This cant be good for America - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 03-12-2006, 04:26 AM

Regardless of the validity of this action, I cant see anything positive in an attempt to impeach Mr. Bush. This country is devided beyond recognition as it is, and though I did support similar action directed at Mr. Clinton, in hindsight I reallize my support was misguided based on my own selfish dislike of the man. Dont get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president, but I dont think this will help.

"(APN) ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2085

ratbastid · 03-12-2006, 04:53 AM

The problem isn't impeaching Bush. The problem is the precendent that impeaching Clinton left. Impeachment is now a purely political move that can be comitted on the executive whenever congress's winds turn against him. It no longer has anything to do with protecting the nation from a criminal president.

There's AMPLE grounds for impeachment proceedings against Bush. I'm not saying there's necessisarily grounds for conviction, but I'd say there's definitely enough evidence to move forward with proceedings. I could even see the 70% of the US who currently disapprove of him uniting under one banner--it could be a very unifying thing for the country. But first we have to deal with the political perception of impeachment.

host · 03-12-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Regardless of the validity of this action, I cant see anything positive in an attempt to impeach Mr. Bush. This country is devided beyond recognition as it is, and though I did support similar action directed at Mr. Clinton, in hindsight I reallize my support was misguided based on my own selfish dislike of the man. Dont get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president, but I dont think this will help.....

The honeymoon is finally over, and a clear majority is awakening from a long 9/11 attack induced "slumber".
The SSC on I just abdicated it's duty to hold hearings on the "end run" around the FISA court. All 8 republican members voted to avoid an inquiry. The 7 democrats in the minority on the SSC of I all voted to initiate hearings. Atty. Gen. Gonzales was allowed to "testify" before the Senate Judiciary committee, but the requirement that he take an oath to tell the truth was waived by Chairman Arlen Spector.

Only Republicans can convene hearings, or subpoena witnesses to appear and deliver sworn testimony, because they hold the Chair and the majority on every Senate and House Committe.

Four Republicans on the SSC of I, after voting not to hold FISA hearings, proposed new legislation to allow Atty Gen. Gonzales himself to determine when the FISA warrant requirement is applicable, or is permitted to be waived. There is no oversight, and there is intent of seperation of power governed by sperate branches that "check" each other, has disappeared.

This senate candidate in RI has paid for a billboard, prictured here:
http://www.carlsheeler.com/

There has to be, at the least, symbolic resistance. There is no chance of any offiicial move for impeachment unless the House changes hands in Nov. I doubt that is possibel, because the vote no longer seems to be fair and the outcome does not seem in control of or determined by the actual intent of the voters. I've posted much about that "problem", but no one comments.

Bush can see the poll numbers and maybe massive marches on Washington, and in towns across the country, might at least give him pause if the plan is to suspend the constitution entirely, or to stage an "incident" of violence or to allow one to happen without attempting to blunt or thwart it....an incident of suffcient scale to provide an excuse for a "martial law" flavored "lock down", followed by a "round up" of dissedents tarred with the "enemy of the state" moniker.

Ironically , the weaker that Bush sinks in the Polls, the more dangerous he may reveal himself to be, because he will become increasingly angry, desperate, and reckless as he takes an even former grip on the power of his "universal presidency" mis-concept. I hope I'm wrong, but I see nothing to indicate that I'm over reacting.

But....impeachment....no...maybe in a year, but most likely, never.

Charlatan · 03-12-2006, 05:08 AM

I don't see this as amounting to much. While I really think Bush and Company are largely a negative force in the world, I don't see him getting impeached in any way.

In fact, given Bush's track record to date, the likely effect of this will be that Bush's base comes to his defense. I could see his approval rating rising as a result.

The_Jazz · 03-12-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The problem isn't impeaching Bush. The problem is the precendent that impeaching Clinton left. Impeachment is now a purely political move that can be comitted on the executive whenever congress's winds turn against him. It no longer has anything to do with protecting the nation from a criminal president.

