Will the "I" Word get you arrested?

[RandFan]

I disagree.
It is about getting rid of those who have betrayed the public trust. I know - all politicians betray public trust to some degree, but the President should be better than that, and in this case he is far worse.

To be fair we are talking about a lot of people. It's really unfair for you or I to speak for everyone so I will take the statement back and offer a new one.

Given the emotion of the 2000 election and the hatred of Bush all these years it is seems likely that much of the calls for impeachment are rooted in emotion and ego.

You say you are not one of those that's fine. I'm happy to take your word for it. I'm quite skeptical of the rest.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo, it is congress that would have to impeach Bush should an Impeachment proceeding take place. To impeach Bush for this offense Congress would have to expose their own complicity. That's not going to happen. We are talking about a very real process here not an abstract. That's precisely my point. Just because people feel Bush should be impeached doesn't mean that he should or could be impeached.

OK
I see.

Yes, conceded, but this has nothing to do with the point at hand.

OK, OK..

Let me see if I can't make this a bit more clear. For a prosecutor to charge an accused for a crime the prosecutor needs to do at least two things.

1. Figure out what crime was committed.
2. Be able to demonstrate that there is probable cause that the accused perpetrated the crime.

For conviction the prosecuter needs to demonstrate that the crime was commited. (Remember, impeachement isn't conviction. Clinton was impeached but not convicted.)

Ok, so what crime do you believe that Bush commited and can you demonstrate that Bush committed that crime? Everyone repeats the mantra of impeachment over and over and so eventually people think that the case doesn't even need to be made. I'm here to tell you that it does.

I thought that the case of the war would be enough.
Now, you tell me that it can not be the case, as the Congress would have to admit that they were accomplices, so, they will not do it

No argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Given the emotion of the 2000 election and the hatred of Bush all these years it is seems likely that much of the calls for impeachment are rooted in emotion and ego.

I would say that it is the loudest and most obnoxious calls for impeachment that are rooted in emotion and ego.

Much of the calls for impeachment have very real reasons to do so and include, but not limited to, reasons like warrantless wiretapping, destruction of emails and circumnavigating the Presidential Records Act, and outing a CIA operative (more likely Cheney then Bush). Not to mention efforts taken to cover up these crimes.

Any one of these are fairly serious.

 

[RandFan]

I would say that it is the loudest and most obnoxious calls for impeachment that are rooted in emotion and ego.

Much of the calls for impeachment have very real reasons to do so and include, but not limited to, reasons like warrantless wiretapping, destruction of emails and circumnavigating the Presidential Records Act, and outing a CIA operative (more likely Cheney then Bush). Not to mention efforts taken to cover up these crimes.

Any one of these are fairly serious.

Thanks.

I have said that perhaps the president should be impeached. The problem that I have is the assumption that Bush could or should be impeached without stating why. I'm not an attorney much less an expert in such issues. Matteo makes my point. Many people can't even explain why exactly the president should be impeached.

That said, I'm not sure that the issues you raise would lead to impeachment or conviction. It depends on the mood of the congress though, it only requires a simple majority in the house to get impeachment. The Senate requires a 2/3rds majority (IIRC).

 

[ambrose]

Thanks.

I have said that perhaps the president should be impeached. The problem that I have is the assumption that Bush could or should be impeached without stating why. I'm not an attorney much less an expert in such issues. Matteo makes my point. Many people can't even explain why exactly the president should be impeached.

That said, I'm not sure that the issues you raise would lead to impeachment or conviction. It depends on the mood of the congress though, it only requires a simple majority in the house to get impeachment. The Senate requires a 2/3rds majority (IIRC).

I'd agree that Congress may not be inclined to follow through on impeachment, but I certainly believe that impeachment is long overdue. A president should not be able to break the law. That is precisely what Bush did when he violated the FISA act and ordered wiretapping without a warrant. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, too -- there's been at least a half dozen separate incidents that should warrant impeachment.

Bill Moyer's had an excellent program on the topic the other day. The scholars/lawyers interviewed certainly summed it up much, much more eloquently than I ever could. Here's the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

 

[Upchurch]

That said, I'm not sure that the issues you raise would lead to impeachment or conviction.

I refrained from saying this in my last post because I am really beginning to hate the "Clinton did it too" arguments, and this amounts to about the same thing, BUT...

Within our lifetimes, a simple accusation of perjury about an event not pertaining to the President's execution of his duties has lead to impeachment. If that was worthy, the issues I raised, which I feel are much more pertinent, must surely be as well since they actually effect the welfare of the country. (Okay, that's probably an overstatement for the email thing. We may never know now.)

It depends on the mood of the congress though, it only requires a simple majority in the house to get impeachment. The Senate requires a 2/3rds majority (IIRC).

Something like that. Seems like no branch of the government is interested in doing their jobs for the sake of the country anymore. Or rather, if ever.

The last five years or so has made me very cynical.

