Should G W Bush be impeached

[crocodile deathroll]

I am kind of glad it was Bush and not Kerry that won the election albeit having some Schadenfreude satisfaction of him confronting the errors of his folly.

If this war on Iraq is illegal and base initially on the false premise of 1 a link with al-Qaeda and 2 to called stashes of WMDs which did not exist at the time of the invasion anyway then he would be at least culpable for the 1700+ American serviceman's deaths and many relatives and spouses of those American servicemen in such a litigious as America may already be taking out a class action against him. On top all Servicemen who where crippled for life who should also be taking out a class action against at not only George Bush bust also Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz

If he used human rights as Post Hoc justication for war then why did he not invade Zimbabwii, N Korea or even China which has a far longer history of abuses of human rights than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

I just thought I would just keep it simple to either a yes/no answer.

 

[Rob Lister]

Whereas the members of this forum sometimes find it useful to actually have at ready click the references and history pertaining to matters on which they are voting and,

Whereas a polling thread requires the occasional bump in order to bring it to the attention of the aforementioned members of the forum and,

Nothwithstanding that an expression of my personal opinion within this thread will in no way influence the entrenched opinion of the aforementioned members of the forum, the following informational links are hearby submitted

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Full text of resolution

Roll no. 455 House vote: 296 yeas to 133 nays
Vote no. 237 Senate vote: 77 yeas to 23 nays

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Full text of act

Roll no. 482 House votes: 360 yeas to 38 nays
Vote no. ??? Senate vote: 98 yeas to 0 nays (no link so sue me)

 

[Rob Lister]

Bump for the fun and entertainment of the forum members.

They just don't impeach like they used to . . .

ARTICLE X.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:

I oppose, with manly firmness, this article and all others!

Link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/impeachmt.htm

 

[Rob Lister]

Bump and contrast and compare . . .

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States

Once again, I oppose, with manly firmness, this article and all others. Contrary to my aging disposition, and given my thoughts and considerations in 1866, and those of late, I nevertheless find the stiffness of my opposition even more firm than it was in the post prior. I thank both Viagra, Bob Dole, and internet spam for bringing said same to both my position and upright disposition.

 

[Upchurch]

{Clinton's Impeachment}

At least Bush was clever enough not to provide false misleading information while under oath.

ba-dump-bump.

 

[Mark]

Let's see. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

Bush lied and tens of thousands of people have died as a direct result.

What was the question again?

 

[RandFan]

Let's see. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

Bush lied and tens of thousands of people have died as a direct result.

What was the question again?

I will not try and equate the two. The death of so many Americans can't be compared to a lie about oral sex.

However there are some reasonable distinctions between the two. Lying under oath is not something to be taking lightly. And yes lying that leads to the death of anyone should not be taken lightly. Politicians do lie and their decisions do have grave consequences.

I think there are many unanswered question regarding Bush and Iraq and I find the questions troubling. You know the truth and your mind is made up regarding the events that transpired. You see the world in stark contrast and any questions as they regard Bush and Iraq have only one possible conclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

If this war on Iraq is illegal and base initially on the false premise of 1 a link with al-Qaeda and 2 to called stashes of WMDs which did not exist at the time of the invasion anyway then he would be at least culpable for the 1700+ American serviceman's deaths and many relatives and spouses of those American servicemen in such a litigious as America may already be taking out a class action against him.

From a legal standpoint, what matters would be the actual congressional authorization for war. Let's consult that, since the contents of it appear to be unknown to many, including even senators who voted on the thing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

There are 23 paragraphs that start with "Whereas", each of which is part of the total justification for war that congress authorized. Many of them have nothing to do with WMD's or Al Quaeda (recall that Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization in the world). Even among the WMD-related justification, it's hard to blame Bush for all of them. For example, note the reference to an earlier act of congress:

"Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); "

Who do you want to blame for that one?

More generally, though, the threshold for liability for military commanders MUST be exceedingly high. Military operations are inherently risky, and you just cripple yourself if you make commanders think about personal liability when making decisions about deploying troops. In that environment, the default decision will become to do nothing, and there's nothing more dangerous than telegraphing to your enemies that you will not use the force you have. Don't like what a commander-in-chief does with the army? Then the solution MUST be political. Trying to get around the political process with civil lawsuits is ultimately self-defeating.

 

[Mark]

I will not try and equate the two. The death of so many Americans can't be compared to a lie about oral sex.

However there are some reasonable distinctions between the two. Lying under oath is not something to be taking lightly. And yes lying that leads to the death of anyone should not be taken lightly. Politicians do lie and their decisions do have grave consequences.

I think there are many unanswered question regarding Bush and Iraq and I find the questions troubling. You know the truth and your mind is made up regarding the events that transpired. You see the world in stark contrast and any questions as they regard Bush and Iraq have only one possible conclusion.

If it will prevent Bush from causing the deaths of thousands (you are conveniently ignoring the Iraqi civilians. I guess they don't count), I will personally pay a hooker to give him a blowjob and he can lie about it under oath all he wants.

Fact: We went to war in Iraq as a result of the 9/11
attack.

Fact: Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (Remember him?) had no significant ties to Iraq.

Fact: There was NEVER any concrete evidence that Iraq had WMDs. I knew---and said quite vocally at the time---that they didn't have any. If I knew, how is it Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did not?

Conclusion: The Bush Administration either a) lied or b) is incompetent. There is no third choice. So, yes, my mind is made up: I want Bush and his cronies out before more people die for no reason....especially our soldiers. Remember them? Support the troops does not mean sending them off to die so Bush can look good.

