Impeaching Bushcheney

[Cell]

*deep breath*

So here we stand. Even if they have the will to do so, lacking a supermajority in the US Senate, the Democrats have no practical means left to end this war. Apparently it only takes one third of the representatives and senators, and less than one third of the American public completely out of touch with reality to keep this catastrophe moving until the next president takes office. Even if congress were to completely cut off all funding to the war effort, I understand that it would take fifteen months to remove our troops. First of all that isn't going to happen, and second of all that would put the date of final exit comfortably after the next presidential election.

The only thing left to do would be to impeach the president and vice president now. No, that wouldn't change anything in Iraq. It probably won't do anything noticible to change things at home. In fact that's the point of it. It would effectively put a check on Bushcheney from any further escalations and war-making . . . like in Iran for example in the last year of this stolen presidency. Considering how far of touch with reality they are, I think this is an important step that must be done. Without something like an impeachment hanging over the head of the commander-in-thief, I think many of a military mindset would have a hard time disobeying orders should such a thing become necessary.

So I say forget about playing around and arguing about funding. Indeed, even if what General Petraeus and that other guy said were a lie, I say give him, or rather our troops the money to fund the rest of the Iraq surge. Its a done deal anyway. But I say give the troops and the officers something more. Give them permission to disobey if they are asked to do anything else crazy. They are probably going to need that more any equipment money can buy. Impeach these usurpers NOW!

Ah, I feel much better now

[Govinda]

You're right. I disagree on one point though; vote to keep the troops there until impeachment becomes a real possibility (if ever). It's a real tragedy for the troops and the Iraqi people, but as soon as America pulls out those soldiers will find themselves in Iran fighting a real Army, and Iraq will descend into an even deeper state of civil war.

Still. Impeach the c unt. You're the only ones who can, and most of the rest of the world would rather you did it sooner than later. At least threaten the guy with it; he wouldn't treat you like such shit if he didn't think he was untouchable.

[Draken Benvolaid]

You can't impeach bush for just something like that...

If you want to get him canned, use the fact that he used the war in Iraq and the war on terror to increase his own personal cash. He owns oil fields, and when he deregulated gasoline, the price of gas skyrocketed. It went off again once the natural disasters happened, and the war started/escalated.

Use my engine design I posted in the forum too, if you want.

Something like that would get him canned faster then Nixon.

It's a play on underling intentions.

[maxpower]

I hate to point this out but the Constitution states that The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This means that just disagreeing with his policy is not reason enough for impeachment.

I am not saying that I agree with Bushes policy myself and I have seen the argument that the loss of public trust should be enough to impeach, however if we are impeaching members of the government because we disagree with their ideas and don't trust them I say we take out Congress and the Senate who both have lower poll numbers than the president.

Also I would like to point out that Clinton was not impeached because he had sex in the oval office (he could not be impeached for this). Instead he was impeached for lying under oath. Therefore if you could catch George Bush in a lie (under oath) you might be able to impeach him however the war in Iraq will be hard to impeach over seeing as most of the government had the same intelligence regarding Iraq. Not only this government but also the Clinton presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts

As for using the war to line his pockets with cash I believe you would have to prove that has happened. Not just say look at him he went to war for oil. I am pretty sure that hearsay would not hold up in court.

I have also seen the opinion that George Bush should be impeached for wire tapping however following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Also this type of action is nothing new executive orders by previous administrations including Clinton's and Carter's authorized the attorneys general to exercise authority with respect to both options under FISA. In Clinton's executive order, he authorized his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section". It would seem that as a country we only point fingers when we are upset with our leaders?

I have heard people say that this wiretapping could be used illegally to spy on American citizens yet I have never seen any proof that it is being used this way. I have seen proof that it is working to stop terrorist however, such as the stop of a terrorist plot in Germany.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070910/...urity_usa_dc_1

However I would love to see a good reason to impeach Bush and hope that someone will provide a sound argument on this page.

[Nin`]

A war of aggression was quite sufficient for the US lead Nuremberg tribunal to convict and sentence to death a number of German National Socialist leaders who had much less to do with the march march into Poland et al than Cheney and Bush had to do with the march into Iraq.

As in the case with the German political leadership, it doesn't matter if Cheney-Bush waged an illegal war of aggression because they were nasty, because they were fooled, because they were stupid enough to swallow their own propaganda, or even because they are congenital idiots. They could not retroactively justify their "war of preemption" which made it a "war of aggression" and a capital international crime.

And if you study the US Constitution, the US Constitution places International law before itself, which is however the highest form of American law. So if this capital crime does not constitute a high crime in your mind, it would be interesting to discover what does.

Nin`

PS I totally do not approve of capital punishment, but the evidence here is so unequivocal and tangible (unlike the case against Saddam Hussein), the deaths we have caused in Iraq so exceeding Saddam Hussein's total, no matter how they are calculated (and notice the military are (invalidly by everyone else's counting) claiming a decrease in civilian deaths, meaning that they have just called themselves liars as they previously claimed not to be keeping count - evidence that will be useful at the Cheney-Bush trial), the blatant institution of a war of aggression, and the unmistakable glee of our leadership at having seen Hussein executed by their puppets, suggests that it would be hypocrisy to accept a lesser sentence for Cheney and Bush's much greater crimes against humanity.

[maxpower]

Originally Posted by Nin`

As in the case with the German political leadership, it doesn't matter if Cheney-Bush waged an illegal war of aggression because they were nasty, because they were fooled, because they were stupid enough to swallow their own propaganda, or even because they are congenital idiots. They could not retroactively justify their "war of preemption" which made it a "war of aggression" and a capital international crime.

Okay I am good with that but can we also include Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Lieberman, Reid and others as part of the group that needs to be tried. I mean they would also fit the list of nasty, fooled, stupid enough to swallow their own propaganda, congenital idiots. I just have a hard time with those people that believe that Bush is the stupidest president ever but somehow is lucky enough to trick most of the Senate and congress into going to war. I find that these people also seem to blame Bush for things like New Orleans, September 11th, Global warming, and every other bad thing that happens. Making him the stupidest most brilliant man alive.

I would like to point out that I disagree with George Bush on many things that he has done or plans to do. Yet I am a registered independent who thinks that pointing fingers at one man has lead to the decline of our government. What about all those other dummies in the government that hope that people will keep blaming Bush for everything because it gives them a free pass. I will tell you right now I am pretty sure that many people on both sides are crooked and need to go. Look at Sandy Berger, Larry Craig, William Jefferson, and others. These people do all kinds of slimy things and we sit and point fingers at George W. Bush? Why? Because we don't like his policies? Because we think he is stupid? Because he is ruining the world? Well I will tell you right now I can name many policies on both sides that I disagree with, I can name people in high positions on both sides that I think are stupid, and I am pretty sure that George Bush alone can't ruin the world.

Yet somehow instead of paying attention to the corruption in our government and working together as a country to solve these problems we sit around and debate whether or not George Bush is a Dummy, if he acted appropriately in going to war, what he could have done better during the New Orleans fiasco, if he planned 9/11, etc. While those other people that also voted for the war, could have acted in New Orleans, try to slide bills by without the public noticing, etc. who should also have some type of accountability for these things. Sit back and smile because the country is too obsessed with the faults of one man to notice the failings of anything else. I'll tell you what I think it is a brilliant scheme everyone hates George W. Bush for everything that happens, while those people that are suppose to provide the "checks and balances" to our system get away with all kinds of things because they were "fooled" by the dumbest man alive?

[Nin`]

As I showed, a Cheney-Bush prosecution is a no brainer. Which is why it would make a good start in attempting to reestablish accountability. Yes I agree that Bush Senior, Clinton, Senior Military officers and the Congress Critters of their day and today deserve prosecution for war crimes related to Iraq (particularly the deliberate destruction of civilian infra structure with the intent of causing surplus deaths through disease with the (successful) intent of making the country unsustainable), Serbia-Croatia and the war by proxy we are engaged in in the Sudan. But I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon. The atrocities perpetrated by these parties have been made to seem trivial in comparison to the disasters of the Cheney-Bush Unitary executive.

Yes, pretty much anyone with half a functioning brain knows the system is broken. In large part because the Iron law of Oligarchy has ensured the centralization of wealth, power, media, education and influence, without effective opposition, to what is perhaps an unprecedented degree. I've spoken my recipe on how to fix it. I don't think it is going to happen. The country is too invested in dollar auctions centered around terror, security, anti-drug actions, law and order, the idea of capitalism coupled with the practice of self-beneficence by the oligarchy for the oligarchy, religiosity, patriotism and even old-fashioned xenophobia to stop and evaluate where these idiocies have lead them.

Regards,

Nin`

[Cell]

If I had my 'druthers every single member of congress who voted for the war on Iraq would be dangling from a lampost by morning. I'm not kidding. I don't really like the death penalty but when it comes to waging wars of aggression my principles find themselves sorely tested.

At first sight an interesting point about how it can have been possible for one so stupid (Bush) to have caused so many supposedly intelligent people to follow him if there wasn't some justice to his Iraqi crusade. Essentially this is an argument ad populem. Eg - lung cancer is a wonderful thing. If it wasn't, why would so many supposedly sensible people volunteer to get it via smoking? Nonetheless, the question is interesting. There are other ways of 'framing' it though. Another way might be "of what possible use is a political system (and/or entity: ha ha) which believes in torture and pre-emptive warfare?" Do we need it in on our planet? Or would it be better to have smoking crater where it once stood?

Yes Hilary Clinton too. She can go first.