 

[RandFan]

I'd agree that Congress may not be inclined to follow through on impeachment, but I certainly believe that impeachment is long overdue. A president should not be able to break the law. That is precisely what Bush did when he violated the FISA act and ordered wiretapping without a warrant. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, too -- there's been at least a half dozen separate incidents that should warrant impeachment.

Bill Moyer's had an excellent program on the topic the other day. The scholars/lawyers interviewed certainly summed it up much, much more eloquently than I ever could. Here's the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

Thanks, I would have been more impressed if I could have seen someone from the opposition so I could judge both pro and con.

 

[ambrose]

Thanks, I would have been more impressed if I could have seen someone from the opposition so I could judge both pro and con.

I agree - it makes it easier to create an informed decision.

I'm sure we could find some clip of Hannity or Tony Snow or whomever to make a counterpoint, but I get the feeling you can stomach those guys as well as I can.

I will not deny that my political leanings are on the left side of the spectrum. In my defense, however, I will say that I supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton, mainly for the same reasons stated earlier: that no man should be above the law. Considering he may or may not have committed perjury, impeachment was the best way to keep him in check.

Of course, in hindsight, Clinton's lie was about a sexual relation with a consentual adult. While despicable, that doesn't seem to potentially damage the framework of our constitution and system of checks and balances in the same fashion that Bush's push for a unitary executive has. I don't really know how Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it, really would have had any effect on his ability to govern or had any effect on our national security. (Of course, ironically, it was the media circus surrounding the event that eventually ended up detracting from his ability.)

So, it's a whole new ballgame, really, and I'm somewhat shocked there hasn't been a greater call for action by the US public and the democratic congress.

I guess we're all too occupied with our singing and dancing shows on the teevee to care.

 

[Upchurch]

I wouldn't mind hearing Brown's legal take on the issue, actually.

 

[RandFan]

Within our lifetimes, a simple accusation of perjury about an event not pertaining to the President's execution of his duties has lead to impeachment. If that was worthy, the issues I raised, which I feel are much more pertinent, must surely be as well since they actually effect the welfare of the country. (Okay, that's probably an overstatement for the email thing. We may never know now.)

To be sure I'm not an expert and I simply don't know. That said I was completly against impeaching Clinton. If Bush has siezed powers and altered the dynamics of the sepration of powers then impeachment could be quite valuable to correcting that imbalance (see Bill Moyers piece above). I'd really like to see argument from the opposition.

I've always wondered if FDR, Lincoln and Truman as well as others shouldn't have been impeached. What is the limit of our tolerance of abuse of power?

Let me hasten to add, that FDR, Lincoln and Truman were not impeached is not a valid rason not to imepach Bush.

I guess I'm still not in the personal outrage mode and I doubt I ever will be. Emotion seems to be an effective tool of politicians. I'm not part of the us vs them anymore. I don't viscerally distrust democrats, liberals, socialists or communists the way I did when I was younger. I find myself questioning such attitudes. That doesn't mean that I'm apathetic. If Bush broke the law then I'm willing to consider impeachment. Hell, I wouldn't mind if Bush went to jail. I've no loyalty to the man. I'm personally very disapointed in him and his administration. I've conceded that at best he made decisions that ignored significant evidence. It's just that I'm also skeptical of his opposition. There is plenty of political reason and motivation to impeach Bush. So I'm not about to jump on the bandwagon and start chanting impeachment. Though I'm perfectly happy to respect folks like yourself who are capable of critical thinking who do call for an impeachment.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

I'm sure we could find some clip of Hannity or Tony Snow or whomever to make a counterpoint, but I get the feeling you can stomach those guys as well as I can.

I was a talk show junkie. However I've completly stopped watching and listening to pundits and the like. I haven't listened to Limbaugh or Air America (is it still on) or watched any talking heads on the tube in nearly a year. These shows have so little to offer in the way of argument. It's all junk food. I do watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report but that is for entertainment purposes only. It blows me away that some people actually rely on these sources for news. I'll confess they are better than many shows as far as information goes.

I do listen to NPR.

I will not deny that my political leanings are on the left side of the spectrum. In my defense, however, I will say that I supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton, mainly for the same reasons stated earlier: that no man should be above the law. Considering he may or may not have committed perjury, impeachment was the best way to keep him in check.

Interesting, I was against the impeachment.

Of course, in hindsight, Clinton's lie was about a sexual relation with a consentual adult. While despicable, that doesn't seem to potentially damage the framework of our constitution and system of checks and balances in the same fashion that Bush's push for a unitary executive has. I don't really know how Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it, really would have had any effect on his ability to govern or had any effect on our national security. (Of course, ironically, it was the media circus surrounding the event that eventually ended up detracting from his ability.)

So, it's a whole new ballgame, really, and I'm somewhat shocked there hasn't been a greater call for action by the US public and the democratic congress.

I guess we're all too occupied with our singing and dancing shows on the teevee to care.