There's AMPLE grounds for impeachment proceedings against Bush. I'm not saying there's necessisarily grounds for conviction, but I'd say there's definitely enough evidence to move forward with proceedings. I could even see the 70% of the US who currently disapprove of him uniting under one banner--it could be a very unifying thing for the country. But first we have to deal with the political perception of impeachment.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, ratbastid, I don't agree with the message. Impeaching a president has always been a highly politicized contest, and the most overt example isn't Clinton but Andrew Johnson. He was nearly removed from office because of his failure to agree with the Radical Republicans that controlled Congress after the Civil War. He preached a centerist approach to dealing with the South and was villified for it. Yes, Clinton went through much the same thing but in my opinion, Johnson had it worse.

I think that the major problem with impeaching Bush would be that there's no way in hell that the Far Right members of Congress would allow it. Like it or not, Bush is perceived as a wartime president, and the Right is going to give him special dispensation for it. Because of that perception, I think that any attempted impeachment would probably just throw more chum in the water, so to speak.

Poppinjay · 03-12-2006, 05:45 AM

Bush was interviewed by Elizabeth Vargas on Friday. This is how the interview started. She asked him a fairly softball question; what he thought when he saw the devestation of Katrina. This is how he answered, "I saw a lot of reporters taking pictures of people suffering and not helping."

The entire interview was very soft, and yet he was angry, bitter, sounded confused, and was very hostile to Vargas.

At the time of the interview, news had just come out that one of his former high level employees had been charged with theft, from Target of all places. This was after the guy had assured counsel Harriet Meiers that it was a mistake involving his credit card company.

Bush insulated himself with a staff of people that only assure him he is doing great, always right etc. Even in public, he only addresses pre-sorted crowds that will be friendly to him. Now we are learning that several of those who coddle and insulate him, have been full of crap, if not outright dishonest.

This is why I wish we had a vote of no confidence. The Bush administration needs to be weeded, desperately.

host · 03-12-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Bush was interviewed by Elizabeth Vargas on Friday. This is how the interview started. She asked him a fairly softball question; what he thought when he saw the devestation of Katrina. This is how he answered, "I saw a lot of reporters taking pictures of people suffering and not helping."

The entire interview was very soft, and yet he was angry, bitter, sounded confused, and was very hostile to Vargas.

At the time of the interview, news had just come out that one of his former high level employees had been charged with theft, from Target of all places. This was after the guy had assured counsel Harriet Meiers that it was a mistake involving his credit card company.

Bush insulated himself with a staff of people that only assure him he is doing great, always right etc. Even in public, he only addresses pre-sorted crowds that will be friendly to him. Now we are learning that several of those who coddle and insulate him, have been full of crap, if not outright dishonest.

This is why I wish we had a vote of no confidence. The Bush administration needs to be weeded, desperately.

Poppinjay....do you really believe that Allen was detained on Jan. 2 at a Target store, turned over to the local Police, and then released, and Bush's Security detail didn't...by the time that Allen resigned, a month later...look into the whole investigation thoroughly, and report what was going on....at least to Cheney or to Andy Card?

Do you think that they just accepted what Allen told them, without launching their own investigation on Jan. 2?

We're in the post Jeff Gannon era, and the agency responsible for Bush's security is not going to allow itself to be embarassed as it was when word got out that a gay male prostitute, using an alias, got close enough to Bush at ask him a question in a televised press Q&A.

Anyone with close proximity access to Bush is watched closely, especially with the history and with the growing disapproval of his governance. In the month that followed the Jan. 2 Target Store "incident", don't you suspect that the detectives found out where Allen worked, and gave the White House or the DOJ a "heads up", the DA's office probably did, too!

No....they knew...they wished that the Allen embarassment would go away, and that noone would remember that Bush appointed Allen to be a 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge, or the "head" of the White House Katrina task force...

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1002328_2.html
(Paste the above link in google search box, if it won't display when clicked)

This is what police said happened Jan. 2:

Employees at the Target store at 25 Grand Corner Ave. in Gaithersburg spotted Allen putting merchandise in a shopping bag. He then walked over to the guest services desk, produced a receipt and received a refund for the items.
After getting the refund, Allen left the store without paying for additional merchandise in his shopping cart.

