| Mar 28, 2007 @ 12:17 AM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
eorge W. Bush and his Administration have been so brazen in violating the law and asserting monarchical powers that we, as American citizens, must use the tool that the Constitution provides to reassert our rights, to reset the system of checks and balances, and to reestablish our democracy. That tool is impeachment.
Article II, Section 4, states: “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Notice that the Vice President is specifically mentioned. So while we’re advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush, let’s not stop there. Impeach Dick Cheney, too. For Cheney has been in on every illegal act that Bush has committed.
And notice the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” At the Constitutional Convention, the drafters had originally restricted impeachment to “treason” and “bribery.” But George Mason, one of the influential delegates, found those terms insufficient, according to Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, a new and highly informative book by the Center for Constitutional Rights. Those terms “will not reach many great and dangerous offenses,” Mason said, including “attempts to subvert the Constitution.” After some wrangling over wording, the founders agreed to James Madison’s phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
And that is exactly what George W. Bush has been committing: He’s been subverting our Constitution, and he has repeatedly violated his oath of office to “faithfully execute” his duties and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He has done so in four key areas: in the Iraq War, in detentions here at home and abroad, in the torture scandal, and in the NSA warrantless spying program.
First, Iraq. Bush’s invasion was a war of aggression, prohibited by the U.N. Charter. Article 2 of that Charter says, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 provides an exception for “self-defense” but only “if an armed attack” has already occurred against that state.
Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States.
International law also provides an exception for imminence: if you’re just about to be attacked.
Saddam Hussein was not about to attack the United States.
By waging this aggressive war, Bush was violating the U.N. Charter, as Kofi Annan himself has acknowledged.
And by violating the U.N. Charter, Bush was violating Article VI of the Constitution, which says that treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”
But even beyond this, the way that Bush bamboozled the country into war is itself an impeachable offense. There can hardly be a more grave act imaginable than to dupe a democracy into going to war, but that is what Bush has done, as the Downing Street Memo clearly indicates.
On July 20, 2002, eight months before Bush launched the war, Richard Dearlove, head of British Intelligence, met with George Tenet, director of the CIA. After that meeting, Dearlove reported back that Bush was intent on war.
His findings were reflected in the July 23, 2002, memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair, which said: “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
To fix the intelligence and the facts is to engage in a fraud against the U.S. government and the American public, and that’s exactly what the top officials of the Bush Administration proceeded to do. Bush, Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell issued 237 statements that were “misleading at the time they were made,” according to “Iraq on the Record,” a report by Representative Henry Waxman of California and the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Government Reform.
Here are two of the biggest whoppers.
Just days before Bush ignited the war, Cheney went on Meet the Press to discuss the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Cheney said: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
And in Bush’s address to the nation on March 17, 2003, he said there was “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Remember, this was after the U.N. weapons inspectors had been scouring Iraq for evidence of those weapons and had found nothing.In fact, Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who received the Nobel Peace Prize last year, told the Security Council weeks before the remarks of Cheney and Bush that not only did Saddam not have any nuclear weapons, there was no evidence that he had even reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
Bush and Cheney were engaging in “a conspiracy to commit fraud,” as Lewis Lapham points out in his pathbreaking essay, “The Case for Impeachment,” in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine. Lapham notes that the Supreme Court in Hammerschmidt v. United States said someone engages in a conspiracy to commit fraud against the government when that person obstructs lawful government functions “by deceit, craft, or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest” and when its “legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by
|
|
  |
|
| Mar 28, 2007 @ 11:17 AM |
Impeach Bush |
|
juanjoseso
Posts: 8
|
at least he did something right banning gay marriage those fags have no right to to marry
|
| |
|
| Mar 28, 2007 @ 11:59 AM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
fuchia04
Posts: 953
|
Geez, Juan, nice attitude.  Not that it's relevant to this thread or anything, but who are you (or I) to tell another person who they can or can't marry? Who are you to tell them who they can sleep with or have as a partner 
One thing I loath more than anything else, is the religious right, who feel they are entitled to shove their beliefs and moral values down everyone else's throats.  That's probably the worst thing I hate about Bu$h and most conservatives.
