Do You Believe Bush's Actions Deserve Impeachment?

[batdude]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Yes, I certainly believe he does.

[skrewt]

He didnt commit any crime,
I however do believe that whoever leaked the info about the wiretaps should go to jail for leaking national security secrets.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by batdude
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Yes, I certainly believe he does.

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 167599 responses


Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%

I don't know.
2%

[geerair]

Impeached? Without a doubt. Take his handlers and fixers also.

[zzonko]

Steve Chapman (extreme conservative)

Beyond the imperial presidency


Published December 25, 2005


President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

[James 3528]

Only way to fight a war. Deal with the other side. Problem is, there are too many of the other side here.

[remember]

flat out



IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY


CONSIDERING THE BAR OF WHETHER A PRESIDENT SHOPULD BE IMPEACHED IS LAYING ON THE GROUND, AFTER THEY IMPEACHED CLINTON FOR LYING ABOUT CHEATING ON HIS WIFE..



HANDS DOWN:
BUSH AND CHENEY DESERVE AN "INVESTIGATION"/IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.. TO SEE WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT:

THE CLOSED INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE 9-11, OF THE 9-11 HIJACKERS AND THEIR MONEY MEN
THE LIES AND OMMISSIONS IN THE CASE MADE TO INVADE IRAQ
THE LIES AND OMMISSIONS ABOUT THEM POSSIBLY LEAKING OR COVERING UP FOR THE LEAKERS WHO "OUTED" A CIA AGENT/A CRIME
THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND POLICIES THAT HAVE MEANT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS IN VIOLATION OF 9 TREATIES WE ARE SIGNITORIES TO.
THE PROTECTION OF A KNOWN TERRORIST, LUIS POSADA, AND ALLOWING THIS FORMER BUSH/IRAN CONTRA TERRORIST TO ESCAPE EXTRADITION TO THE COUNTRY WHO DEMANDS HE GO BACK TO BE TRIED IN THE AIRPLANE BOMBING THAT KILLED 79 PEOPLE
ILLEGALLY PAID, PLANTED JOURNALISTS WHO EFFECTIVELY WERE PROPAGANDIZING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
AND THE LATEST WIRETAP FIASCO, WHERE IT IS KNOWN THEY PURPOSELY AVOIDED FOLLOWING THE LAW, EVEN WHEN THAT LAW WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS SCENERIO, AND COULD HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT ANY HESITATION OR JEOPARDY TO THEIR TASKS.


HOW IS THAT FOR STARTERS,

[James 3528]

Take your medicine

[bootlen]

Sheesh, remember. What happened? Did somebody pee in your tampax box?

[braces4impact]

I heard the even the Wall Street Journal critisized Bush.

[dhvac]

Treason should be dealt with by death period
Whoever leaked the info should be killed
As far as secret wire taps do you think that the president would have any trouble having a judge sign a warrant weather it was legit or not?

We have top secret government agencies for a reason let’s use them

The long and short is while I do not like President Bush I can not hold it against him for trying to keep this country safe (whether he did it the way we think he should have or not)

If there would have been another attack then everyone would have said “why didn’t our government protect us”
But when they do you want too impeach them
Now the sad thing is that all this mention of impeaching the president and very little of discipline for those who leak info that puts this country at risk
Do you think that our enemies both foreign and domestic do not listen to the news do not follow what is happening on our home soil if they was dumb enough to ignore what every American feels they have the right to know then we would have won already


And as far as everyone that think you have a right to know what happens in our government well guess what you don’t period if you are smart enough to handle running this country then get you name on the next ballot and lets see
If you know you could not do the job then shut up and elect someone who can because lots of the people that are b!$(hing about this put him in office

[RoBoTeq]

Even if it is determined that everything the little commie tattletales have been spewing out about President Bush were true, there is nothing there worthy of impeachment.

These little faggots are still so upset that their sexwithcigarsanduglywomen president was impeached that they will give away our nation just to try to even things up.

[r404a]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Even if it is determined that everything the little commie tattletales have been spewing out about President Bush were true, there is nothing there worthy of impeachment.