A store employee stopped him, and police were called to the store. Officers issued a citation charging him with theft under $500 but did not arrest him. Court records show prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charge, which is not unusual in cases in which detectives are considering filing more serious charges.

Detectives from the county's retail crime unit soon learned that the incident was not an isolated event, Burnett said.

He said investigators were able to document 25 fraudulent refunds for items including a Bose home theater system, stereo equipment, clothes, a photo printer and items worth as little as $2.50....

.........As Bush's top domestic policy aide, he frequently briefed the president and traveled with him on Air Force One, and he sat in first lady Laura Bush's box during the president's State of the Union address Jan. 31. Two days, later he traveled with the president to Minnesota, briefing reporters about Bush's education and alternative energy proposals......

Before that, Allen worked for the Virginia state attorney general's office and as state health and human resources secretary. In that job, he earned a reputation as a staunch conservative; once he kept Medicaid funds from an impoverished rape victim who wanted an abortion.

This guy Allen sounds like a description of John Bolton. Picking guys like these to have around in your staff's work enrvironment must promote a wonderful atmosphere. Why are they all so angry, even when they are on top?
Where do they find these freaks, and why do they all exhibit the same level of obsessiveness and obnoxious hypocrisy?
<h3>Just the kind of guy that I'd like to see as a Federal Appeals Court Judge, protecting the interests of the "least of us".</h3> For the 37 percent that still favors Bush, what will it take to dampen their enthusiasm?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

......... Serving in Virginia's state government, Allen opposed efforts by many health groups to expand Medicaid coverage of children, calling it an expansion of welfare. He clashed with lawmakers over right-to-die legislation and efforts to improve state mental hospitals.

"He was often at odds with the health care providers and consumers," said Del. Philip A. Hamilton (R-Newport News), chairman of the House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions.

Lawmakers said he could be friendly and affable but also vindictive and partisan. Relations became so bad that the assembly considered legislation requiring that Allen's department communicate effectively with all interested parties. ..............

Doesn't this sound contrived and "tortured". Wait for more on monday. The "news" came out after business closed on friday, because it was "managed"!

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187531,00.html

.....After the news of Allen's arrest surfaced Friday, the White House provided an account of their knowledge of the events that led up to it.

The night of Jan. 2, after the alleged incident at the Target in Gaithersburg, he called White House chief of staff Andy Card to inform him of what had happened. The next morning, he spoke again, this time in person, with Card and White House counsel Harriet Miers, assuring them it was all a misunderstanding, press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Allen told his bosses there was merely confusion with his credit card because he had moved several times. "He assured them that he had done nothing wrong and the matter would be cleared up," McClellan said.

Allen told White House officials later that he wanted to resign because the job was too stressful on his family. His last day at the White House was Feb. 17, McClellan said.

The president first learned of Allen's planned departure and the January incident in early February, but since Allen had passed the usual background checks and had no other prior issues that White House officials were aware of, "He was given the benefit of the doubt," McClellan said.

"If it is true, no one would be more shocked and more outraged than the president," McClellan said. Allen has had no contact with the White House since his arrest........

Poppinjay · 03-12-2006, 07:12 AM

Whether they investigated or not, I don't know. Harriet Meiers was the one who handled the legal aspects, and I think she's made it clear that she is a person who gives nothing but good news to her master.

Update:

Russ Feingold is calling for censure of Bush.

Ustwo · 03-12-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Regardless of the validity of this action, I cant see anything positive in an attempt to impeach Mr. Bush. This country is devided beyond recognition as it is, and though I did support similar action directed at Mr. Clinton, in hindsight I reallize my support was misguided based on my own selfish dislike of the man. Dont get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president, but I dont think this will help.

"(APN) ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2085

Cool a new LLL news site, didn't hear of that one.

