon billions in our debt.

[terisan]

18. You miss the points. Impeachment does NOT need a crime in the usual sense--

we've been through this discussion ad nauseam throughout the Clinton impeachment. In any case I am sure crimes already suggested by members of Congress would suffice. Lying to Congress is a crime----actually you don't have to be under oath.

You want more: Go to any number of websites, including Wikipedia and check out impeachment bush cheney. You will get warrantless wiretapping, and lots of goodies.


When the dollar falls as it has in other Republican administrations, typically we get foreigners, such as Japanese and Europeans, snapping up the bargains (as they did under the Reagan economy) and we get tourists coming in by the droves. The foreigners buy real goods and services and real estate from real Americans and we survive.

Well I don't think we are seeing the great influx of bargain hunters and I don't think we will until we signal we are standing up to Bush and Cheney and tossing them out of office. Dubai, however, is buying or trying to buy lots of stuff. A great iron in 2 ways---their banks handled 9/11 business and their government buys companies in the US.--just think about it-if the US govt bought a piece of a US company that would be socialism and we would not allow it, but a foreign government can do so and that is OK.

The smart warriors today fight on the battlefield of finance and the economics; the foolish send armies.

[demnan]

4. I invite you to look at House Resolution 333

the resolution was introduced by Kucinich in April of this year. http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=3750
It is a vehicle for impeaching Dick Cheney. I personally believe we have to impeach Cheney first, so he won't declare martial law if we impeach Bush. The synopsis is good if you're in a hurry: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int2.pdf

There are at present 20 co-sponsors. There is also an online petition with over 107,000 signatures. http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php

In my opinion this is the best chance we have left for impeaching. And as history showed us when investigations were begun against Nixon, you don't have to follow through to the end of the procedure, sometimes they resign if the investigation looks like it will be successful.

If Cheney resigns, maybe we stop the war with Iran from ever happening.

Can you think of another way to accomplish that?

[sabbat hunter]

9. Nixon

had a bit of dignity to him, and a brain.

the current duo have neither.

[Steve_in_California]

17. The Republicans can outmaneuver your type without trying

Bring impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney will resign and Bush will name McCain or Giuliani as the new vice president.

[MissWaverly]

22. at least McCain or Giuliani won't nuke Iran

I have been expecting the Republicans to put in a new vp to run around and campaign on the public's dime for Prez in 2008, of course
that is what they will do to squeeze more money out of their run.

[Steve_in_California]

23. I think you're right.

Dumping Cheney is the smart move and there is always his health as a plausible excuse.

[MissWaverly]

31. Yes, I can't see them campaigning on lean pockets

w/o taking advantage of the White House perks and the built in pulpit of the White House as a campaign platform

[Yukari Yakumo]

26. Uh... WHAT!?!?!?!?

Need I remind you who came up with the hit tune "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb... Bomb Iran".

[MissWaverly]

30. that was his macho act

I think that he's more likely to listen to outside advice than Cheney any day.

[damntexdem]

5. We need to try.

1) Lying us into an illegal war (that's the offence, not whether he was under oath when he did it); ordering illegal spying on Americans; contempt of Congress; the list goes on.
2) There is no way to get the votes; but we must try.
3) No, Cheney should be impeached first. The Senate can refuse to confirm any unacceptable person Dubya might try to appoint VP. Any conflict is built right in the the Constitution, so cannot constitute a legal conflict of interest.
4) This makes no sense. Those who voted for the war resolution deserve to be voted out of office, all of them. But voting for a resolution is not an impeachable offense. Lying the country into a war is.

No, let's try to impeach both of the bastards.

[Steve_in_California]

24. If Congress doesn't follow the law, the Supreme Court will step in

and that won't help your cause at all. Not just any offense is an impeachable offense. What you're expressing are opinions. I happen to agree with your opinions, but slick lawyers can drive a truck though such charges. The way to beat Bush is to beat him at his own game--politics. Senator Biden can teach that turkey lessons in political chess. And right now, he has Bush in check. Two or three more moves and it will be checkmate.

[mmonk]

13. Read

http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Powell_aide_says_Bush_Cheney_0510.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88

http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/transcript-reveals-impeachable-offenses.html

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=340571&rel_no=1&back_url=

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%E2%80%99s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense

http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=311

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/07/11/bush_and_cheney_lied_to_congress_and_com

http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/Rimpeach.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm

http://impeachpac.org/waters-spying



Sorry if my reply seemed nasty. This is a major problem with me right now. Forgive me. I made the post better.

[Steve_in_California]

15. To all you amateur legal scholars, Sabbat is right and you all need to find other hobbies

[onenote]

32. It won't tie up government because it will never get to first base right now

There is a process for impeachment. And that process starts with the full House of Representatives voting to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to undertake an impeachment inquiry and report back as to whether the adoption of articles of impeachment is warranted.

The problem is that, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats numerically have a majority in the House, a vote on commencing an impeachment inquiry that doesn't enjoy some measure of bipartisan support will never pass. Too many Democrats will not support it because of the historical precedent: the resolution authorizing the Judiciary inquiry in the Nixon impeachment was overwhelmingly bipartisan (something like 404 -10) and even the resolution to start the Clinton impeachment inquiry picked up around 30 Democrats. Unless and until some repubs indicate that they'd jump ship and support an impeachment inquiry, any effort to start the process will be stillborn.