The other thing I hate about Bu$h is that he cares very little for the working class. As for the poor, he probably wishes they would just disappear off of the face of the Earth. It seems like he tried to do that in Katrina, when he left tens of thousands of people stranded on the tops of roofs of homes, for four days! This would only happen, when you have someone like Bu$h in office. Other presidents would've had them out of there, within 24 hours. HeII, the Canadian National Guard made it in before the U.S National Guard did. I guess Bu$h didn't consider the Katrina victims valuable enough to him or the oil corporations he represents.
I admit I support this war in Iraq (although maybe we should be thinking of pulling out soon). While, Saddam never invaded the U.S., he did invade or attack (or attempted to invade) about four countries during his reign in Iraq - Saddam may or may not have been producing nuclear weapons, but you know he certainly wanted to. I don't think it would've been a good idea to just sit around and wait for him to do so, like we've done with Iran. IMHO, this war is the only thing Bu$h got right. But then again, I guess warmongering and saber rattling is all people like him are good for.
- the Fuchian
[Edited on 3/28/2007 12:11 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 29, 2007 @ 6:59 AM |
Impeach Bush |
|
devoe810
Posts: 96
|
+1
|
| |
|
| Mar 29, 2007 @ 6:44 PM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
amfax
Posts: 2
|
I guess I'm in a little different position than many of you.
I'm a lifelong Republican, who has been a republican since Barry Goldwater...my first election.
I have to admit that the current administration, George Bush and Dick Cheney, will go down as possibly the worst presidential team in the last 100 years.
However, I don't think there is enough time left to go thru the Impeachment Process, it is lengthy and usually doesn't remove the President from office. At least it hasn't so far.
I wish there was an easy answer. Alas, I don't see a Republican candidate anywhered that can be elected in 2008. I think George Bush may have killed the Republican Party as he has taken pot shots at every minority in the country and has lost all their support.
The only candidate I can support to help stop the insanity in Washington is John Edwards.....I'm going to work for him in the next 8-12 months and see if we can't get him nominated. I'm not changing parties....I'm a Republican....unfortunately the current crew is Washington is claiming the title....but they're really something else and I'm not sure what that is.
Please Congress, cut off the funds for the stupid occupation in Iraq, that Bush is calling a war.....we're not at war with anyone. Why do American's need to occupy any territory. I saw yesterday that even the Saudi's want us to pull out and go home.
Robert
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 29, 2007 @ 6:48 PM |
Impeach Bush |
|
amfax
Posts: 2
|
Do a little more research. George Bush has never done anything to stop gay marriage....other than run his mouth.
Marriage, by law, is still determined by each individual state, in this wonderful United States.
Get over your homophobic bias and go on with your life. I'm certainly not gay with two ex-wives and five kids to prove it. But I'm not going to criticize anyone who lives a lifestyle I don't understand.
|
| |
|
| Mar 29, 2007 @ 8:20 PM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
minky
Posts: 262
|
Bush has a major disadvantage------he's a man.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 29, 2007 @ 8:30 PM |
Impeach Bush |
|
fuchia04
Posts: 953
|
Quote:
Bush has a major disadvantage------he's a man.
Reply:
Hmm... then I wonder why all we do is keep electing men presidents 
|
| |
|
| Mar 30, 2007 @ 7:28 PM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
I think your right about the worst president and vice president combo in a century ,I also think the Iraq invasion and occupation with go down as the worst statigic blunder in our history ,but this is what happens when you put Neocons at the drivers wheel .
In response to Hillary statement ,Im cool with a women or a minority for president ,I think we are way overdue ,but not Hillary .
I lost alot of repect for her when she went lock step with Bush over this war, until it became politically unpopular to be against it ,then she changed her mind like a leopord changes his spots .
Right now money is more important that your intent to make the world a better place when running for president ,and she is deep into this campaign corruption.
I think each should have a limit of how much they are allowed to recieve in total campaign donations ,this way it will be the merits of your message ,not how many attack ads you can run financed by corperate contributers that you are now in debt to.
This money inbilical cord between politians and corperations is almost aways to the detrement of the common man and can be blamed for many of economic and enviromental problems today.
She also doesn't have the charisma and the public speech ability that her husband had,her speech are incredibly uninspired,I want to fall asleep.