But at any rate who cares what the LLL does, and I hope they try their hardest. The more they bark the more they are rejected by middle america, the more elections they loose. I hope EVERY house democrat signs on.

Bush won't be impeached because he violated no laws, as painful a pill as it is for some to swallow.

Poppinjay · 03-12-2006, 07:36 AM

Forgive the long quote, this just passed the AP wire:

Quote:

AP p0724 rw -----
BC-Bush-Censure,0660
Wisconsin senator proposes censure of Bush over eavesdropping
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A liberal Democratic senator who is considering a White House bid in 2008 said Sunday he is seeking to censure President Bush over his domestic eavesdropping program. The Senate majority leader called it ``a crazy political move.''
A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history - against Andrew Jackson in 1834.
Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a longtime critic of the Bush administration, said he hoped a censure would cause Bush to apologize for the warrantless surveillance that he put in place on his own after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
``What the president did, by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and the laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping, has to be answered,'' Feingold said on ABC's ``This Week.''
``A crazy political move'' that would weaken the U.S. during wartime was the immediate response from the Senate leader, Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who appeared on ABC right after Feingold.
``Russ is just wrong. He is flat wrong, he is dead wrong,'' Frist said. He did not respond directly when asked if he would allow the resolution to come up for a vote.
``The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer is wrong,'' Frist said.
The White House says Bush had the power to order the monitoring as commander in chief and under a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism.
The resolution Feingold planned to introduce on Monday would have the Senate condemn Bush's ``unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States'' and ``his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.''
``The idea that the president can just make up the law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered,'' Feingold said.
In the House, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing legislation that would call on the Republican-controlled Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment because of the eavesdropping.
The program granted intelligence officers the power to monitor - without court approval - the international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents, when those officers suspect terrorism may be involved.
Feingold was the first senator to urge a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops in Iraq and was the only senator to vote in 2001 against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. Feingold also voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.
Jackson was censured by the Senate in 1834 after he removed the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig Party, which controlled the Senate. The resolution, which had no legal impact, was expunged from the Senate record in 1837 after Jackson's party, the Democrats, regained a majority in the Senate.
On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate failed to gain enough votes to bring a censure resolution of President Clinton. The Senate had just acquitted Clinton after the House impeached him in December 1998, accusing him of committing perjury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Feingold, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, voted in favor of taking up the censure resolution.
Impeachment is the only punishment outlined in the Constitution for a president. But the Constitution says the House and Senate can punish their own members through censure.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

APNT 03-12-06 1031EST

ubertuber · 03-12-2006, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Bush won't be impeached because he violated no laws, as painful a pill as it is for some to swallow.

I don't think that's got anything to do with it (unfortunately). Impeachment proceeding SHOULD be based on the violation of laws and the consideration of fact. But Ratbastid is correct in pointing out that they are really used as a blunt instrument and a media grandstand. Think back a couple of years to the Clinton proceedings... Whether or not you believe that he broke any laws, it certainly looked to me like the House was running that trial on public opinion. That's a problem inherent in using a jury that has to run for re-election...

Charlatan could well be right that a focussed impeachment effort could produce a focussed support effort - Bush could come out of such an ordeal in better shape than he went in.

Also, Ustwo, what's LLL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Poppinjay · 03-12-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Cool a new LLL news site, didn't hear of that one.

But at any rate who cares what the LLL does, and I hope they try their hardest. The more they bark the more they are rejected by middle america, the more elections they loose. I hope EVERY house democrat signs on.

Bush won't be impeached because he violated no laws, as painful a pill as it is for some to swallow.

Clinton didn't violate the law, he was impeached, and the acquittal presumes innocence. Whether Bush violated the law has nothing to do with impeachment, it's about determining if he did break the law.