These little faggots are still so upset that their sexwithcigarsanduglywomen president was impeached that they will give away our nation just to try to even things up.


Robo, I take issue with you insinuating that Monica Lewinsky is ugly...quite the contrarty. And that broad in Arkansas, the one he got hammered for when he was Govenor, the broad with the big nose, well she was really hot. I am sure Willy got into a few other hot ones. The least we could do his give him credit for that.

r404a

[Special Ed]

If the crybaby Dems/Libs get their way by having Bush impeached & evicted from the Whitehouse I'll probably lose what remaining faith I have in the system & never vote again. After all, if they do get their way then it'll probably mean the system is rigged anyway.












BTW, Refer & Batdude, are you two of the morons that voted, "I Don't Know"?

[James 3528]

Originally posted by r404a

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Even if it is determined that everything the little commie tattletales have been spewing out about President Bush were true, there is nothing there worthy of impeachment.

These little faggots are still so upset that their sexwithcigarsanduglywomen president was impeached that they will give away our nation just to try to even things up.


Robo, I take issue with you insinuating that Monica Lewinsky is ugly...quite the contrarty. And that broad in Arkansas, the one he got hammered for when he was Govenor, the broad with the big nose, well she was really hot. I am sure Willy got into a few other hot ones. The least we could do his give him credit for that.

r404a



You must be hard up? Monica ?

[r404a]

James, I think "hard up" is a relative term. I pprefer "Non prejudice" I would nail Hillary as well.

r404a

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by r404a

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Even if it is determined that everything the little commie tattletales have been spewing out about President Bush were true, there is nothing there worthy of impeachment.

These little faggots are still so upset that their sexwithcigarsanduglywomen president was impeached that they will give away our nation just to try to even things up.


Robo, I take issue with you insinuating that Monica Lewinsky is ugly...quite the contrarty. And that broad in Arkansas, the one he got hammered for when he was Govenor, the broad with the big nose, well she was really hot. I am sure Willy got into a few other hot ones. The least we could do his give him credit for that.

r404a



You are right. I let my emotions get the best of me. Hell, I wouldn't hesitate doing Monica and Rob10 would pay to be with Hillary. Please accept my apologies.

[batdude]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dhvac
[B]"Treason should be dealt with by death period
Whoever leaked the info should be killed"
-----------------------------------------

Here we may assume you are talking about Plame-gate?
Well, under the Constitution treason is still a capital offense, true enough.
But let us begin with impeachment and a trial first.
Let all the facts be adduced,
and let any punishment be commensurate with
the gravity of the offense,
per the Constitution, as noted above.

Although lately I am reading that, facing indictment, Cheney
is expected to resign his position soon, citing health
reasons. (And why should we expect anything but another big fat lie
coming from him?)
Furthermore, the big-money elite who rule via their ownership of both parties have let it be known that
they are tired of their pet chimp. Without Cheney & Rove to think for him,
W is utterly useless as the proverbial boar's breasts, and his own
resignation will promptly follow. (Actually, that would be in
character with his demonstrated pattern of desertion.)

Madame Pres. Kinda-Sleazy Rice, anyone?

[skrewt]

Then you get Cheney....is that a win for you?

I was never in favor of impeaching Clinton only because Gore was far more F'd in the head.

So you get Bush, whoopdee doo. Cheney takes office and appoints Newt Gingrich VP.
Now that would be great.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by skrewt
Then you get Cheney....is that a win for you?

I was never in favor of impeaching Clinton only because Gore was far more F'd in the head.

So you get Bush, whoopdee doo. Cheney takes office and appoints Newt Gingrich VP.
Now that would be great.

You are right. More proof these impeachment morons need to be monitored.

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by James 3528
Only way to fight a war. Deal with the other side. Problem is, there are too many of the other side here.


Thats a BS Line, and you know it....

Where do you think we live? The USSR, The DDR?

[batdude]

In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system."

Does that make him a Dem, a Lib, a crybaby,
or just a hypocrite?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by batdude
In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system."

Does that make him a Dem, a Lib, a crybaby,
or just a hypocrite?

LOL

I think it makes him a politician.