I vote no Hillary.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 30, 2007 @ 7:58 PM |
Impeach Bush |
|
jackf1950
Posts: 688
|
wasn't gonna post on politics, but, well, I believe both of his elections were stolen, and that my vote dont count in this country any more..
that said..
ken, you mentioned how much they could receive ,good point, but, I think there should also be a limit on how much they, and there party can spend on each.. other wise the rich will be only ones that can run, and campaign laws are already being "stepped on and around" by both national committees dispersing funds..
OMHO
|
| |
|
| Mar 30, 2007 @ 8:34 PM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
fuchia04
Posts: 953
|
Well Jack and Ken, I agree with you both on your views regarding campaign funding. If Ken, as you say, there is no limit on total campaign funding, then that is indeed very scary. I did not know this.  I think they definitely need to put a cap on that!
Maybe there should also be limits on the amount of television airtime, each candidate is allowed to have. It's very expensive, and when one candidate chooses to waste excessive amounts of money on it, it pretty much forces all the other candidates to have to do so too - and this just to get equal exposure. To me, too much TV time is a waste of money, and just drives up the cost of campaigning (some of which, taxpayers have to bare). There are other, cheaper, alternatives to get the message across. IMHO, these should be utilized more.
- the Fuchian
[Edited on 3/30/2007 8:55 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 30, 2007 @ 11:58 PM |
Impeach Bush |
|
Lovesoldier
Posts: 73
|
A few conservatives are only just beginning to come out criticizing President Bush.
Why am I not impressed?
The neo-conservatives are dumping their unpopular people so that they can stay afloat.
Do you all really believe President Bush is the problem?
[Edited on 3/31/2007 12:35 AM]
|
| |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 1:29 AM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
I agree ,there should be a limit on campaign contributions and spending ,a set limit that is equal for all candidates .
No Bush is not the only problem in Bush's administation ,but he is the president and is calling the shots ,remember "he is the decider" ,as he had said ,and as we know ,the american people have little say of what our government is doing in our name with our tax money..
Just incase there is any question ,the initial post of the thread was a article written by someone else on another web site that I posted to spark discussion because I agree with him.
Jack I also believe that both elections were stolen ,so much for the logic of John Mc Cain ,when he says ,elections have consequences ,basically saying if you dont like Bush ,you shouldn't have voted for him .
This argument doesn't hold water when someone is in office from Fraud.
I think diebolt and the Republician supervisor of elections help make it happen in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 31, 2007 @ 3:05 PM |
Impeach Bush |
|
outlaw_star
Posts: 1,089
|
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
oh joy, ANOTHER Clinton in the white house.
First we have the player president who inacted the 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell' policy for the military and who sleeps with interns resulting in another of many scandals and impeachment proceedings for this player.
What can we expect from Hillary? IF she was to win?
Not long ago people was also wanting to 'impeach Clinton' for that whitewater scandal or was it the monica scandal? or the gennifer flowers scandal or the sexual harrassment suit?
Think any of those might come back to 'haunt' Hillary? As her flip flop stand on the war is?
As for the president debate,
WHAT IF Gore had won and had to deal with the 9-11 terrorist attack?
How would he have handled it?
Like Bush and go to war and become very unpopular President after the 4 yr mark?
or Like Clinton did with all those minor terrorists attacks on americans leading up to 9-11 by 'Saber Rattling' and turning a blind eye to it?
and would be we also saying 'impeach Gore' (IF Gore was President instead of Bush) due to his handling of it as well?
Something to think about
[Edited on 3/31/2007 3:35 PM]
|
| |
|
| Apr 1, 2007 @ 4:37 AM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
Lovesoldier
Posts: 73
|
No Bush is not the only problem in Bush's administation ,but he is the president and is calling the shots ,remember "he is the decider" ,as he had said ,and as we know ,the american people have little say of what our government is doing in our name with our tax money.. Kenn159
The neo-conservative fallacy is the problem.
President Bush is just a neo-conservative who's been too ridiculed by the public for his own people to side with him anymore.
Where have these people I speak about been while me and my friends were screaming nearly at the top of our lungs about the problems within the Bush Administration? What, they've been out getting pizza? They sure as hell haven't been doing anything about the problems because they're all a bunch of neo-conservatives with a personalized agenda towards privatizing public social programs and deregulating social industries in order to maximize profit margins. This is why we have the problems in the first place.