Anyhow, ALL of America gives this man a 37% approval rating, so he would likely not enjoy the increasing popularity that Clinton received during his impeachment, it would be more like Gray Davis's re-call situation.

roachboy · 03-12-2006, 08:56 AM

i dont see why a formal process geared toward holding this administration to account for its actions would be problematic.

the bush squad has been a multivariate demonstration of why a parliamentary system, with the possibility of bringing down a government via a no-confidence vote, is preferable to what the americans have. there i no doubt that, under such a system, the bush squad would already be a thing of the past.

the present american system in fact offers little in the way of meaningful checks on the abuse of power in comparison.

in fact, i would think that a prosecution of the bush administration--regardless of how these prosecutions turned out in the end--would be an excellent demonstration of the adage that even folk from the right have repeated from time to time when (and only when) it served their political purposes: no-one is above the law. i think the exercise would send a salutary message, both internationall and domestically, about the centrality of law in the american system. the contrary message has been sent repeatedly since 2001.

the administration obviously sees itself as vulnerable on a number of counts to such a judicial review--whence the deal it cut with the senate to avoid hearings into its wiretapping adventures.

the question of whether such proceedings should happen is seperate from those of whether it will or not in the short run (the scenario could well change after the midterm elections).

Ustwo · 03-12-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Also, Ustwo, what's LLL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Loony liberal left, example.....

And yes I agree these antics help Bush far more than they hurt.

roachboy · 03-12-2006, 09:14 AM

nice way to maintain civility, ustwo:
good that you have put your shoulder to the wheel on this one.
you are a real inspiration.

ubertuber · 03-12-2006, 09:39 AM

I disagree with that label Ustwo. I poked around in some of the articles on that site and while there are some conclusions that are outside of my norm, it doesn't seem loony to me at all. In fact, the articles I saw seemed rationally and intelligently written. On top of that, the article Tecoyah posted is reprinted from the Atlanta Progressive News... So basically I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize this site (which isn't even under discussion). The story about house impeachment proceedings is either true or not, no matter who wrote or printed it. Let's talk about facts.

Willravel · 03-12-2006, 10:23 AM

It won't work. The problem isn't with one person, but many along the line of succession, in fact. Unless you impeach: Vice President Richard Cheney, Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert, President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, House majority jackass Tom DeLay....it will be virtually useless. You can't impeach everyone involved.

The only way this will be worked out is if after these people leave their offices they are prosecuted for war crimes. The most important message to be giving to those who would make preemptive war on falsified/incorrect information is that they will ALL be heald accountable.

ratbastid · 03-12-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

So basically I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize this site (which isn't even under discussion).

They disagree with him and are therefore insane.

Poppinjay · 03-12-2006, 10:29 AM

Sigh

Okay, Ustwo, let's play tit for tat with this pic of a pro war protestor:

Wow, we're really furthering discourse, aren't we?

ubertuber · 03-12-2006, 10:32 AM

My apologies Tecoyah - I didn't mean to initiate a threadjack.

Let's try to get back to Tec's thread guys.

maximusveritas · 03-12-2006, 10:47 AM

I agree. Democrats need to start focusing on accomplishing something meaningful like actually winning elections in 2006. Bush is well on his way to lame duck status, so what's the point of going after him? Instead, they need to start tying all these incumbent Republicans to the failures of the Bush administration before they all jump ship.

Ustwo · 03-12-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I disagree with that label Ustwo. I poked around in some of the articles on that site and while there are some conclusions that are outside of my norm, it doesn't seem loony to me at all. In fact, the articles I saw seemed rationally and intelligently written. On top of that, the article Tecoyah posted is reprinted from the Atlanta Progressive News... So basically I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize this site (which isn't even under discussion). The story about house impeachment proceedings is either true or not, no matter who wrote or printed it. Let's talk about facts.

Did you poke around the 'Atlanta Progressive News' a bit?

LLL all the way.

You can have your opinion of it, I have mine and to me its the loony liberal left.

ubertuber · 03-12-2006, 11:40 AM

I've been trying to engage this in discussion but that isn't working.

Ustwo, you are welcome to have opinions, including those that differ from mine. However, name calling is not part of how we communicate here. It's not productive.