 

[Manny]

All of your facts and allegations -- all of them -- were fully laid out to the voters of the United States last year. They were given an opportunity to send the President packing with no muss and no fuss. They decided what weight to give to the intelligence failures and they concluded that a) Bush was not in fact lying and/or b) Bush was lying but he deserves to be in office nonetheless.

And those soldiers? I remember them. How'd they vote? I hear people saying they want to support the troops by bringing them home -- do the troops argree with that proposed plan of action and did they demonstrate it by voting for the candidate more likely to bring them home more quickly? I think an answer to that might be somewhat probative.

 

[Mark]

All of your facts and allegations -- all of them -- were fully laid out to the voters of the United States last year. They were given an opportunity to send the President packing with no muss and no fuss. They decided what weight to give to the intelligence failures and they concluded that a) Bush was not in fact lying and/or b) Bush was lying but he deserves to be in office nonetheless.

And those soldiers? I remember them. How'd they vote? I hear people saying they want to support the troops by bringing them home -- do the troops argree with that proposed plan of action and did they demonstrate it by voting for the candidate more likely to bring them home more quickly? I think an answer to that might be somewhat probative.

The voters elected Bill Clinton twice. But he was impeached. That argument makes no sense, to put it mildly.

I don't know how the majority of the troops feel about it...and neither do you. The reports I get from friends over there is that morale is at an all time low, and the war is regarded as futile and pointless. But that is purely anecdotal. The fact that the Bush Administration is silent on that subject also leads me to believe the majority are fed up...but, again, we don't really know. However, I am not aware that troop deployment is a matter of popular vote anyway.

 

[Manny]

The voters elected Bill Clinton twice. But he was impeached. That argument makes no sense, to put it mildly.

The impeachment of President Clinton occurred on facts which were not in front of voters at the time of his re-election. Hope that helps.

I don't know how the majority of the troops feel about it...and neither do you.

I've got a pretty good idea of how they felt going into the election. That's on account of the Annenberg Public Policy Center asked them.

 

[Rob Lister]

The voters elected Bill Clinton twice. But he was impeached. That argument makes no sense, to put it mildly.

I don't know how the majority of the troops feel about it...and neither do you. The reports I get from friends over there is that morale is at an all time low, and the war is regarded as futile and pointless. But that is purely anecdotal. The fact that the Bush Administration is silent on that subject also leads me to believe the majority are fed up...but, again, we don't really know. However, I am not aware that troop deployment is a matter of popular vote anyway.

Dude, you can't have it both ways. Congress authorized Bush to kick ass and take names. Bush kicked ass and took names. The American people re-elected him after-the-fact.

This thread is about the impeachment of Bush for kicking ass and taking names after congress authorized him to kick ass and take names having already, in a previous act, specifically stated the name (Saddam) of the ass to be kicked and a very specific objective (democracy).

Nobody has yet posted the Proposed articles of impeachment for Bush. I'd like to read them. Not that they are necessary for the vast majority of our members to reach a decision either way.

 

[Mark]

Dude, you can't have it both ways. Congress authorized Bush to kick ass and take names. Bush kicked ass and took names. The American people re-elected him after-the-fact.

This thread is about the impeachment of Bush for kicking ass and taking names after congress authorized him to kick ass and take names having already, in a previous act, specifically stated the name (Saddam) of the ass to be kicked and a very specific objective (democracy).

Nobody has yet posted the Proposed articles of impeachment for Bush. I'd like to read them. Not that they are necessary for the vast majority of our members to reach a decision either way.

Bush "kicked ass" under false pretenses. Perhaps you like lying and/or incompetent leaders; I do not. And Bush's poll numbers indicate the majority of Americans (finally) do not either.

Also, boys, since poll numbers indicated that the majority of Americans were against Bill Clinton's impeachment, I'd say your argument that he was re-elected before the blowjob became known---and therefore the impeachment was justified---was disengenuous at best. At worst, lying. But, hey, you are conservatives and that's what you people do, isn't it?

 

[Rob Lister]

Bush "kicked ass" under false pretenses. Perhaps you like lying and/or incompetent leaders; I do not. And Bush's poll numbers indicate the majority of Americans (finally) do not either.

The pretenses under which he kicked ass were 'resolved' by the congress. To say he lied is to say they lied, which is fine if that's what trips your trigger, but it does nothing for the impeachment process. 296 house members and 76 senators are not going to vote on their own impeachment.

 

[shemp]

"When Clinton Lied Nobody Died!" -- seen on a bumper sticker in Maine.

 

[CapelDodger]

All of your facts and allegations -- all of them -- were fully laid out to the voters of the United States last year. They were given an opportunity to send the President packing with no muss and no fuss. They decided what weight to give to the intelligence failures and they concluded that a) Bush was not in fact lying and/or b) Bush was lying but he deserves to be in office nonetheless.

Which simply demonstrates the disastrous effect of universal suffrage.

 

[CapelDodger]

The pretenses under which he kicked ass were 'resolved' by the congress. To say he lied is to say they lied ...

They voted on the basis that the case presented to them by the Administration was honest. If the Administration lied, Congress still acted in good faith.

 

[Mark]

The pretenses under which he kicked ass were 'resolved' by the congress. To say he lied is to say they lied, which is fine if that's what trips your trigger, but it does nothing for the impeachment process. 296 house members and 76 senators are not going to vote on their own impeachment.

Bush lied or was incompetent; Republicans went along with it because they stick together. Democrats went along with it because they have become a bunch of limp weiners.

 

[Rob Lister]

Bush lied or was incompetent; Republicans went along with it because they stick together. Democrats went along with it because they have become a bunch of limp weiners.

Then the case for impeachment is moot.