George Bush is just the kind of guy who people make fun of because he can't speak with much coherence, or even like he passed a college English exam. But, I think all of you are forgetting that the neo-conservatives are the ones whom Bush represents, and no one else, let alone the American public.
They've wanted to remove social programs and have taken podiums against social programs with hostility by merely the word "socialism" alone. They do have a tendency to label people; you're right.
But, what's Bush's retardation got to do with the other evils of neo-conservative government?
Bush is merely the head of a long line of people who have always wanted to do what Bush does now. The only difference is in that someone else might've been able to hide it or lie about it more convincingly! Is that what you want? Or, maybe you didn't notice that a lot of people let Bush get where he is!
People like Roger Ailes at the Fox "News" Network, a network which has been around since 1996 doing exactly what they do now, even before Bush 2 thought about being president. Roger Ailes has been a political campaigner for the Republicans since RICHARD NIXON. And who is Richard Nixon? Another guy we've had problems with! And, what about Reagan's horrible reputation in environmentalism? Come to think of it, that's pretty much a consistent problem across the board with the neo-conservative ilk! They can hardly win the presidential debates, or the Congress, so why does it surprise you when an idiot like George Bush gets in? They let Oliver North in, didn't they? Yes, after 40 years, they finally took the house out from under the Democrats during Clinton only for that Republican House Leader to be kicked from Congress for stealing, along with a hoard of other ethics infractions. Neo-conservatives don't call it kicking; they call it resigning. Remember Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? Remember Senator Joe McCarthy? Remember the "anti-communist" witch hunts?
Neo-conservatism has given Americans nothing but pain. They have no forum on what government is supposed to be doing for the American public. Because of them, most people think a Democracy is simply defined as a place where people vote, rather than its actual meaning of representative government: "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The declaration I quote doesn't say "for capitalist people," nor does it say "for greedy people," which is to say that capitalism equates to greed; it doesn't.
To begin with, a country doesn't have to have a vote at all to have true representative government; voting is simply a method used by our people to help ensure our democracy; it isn't a requirement in a true representative government. But, we'll just go on pretending we know what democracy means even when the carpet is being pulled out from under us, and then blame it on Bush; but, when he goes, the neo-conservative "cool, considerate men" will still be working in full force on disrupting our social programs, or anything to do with the social community, and on affecting government security by infringing on our civil rights.
This is not a Democrat-Republican issue, admittedly, since not all Republicans claim the neo-conservative movement. It's this self-righteousness that bothers me. The problems inherent in neo-conservatism might seem to appear to thrive in the Republican party, even though many Republicans are not like that, so think about the purpose government serves.
[Edited on 4/1/2007 6:09 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 3, 2007 @ 12:35 AM |
Impeach Bush |
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
I don't agree with your assertion to degrade the importance of impeaching the contemporary leader of the Neoconservative movement .
He is currently the arm ,making the moves for the neoconservatives because of his position as president .
To not appreciate his power,now his accountabilty ,is to not realize the influence that the president of the most powerful nation of the planet.has on the whole world ,and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney would send a very strong signal to his noecon movement that they are no longer running the game.
I do agree with you about the Neocon movement behind Bush is to cut back social programs while privatizing everything they can in a effort to maximize corporate profits off the backs of the american people.
One clear sign of this is the expanding lower economic class ,and the increasing expansion of wealth in the top 1 percent
|
| |
|
| Apr 3, 2007 @ 12:48 AM |
Impeach Bush
|
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
Just incase anyone wants to read the original of initial post ,here is the author
.Matthew Rothschild, "Grounds for Impeachment," taken from The Progressive, published March 7th, 2006.
It appears that some of the article got deleted ,because of some kind of glitch or word limit for post.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 4, 2007 @ 1:28 AM |
Impeach Bush |
|
Lovesoldier
Posts: 73
|
Quoting Kenn159:
I don't agree with your assertion to degrade the importance of impeaching the contemporary leader of the Neoconservative movement .
I never asserted to degrade the importance of impeaching Bush, for I feel he needs impeachment and I feel it's important.
[Edited on 4/4/2007 1:49 AM]
|
| |
|
|
|
|