Further, discrediting a source through namecalling without addressing facts is tedious and fails to engage the discussion in any meaningful way. Unless you are going to claim that APN made this story up and there is no group of house representatives considering impeachment proceedings, this is a threadjack. I apologize to Tecoyah for initiating it, but I genuinely did not know what LLL was.

Please catch my meaning this time - I'd like to not have to write in this thread with yellow text. You've been here longer than I have and I know that you are aware of the house rules and I know that you are aware of what kinds of contirbutions add constructively to our discourse and what kinds don't.

alpha phi · 03-12-2006, 12:32 PM

I watched the Q & A on CSPAN about the select commitee to look into impeachment.
The panel included people who were involved with the Nixon commitee.(on both sides)
Most of the speakers agree on one VERY IMPORTANT issue.
The select commitee is to collect FACTS on both sides of the issue.
These Facts could:
1. Call for impeachment
2. Provide evidence for indictment
3. Exonerate

The Select Committee is a very important funtion of our goverment
and must go forward to shine the light of truth.
If wanting to know the TRUTH makes someone LLL <--nice code word demonization BTW
So be it!
The truth need to be told
To either punish or exonerate......for good or bad
TRUTH

djtestudo · 03-12-2006, 05:03 PM

I actually don't have a problem with this.

We should always have a congressional committee looking into things like this for EVERY president as part of checks and balances.

Of course, for anything to advance, we would need evidence not just that the Bush administration broke the law, but that he has done it more egregiously then other presidents who either were not impeached or were and were aquitted.

Ustwo · 03-12-2006, 06:28 PM

Edit: Never mind, I give up.

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 08:22 PM

The only way they would ever impeach Bush is if they found out that he was receiving oral sex from a woman not his wife.

Compared to that, leading America into a pre-emptive war against an independent country that did not support terrrorism, and killing hundreds of thousands under false pretenses just isn't reason enough to every impeach him.

loganmule · 03-12-2006, 08:23 PM

tecoyah, I agree that it would do more harm than good to move forward with impeachment, in the absence of strong proof of significant criminal activity. Without that, it's just politics, and the Dems lose both face and fight.

Anyway, I think it hurts the Dems to focus on impeachment, when Bush is handing them softball after softball, if they would simply go after him on the issues. Most obvious to consevatives is his failure to act like one. Instead, he throws money (or says so anyway), and irresponsibly so, at any problem before him, when many times the harm could have been avoided or mitigated by reasoned proactive decisions. The Dems just need to keep their base...if my conservative community is representative of how others feel elsewhere, a lot a Republicans will cross over, assuming the Dems play the cards correctly.

Dems need to take the high road. Anything other than that will only remind folks that "conservatives" and "liberals" are pretty much the same in advocating for their respective special interests, rather than we the people, once in power.

Poppinjay · 03-17-2006, 06:08 AM

A new poll out shows that a plurality of Americans support the censure of Bush.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Furthermore, 43% support impeachment.

jujueye · 03-20-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Regardless of the validity of this action, I cant see anything positive in an attempt to impeach Mr. Bush. This country is devided beyond recognition as it is

Oh, I think so. There's a baseball personality here in Seattle named Ron "Red" Fairly. When the Mariners are way behind in the score and playing poorly, he always says, "Well, to start out: you've gotta stop the bleeding." I think impeachment would begin to stop the bleeding. I know, I know, there are so many people in his cabinet that removing the figurehead seems silly, but let's get started repairing all the things he's broken. Let's repair our dignity in the world community, for one thing. Let's get back on track with other things that matter, as well. The fact that he plans on cutting $60 million from cancer research is devastating news, in light of his proposal for spending $90 billion for the war. The leadership just seems so out of focus and self-serving. I'm not proud to live here any more.