I'm not sure about that. The polls certainly show that the populace is unapphy with both congress and the president. We will see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks.

I have said that perhaps the president should be impeached. The problem that I have is the assumption that Bush could or should be impeached without stating why. I'm not an attorney much less an expert in such issues. Matteo makes my point. Many people can't even explain why exactly the president should be impeached.
...

Then again, some of us have spelled out very specifically why impeachment is a reasonable decision and some people ignore the facts that have been presented.

 

[RandFan]

Then again, some of us have spelled out very specifically why impeachment is a reasonable decision and some people ignore the facts that have been presented.

You mean why you think impeachment is a reasonable decision. Yes, I'll grant you that you have given some possible reasons.

 

[fishbob]

Given the emotion of the 2000 election and the hatred of Bush all these years it is seems likely that much of the calls for impeachment are rooted in emotion and ego.

I still disagree.
I think that the shennanigans associated with the last two elections in addition to the potential illegalities associated with Plame, non-WMD, domestic spying, attorney firing, enemy combatants, signing statements, etc are valid reasons to consider impeachment. Emotion, hatred, and ego, I think, have little to do with it for many people.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm not an attorney much less an expert in such issues. Matteo makes my point. Many people can't even explain why exactly the president should be impeached.

You need to be an attorney to understand that stating a war that to the death of half a million people is something bad??
Is it so difficult, to understand, this very basic point, that a 3-year-old child would understand in a second?
What is the difficulty in understanding that..

 

[fishbob]

Congress, including Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry voted for the war knowing full well of the UN opposition. That wont' fly.

You might want to check out what Hillary, Pelosi, and Kerry actually voted for because the way you posted ain't it.
As I recall, the authorization was for Bush to commit forces in pursuit of turrists. The legislature were told that Saddam supported turr and could begin shooting nucular anthrax missiles at us within 45 minutes.

 

[WildCat]

As I recall, the authorization was for Bush to commit forces in pursuit of turrists.

No, it was specifically against Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The legislature were told that Saddam supported turr and could begin shooting nucular anthrax missiles at us within 45 minutes.

The only thing I've ever seen coming close to this is this BBC report (quoting Robin Cook) that pre-dates the Bush Admin. by 3 years.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No, it was specifically against Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html


The only thing I've ever seen coming close to this is this BBC report (quoting Robin Cook) that pre-dates the Bush Admin. by 3 years.

I recall administration assessments that indicated Saddem was in a position to launch a biological/nuclear attack on his neighbors and the U.S. on short notice. You must recall Colin Powell being "used" to sell the U.N. on this as well.

But what's even more troubling than all that is the consequences we have reaped as a result of persisting in this war:

·

·
· Mr. President, did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have Osama bin Laden's blessing before you invaded Iraq? (No, he was just another wannabe.)
· Was there an al-Qaeda "base of operations" for Zarqawi to run in Iraq before you invaded? (Nope.)
· Were suicide bombers pouring into Iraq from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria before you invaded? (No.)
· Were terrorists beheading Western contractors in Iraq before you invaded? (No.)
· Were terrorists blowing up Americans in Iraq at a rate of 2-3 a day before you invaded? (No.)
· Was Iraq a magnet for wide-eyed jihadists from all over the world before you invaded? (No, but now they're getting on-the-job training.)
· Were middle-aged Iraqi women strapping bombs to themselves to avenge the loss of loved ones before you invaded? (No.)
· Was Iraq exporting terrorism to Jordan before you invaded? (No.)
· Did terrorists attack Madrid and London before you invaded? (No.)
· Did the Iraqi army and police need to be "stood up" and "trained" to keep the peace in Iraq before you invaded their country? (No.)
· Were Sunnis and Shi'ites at each others' throats in Iraq before you invaded? (No.)
· Was there an anti-American insurgency in Iraq before you invaded?

http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=8188

From the NY Times:

Washington - A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22715


There was terrorism in the world before Iraq and there will be afterwards. But clearly terrorism related specifically to Iraq did not exist before it was attacked because there was no rationale for it before Iraq was invaded.

 

[timhau]

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this.

I disagree. Some of the things the report finds Churchill guilty of are the kind of basic stuff that you should have down pat before you finish grad school. Proper attribution, for example, is about as basic as getting back correct change in a store. Of course, we're all humans, so mistakes happen and sometimes you get the wrong change. But a shop attendant gives you your change back wrong time and time again, the person is *at best* incompetent and sloppy.

 

[RandFan]

I still disagree.
I think that the shennanigans associated with the last two elections in addition to the potential illegalities associated with Plame, non-WMD, domestic spying, attorney firing, enemy combatants, signing statements, etc are valid reasons to consider impeachment. Emotion, hatred, and ego, I think, have little to do with it for many people.

That's fine. We can disagree. I think there is little doubt that it has a lot to do with it for most people. Thankfully we are still allowed opinions.