03-12-2006, 04:26 AM	#1 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	This cant be good for America Regardless of the validity of this action, I cant see anything positive in an attempt to impeach Mr. Bush. This country is devided beyond recognition as it is, and though I did support similar action directed at Mr. Clinton, in hindsight I reallize my support was misguided based on my own selfish dislike of the man. Dont get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president, but I dont think this will help. "(APN) ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2085 __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-12-2006, 05:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't see this as amounting to much. While I really think Bush and Company are largely a negative force in the world, I don't see him getting impeached in any way. In fact, given Bush's track record to date, the likely effect of this will be that Bush's base comes to his defense. I could see his approval rating rising as a result. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-12-2006, 05:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Bush was interviewed by Elizabeth Vargas on Friday. This is how the interview started. She asked him a fairly softball question; what he thought when he saw the devestation of Katrina. This is how he answered, "I saw a lot of reporters taking pictures of people suffering and not helping." The entire interview was very soft, and yet he was angry, bitter, sounded confused, and was very hostile to Vargas. At the time of the interview, news had just come out that one of his former high level employees had been charged with theft, from Target of all places. This was after the guy had assured counsel Harriet Meiers that it was a mistake involving his credit card company. Bush insulated himself with a staff of people that only assure him he is doing great, always right etc. Even in public, he only addresses pre-sorted crowds that will be friendly to him. Now we are learning that several of those who coddle and insulate him, have been full of crap, if not outright dishonest. This is why I wish we had a vote of no confidence. The Bush administration needs to be weeded, desperately. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-12-2006, 07:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Whether they investigated or not, I don't know. Harriet Meiers was the one who handled the legal aspects, and I think she's made it clear that she is a person who gives nothing but good news to her master. Update: Russ Feingold is calling for censure of Bush. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-12-2006, 08:56 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont see why a formal process geared toward holding this administration to account for its actions would be problematic. the bush squad has been a multivariate demonstration of why a parliamentary system, with the possibility of bringing down a government via a no-confidence vote, is preferable to what the americans have. there i no doubt that, under such a system, the bush squad would already be a thing of the past. the present american system in fact offers little in the way of meaningful checks on the abuse of power in comparison. in fact, i would think that a prosecution of the bush administration--regardless of how these prosecutions turned out in the end--would be an excellent demonstration of the adage that even folk from the right have repeated from time to time when (and only when) it served their political purposes: no-one is above the law. i think the exercise would send a salutary message, both internationall and domestically, about the centrality of law in the american system. the contrary message has been sent repeatedly since 2001. the administration obviously sees itself as vulnerable on a number of counts to such a judicial review--whence the deal it cut with the senate to avoid hearings into its wiretapping adventures. the question of whether such proceedings should happen is seperate from those of whether it will or not in the short run (the scenario could well change after the midterm elections). __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-12-2006, 04:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The problem isn't impeaching Bush. The problem is the precendent that impeaching Clinton left. Impeachment is now a purely political move that can be comitted on the executive whenever congress's winds turn against him. It no longer has anything to do with protecting the nation from a criminal president. There's AMPLE grounds for impeachment proceedings against Bush. I'm not saying there's necessisarily grounds for conviction, but I'd say there's definitely enough evidence to move forward with proceedings. I could even see the 70% of the US who currently disapprove of him uniting under one banner--it could be a very unifying thing for the country. But first we have to deal with the political perception of impeachment.

03-12-2006, 09:14 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice way to maintain civility, ustwo: good that you have put your shoulder to the wheel on this one. you are a real inspiration. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-12-2006, 09:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I disagree with that label Ustwo. I poked around in some of the articles on that site and while there are some conclusions that are outside of my norm, it doesn't seem loony to me at all. In fact, the articles I saw seemed rationally and intelligently written. On top of that, the article Tecoyah posted is reprinted from the Atlanta Progressive News... So basically I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize this site (which isn't even under discussion). The story about house impeachment proceedings is either true or not, no matter who wrote or printed it. Let's talk about facts. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-12-2006, 10:23 AM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It won't work. The problem isn't with one person, but many along the line of succession, in fact. Unless you impeach: Vice President Richard Cheney, Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert, President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, House majority jackass Tom DeLay....it will be virtually useless. You can't impeach everyone involved. The only way this will be worked out is if after these people leave their offices they are prosecuted for war crimes. The most important message to be giving to those who would make preemptive war on falsified/incorrect information is that they will ALL be heald accountable. Last edited by Willravel; 03-12-2006 at 10:49 AM..

03-12-2006, 10:29 AM	#19 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Sigh Okay, Ustwo, let's play tit for tat with this pic of a pro war protestor: Wow, we're really furthering discourse, aren't we? __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet Last edited by Poppinjay; 03-12-2006 at 10:41 AM..

03-12-2006, 10:32 AM	#20 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	My apologies Tecoyah - I didn't mean to initiate a threadjack. Let's try to get back to Tec's thread guys. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-12-2006, 10:47 AM	#21 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I agree. Democrats need to start focusing on accomplishing something meaningful like actually winning elections in 2006. Bush is well on his way to lame duck status, so what's the point of going after him? Instead, they need to start tying all these incumbent Republicans to the failures of the Bush administration before they all jump ship.

03-12-2006, 11:40 AM	#23 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I've been trying to engage this in discussion but that isn't working. Ustwo, you are welcome to have opinions, including those that differ from mine. However, name calling is not part of how we communicate here. It's not productive. Further, discrediting a source through namecalling without addressing facts is tedious and fails to engage the discussion in any meaningful way. Unless you are going to claim that APN made this story up and there is no group of house representatives considering impeachment proceedings, this is a threadjack. I apologize to Tecoyah for initiating it, but I genuinely did not know what LLL was. Please catch my meaning this time - I'd like to not have to write in this thread with yellow text. You've been here longer than I have and I know that you are aware of the house rules and I know that you are aware of what kinds of contirbutions add constructively to our discourse and what kinds don't. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-12-2006, 12:32 PM	#24 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	I watched the Q & A on CSPAN about the select commitee to look into impeachment. The panel included people who were involved with the Nixon commitee.(on both sides) Most of the speakers agree on one VERY IMPORTANT issue. The select commitee is to collect FACTS on both sides of the issue. These Facts could: 1. Call for impeachment 2. Provide evidence for indictment 3. Exonerate The Select Committee is a very important funtion of our goverment and must go forward to shine the light of truth. If wanting to know the TRUTH makes someone LLL <--nice code word demonization BTW So be it! The truth need to be told To either punish or exonerate......for good or bad TRUTH __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

03-12-2006, 05:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I actually don't have a problem with this. We should always have a congressional committee looking into things like this for EVERY president as part of checks and balances. Of course, for anything to advance, we would need evidence not just that the Bush administration broke the law, but that he has done it more egregiously then other presidents who either were not impeached or were and were aquitted. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

03-12-2006, 06:28 PM	#26 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Edit: Never mind, I give up. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 03-12-2006 at 07:33 PM..

03-12-2006, 08:22 PM	#27 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	The only way they would ever impeach Bush is if they found out that he was receiving oral sex from a woman not his wife. Compared to that, leading America into a pre-emptive war against an independent country that did not support terrrorism, and killing hundreds of thousands under false pretenses just isn't reason enough to every impeach him.

03-12-2006, 08:23 PM	#28 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	tecoyah, I agree that it would do more harm than good to move forward with impeachment, in the absence of strong proof of significant criminal activity. Without that, it's just politics, and the Dems lose both face and fight. Anyway, I think it hurts the Dems to focus on impeachment, when Bush is handing them softball after softball, if they would simply go after him on the issues. Most obvious to consevatives is his failure to act like one. Instead, he throws money (or says so anyway), and irresponsibly so, at any problem before him, when many times the harm could have been avoided or mitigated by reasoned proactive decisions. The Dems just need to keep their base...if my conservative community is representative of how others feel elsewhere, a lot a Republicans will cross over, assuming the Dems play the cards correctly. Dems need to take the high road. Anything other than that will only remind folks that "conservatives" and "liberals" are pretty much the same in advocating for their respective special interests, rather than we the people, once in power.

03-17-2006, 06:08 AM	#29 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	A new poll out shows that a plurality of Americans support the censure of Bush. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ Furthermore, 43% support impeachment. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet