No. It's a silly question. He's done nothing worthy of impeachment.
Well, actually, quite a few people think his warrantless wire tapping program broke the law. Were this proven to be the case, yeah, get his ass out of there. Unfortunately, those accusations don't seem to be going anywhere, so it's likely a moot point.
We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. - Ayn Rand
I think all mass murderers should be held accountable, W included. Yeah he's a puppet, but ultimately he makes the decision...certain people tell him what to do, but really it does come down to him. He could have said no, I don't want to kill tens of thousands of people in the middle east and turn a stable country into a wasteland, ripe with civil wars and terrorist attacks and very unstable soldiers running around executing people. He could have prevented all of that. Even though he is a puppet.
Quite a few top Democrats, including Nacy Pelosi and Harry Reid have already called for his impeachment, on multiple occasions.
God only knows what they would do if they win congress.
The question remains, impeachment for what? There has to be a reason to impeach a President, I mean a real reason. Can't impeach him because you don't like his policies (boneheaded or not) and you can't impeach him because he prays, that's for sure...
I think all mass murderers should be held accountable, W included. Yeah he's a puppet, but ultimately he makes the decision...certain people tell him what to do, but really it does come down to him. He could have said no, I don't want to kill tens of thousands of people in the middle east and turn a stable country into a wasteland, ripe with civil wars and terrorist attacks and very unstable soldiers running around executing people. He could have prevented all of that. Even though he is a puppet.
The question remains, impeachment for what? There has to be a reason to impeach a President, I mean a real reason. Can't impeach him because you don't like his policies (boneheaded or not) and you can't impeach him because he prays, that's for sure...
I think all mass murderers should be held accountable, W included. Yeah he's a puppet, but ultimately he makes the decision...certain people tell him what to do, but really it does come down to him. He could have said no, I don't want to kill tens of thousands of people in the middle east and turn a stable country into a wasteland, ripe with civil wars and terrorist attacks and very unstable soldiers running around executing people. He could have prevented all of that. Even though he is a puppet.
As Tony Blair pointed out very wisely, it is the terrorists in Iraq who have turned Iraq into what it is today, not us. Our actions haven't been perfect, but neither are we responsible for all the terror and killing and sectarian violence that plagues Iraq. That can be laid squarely at the feet of people like Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies.
How, exactly, would impeachment create more terrorists??
I think it would actually be a sign to the terrorists that steps are being taken to make peace.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Quite a few top Democrats, including Nacy Pelosi and Harry Reid have already called for his impeachment, on multiple occasions.
God only knows what they would do if they win congress.
I'm pretty sure there will be impeachment hearings if the dems get congress. His NSA debacle is clearly unconstitutional. Are we really discussing this?
How, exactly, would impeachment create more terrorists??
I believe it does increase the likliness of an attack on America. George W Bush has been by far the greatest success story of terrorism. If the "terrorists" lose Bush, they will lkely try another attack in the hopes the United States may respond as miserable or at least almost - again.
If the Dems win the house in November, should they impeach Bush?
...
Impeachment for what? Making one poor decision after another after another after another after another after another after another is not an impeachable offense.
...
And the Democrats won't win... and if they do win... what's the difference? Shit and crap both stink.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Impeachment for what? Making one poor decision after another after another after another after another after another after another is not an impeachable offense.
...
Indeed ... If this was the case, a fair number of U.S. presidents could have been impeached.
...
Impeachment for what? Making one poor decision after another after another after another after another after another after another is not an impeachable offense.
...
And the Democrats won't win... and if they do win... what's the difference? Shit and crap both stink.
Somewhere, I think possibly in the constitution, there may be a distinction between poor decisions and breaking the law. Oh, plus how can we go against the will of Uncle Neil?
By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2006.
You wouldn't know it from the media, but grassroots movements are afoot all over the country to hold the president legally accountable for his lies.
On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:
Township supervisors and friends, I come here today not as a Republican or as a Democrat but as an American citizen concerned for our way of life. I hope that you can view this package not as a political statement but as a plan for the future … Rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow state and city legislatures to introduce resolutions. Our First Amendment guarantees any citizen, city, or state "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is what I ask you to do with this motion.
Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that "there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another."
Bronke was absolutely right.
The Concord board is hardly national news. But taken in conjunction with the staggering number of state legislatures and city and town councils across the country that have passed impeachment resolutions, the lack of coverage of the movement is a conspicuous absence in mainstream media.
Illinois, Vermont and California state legislatures have impeachment resolutions pending. The Democratic parties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii have all passed resolutions. Then there are the 18 city and town councils that have passed resolutions, with seven more resolutions (including Concord) pending, to say nothing of the 27 local political groups and parties across the country that have adopted impeachment resolutions.
The broad sweep is not surprising as the evidence is well-documented: President George W. Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to lead the country into war, and continues to conduct illegal wiretaps, sanction torture and violate the separation of powers by picking and choosing congressional legislation.
Despite the clear case, impeachment has become a taboo word in D.C. politics. A chasm has emerged between high-level politicians too afraid to push for accountability, the media that seeks the "news" that comes from these politicians and their circles, and the American public they are supposed to be serving.
In a recent Zogby poll, Americans were asked what would restore their trust in government and the No. 1 reply was "personnel changes/impeachment." As David Swanson of impeachpac.org notes, polls by Ipsos, Zogby and American Research Group have found support between 43 percent and 53 percent. And if it's Democrats, the numbers shoot up to 80-90 percent, with a consistent majority of Independents supporting impeachment.
Swanson says, "For impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable."
Dennis Loy Johnson of Melville House Publishing is intimately familiar with the divide between Americans and the political representatives and media who are supposed to represent them. Johnson worked with lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to create the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush -- a concise reader that makes the legal case for impeachment. Says Johnson, "We've had more than one friendly mainstream journalist tell us they pitched a story to their editor and were told, 'Don't even go there.'"
Despite the media blackout, people from every state in the union have participated in the Melville House campaign, sending copies of the book to their representatives. Johnson notes that they have heard from groups as varied as Veterans for Peace, Goldstar Families and Republicans for Impeachment. "A lot of people were paying more attention in civics class than you think," he quips.
Teaming up again, Melville House and CCR have arranged a National Impeachment Teach-In launching on July 19 with events around the country. Centered on a 30-minute DVD, "How to Impeach a President," materials are being made available online, providing the information and tools to reclaim political power. It's telling that the constitutional lawyers at CCR are appealing to the public -- attesting to the fact that holding this administration legally accountable will not happen without public support.
As CCR lawyer Michael Ratner says in the film, "This is not going to happen in a court. It's going to happen when the people of the United States say to their members of Congress, we've had enough."
But what of the political likelihood? Johnson thinks it's a "winnable fight." He says,
This is not about party politics. It's about the very real damage being done to the constitutional separation of powers by this administration. This is a grassroots movement that represents American democracy at its best -- people from all walks of life trying to work with their government to enact the corrective measures put into the Constitution by the founding fathers for exactly this purpose.
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a former assistant editor of AlterNet.
As Tony Blair pointed out very wisely, it is the terrorists in Iraq who have turned Iraq into what it is today, not us. Our actions haven't been perfect, but neither are we responsible for all the terror and killing and sectarian violence that plagues Iraq. That can be laid squarely at the feet of people like Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies.
First of all, you're using this rhetorical and ideologically controlling device called interpellation (see Althusser), in forcing people to accept Bush's "us" vs. "the turrrists" mindset. If someone disagrees with you, you can come back with "Oh, you must be with "Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies". The entire premise of your argument is groundless in terms of dialectic. It sets a critic up for all sorts of accusations: anti-freedom, anti-west (and lots of other antis). Sorry, but the little thrown in words don't aid reasoned and objective discussion of the matter, however nicely articulated your remark might be.
Now, that aside, secondly and mainly I think Blair's statement is one of gross simplification of fact, and tied in with the logic of "The war on terror": that is, it is the fault of people who commit non-state violence (ie "terror") that there is non state-violence (ie "terror"). D'uh. No wonder UK and US intelligence is flawed, when tautologies are deemed pointed out "wisely".
Here's a very interesting essay on the situation in Iraq, which I sometimes post here, by an academic called Michael Parenti. His arguments are very rhetorical, yes, but no more tautological than those of Blair. They're opinionated, but there's a dialectical reasoning based on historical understanding that renders his view far more than the inductive "logic" that blights conspiracy theories.
Althusser might say all utterance is interpellation contained within a dominant ideology to control the reader, but I think Parenti is wise enough not to set himself up like Blair as a speaker of binary-oppositional claptrap such as "us" and "them". He does privilege the reader's relative autonomy from propaganda, in appreciating their ability to see things, in subtler economic and material terms:
I don't know that there's anything to impeach him for.
What I do think that they should do, is force Cheney to hand over the details of the closed-door energy meetings that happened before all hell broke loose. we still don't know what kind of back-room reaming America received in the name of Cheney's energy buddies.
First of all, you're using this rhetorical and ideologically controlling device called interpellation (see Althusser), in forcing people to accept Bush's "us" vs. "the turrrists" mindset. If someone disagrees with you, you can come back with "Oh, you must be with "Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies". The entire premise of your argument is groundless in terms of dialectic.
This piece is good ... Can I use this?
On many of the people who you probably agree with, I mean?
I don't know that there's anything to impeach him for.
What I do think that they should do, is force Cheney to hand over the details of the closed-door energy meetings that happened before all hell broke loose. we still don't know what kind of back-room reaming America received in the name of Cheney's energy buddies.
What's the legal deal these days, with getting classified material released for an impeachment trial, if the sensitivity of such documentation is deemed a threat to "national security"?
On many of the people who you probably agree with, I mean?
Sure. Regardless of anyone's political views, if you know how language, ideology and point of view slip into discourse, you can spot the interpellative, bullyboy tactic of anyone's utterance, and combat it with a bit of dialectic.
Sure. Regardless of anyone's political views, if you know how language, ideology and point of view slip into discourse, you can spot the interpellative, bullyboy tactic of anyone's utterance, and combat it with a bit of dialectic.
I may not always buy into your politics, Finsbury, but damn, I do admire you metadebating skills, if I may use that term ...
What's the legal deal these days, with getting classified material released for an impeachment trial, if the sensitivity of such documentation is deemed a threat to "national security"?
I think in these circumstances, so-called "executive privilege" could take a substantial blow. IF we get a Democratic congress, and the Bush administration fails to cooperate with regard to the secret energy meetings, it would be a crushing blow not only to the credibility of the Bush administration, but also the Republican party.
Americans are feeling the pin on the energy tip right now, and it's only going to get worse. I predict a national average of $4 a gallon by the end of the year.
NCfan
Posts: 945
Comments
No. It's a silly question. He's done nothing worthy of impeachment.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
:: puts on helmet and gets under a desk::
this should be good
www.myspace.com/jensvad
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
Well, actually, quite a few people think his warrantless wire tapping program broke the law. Were this proven to be the case, yeah, get his ass out of there. Unfortunately, those accusations don't seem to be going anywhere, so it's likely a moot point.
How vindicated would the terrorist feel? Talk about giving those whacks jobs propaganda material? Shit, talk about creating more terrorist!!!!
Quite a few top Democrats, including Nacy Pelosi and Harry Reid have already called for his impeachment, on multiple occasions.
God only knows what they would do if they win congress.
The question remains, impeachment for what? There has to be a reason to impeach a President, I mean a real reason. Can't impeach him because you don't like his policies (boneheaded or not) and you can't impeach him because he prays, that's for sure...
Iraq, a "stable" country... LOL
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=
yeah, lol... Iraq hasn't been a stable country since Hammurabi
As Tony Blair pointed out very wisely, it is the terrorists in Iraq who have turned Iraq into what it is today, not us. Our actions haven't been perfect, but neither are we responsible for all the terror and killing and sectarian violence that plagues Iraq. That can be laid squarely at the feet of people like Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies.
How, exactly, would impeachment create more terrorists??
I think it would actually be a sign to the terrorists that steps are being taken to make peace.
I believe it does increase the likliness of an attack on America. George W Bush has been by far the greatest success story of terrorism. If the "terrorists" lose Bush, they will lkely try another attack in the hopes the United States may respond as miserable or at least almost - again.
**I agree w/you, vedderlution_baby! Don't EVEN get me started....I'm staying out of this one!!!!! What a fun thread....bump!
Impeachment for what? Making one poor decision after another after another after another after another after another after another is not an impeachable offense.
...
And the Democrats won't win... and if they do win... what's the difference? Shit and crap both stink.
Hail, Hail!!!
Indeed ... If this was the case, a fair number of U.S. presidents could have been impeached.
http://alternet.org/story/38042/
The People's Path to Impeachment
By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2006.
You wouldn't know it from the media, but grassroots movements are afoot all over the country to hold the president legally accountable for his lies.
On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:
Township supervisors and friends, I come here today not as a Republican or as a Democrat but as an American citizen concerned for our way of life. I hope that you can view this package not as a political statement but as a plan for the future … Rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow state and city legislatures to introduce resolutions. Our First Amendment guarantees any citizen, city, or state "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is what I ask you to do with this motion.
Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that "there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another."
Bronke was absolutely right.
The Concord board is hardly national news. But taken in conjunction with the staggering number of state legislatures and city and town councils across the country that have passed impeachment resolutions, the lack of coverage of the movement is a conspicuous absence in mainstream media.
Illinois, Vermont and California state legislatures have impeachment resolutions pending. The Democratic parties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii have all passed resolutions. Then there are the 18 city and town councils that have passed resolutions, with seven more resolutions (including Concord) pending, to say nothing of the 27 local political groups and parties across the country that have adopted impeachment resolutions.
The broad sweep is not surprising as the evidence is well-documented: President George W. Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to lead the country into war, and continues to conduct illegal wiretaps, sanction torture and violate the separation of powers by picking and choosing congressional legislation.
Despite the clear case, impeachment has become a taboo word in D.C. politics. A chasm has emerged between high-level politicians too afraid to push for accountability, the media that seeks the "news" that comes from these politicians and their circles, and the American public they are supposed to be serving.
In a recent Zogby poll, Americans were asked what would restore their trust in government and the No. 1 reply was "personnel changes/impeachment." As David Swanson of impeachpac.org notes, polls by Ipsos, Zogby and American Research Group have found support between 43 percent and 53 percent. And if it's Democrats, the numbers shoot up to 80-90 percent, with a consistent majority of Independents supporting impeachment.
Swanson says, "For impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable."
Dennis Loy Johnson of Melville House Publishing is intimately familiar with the divide between Americans and the political representatives and media who are supposed to represent them. Johnson worked with lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to create the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush -- a concise reader that makes the legal case for impeachment. Says Johnson, "We've had more than one friendly mainstream journalist tell us they pitched a story to their editor and were told, 'Don't even go there.'"
Despite the media blackout, people from every state in the union have participated in the Melville House campaign, sending copies of the book to their representatives. Johnson notes that they have heard from groups as varied as Veterans for Peace, Goldstar Families and Republicans for Impeachment. "A lot of people were paying more attention in civics class than you think," he quips.
Teaming up again, Melville House and CCR have arranged a National Impeachment Teach-In launching on July 19 with events around the country. Centered on a 30-minute DVD, "How to Impeach a President," materials are being made available online, providing the information and tools to reclaim political power. It's telling that the constitutional lawyers at CCR are appealing to the public -- attesting to the fact that holding this administration legally accountable will not happen without public support.
As CCR lawyer Michael Ratner says in the film, "This is not going to happen in a court. It's going to happen when the people of the United States say to their members of Congress, we've had enough."
But what of the political likelihood? Johnson thinks it's a "winnable fight." He says,
This is not about party politics. It's about the very real damage being done to the constitutional separation of powers by this administration. This is a grassroots movement that represents American democracy at its best -- people from all walks of life trying to work with their government to enact the corrective measures put into the Constitution by the founding fathers for exactly this purpose.
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a former assistant editor of AlterNet.
First of all, you're using this rhetorical and ideologically controlling device called interpellation (see Althusser), in forcing people to accept Bush's "us" vs. "the turrrists" mindset. If someone disagrees with you, you can come back with "Oh, you must be with "Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies". The entire premise of your argument is groundless in terms of dialectic. It sets a critic up for all sorts of accusations: anti-freedom, anti-west (and lots of other antis). Sorry, but the little thrown in words don't aid reasoned and objective discussion of the matter, however nicely articulated your remark might be.
Now, that aside, secondly and mainly I think Blair's statement is one of gross simplification of fact, and tied in with the logic of "The war on terror": that is, it is the fault of people who commit non-state violence (ie "terror") that there is non state-violence (ie "terror"). D'uh. No wonder UK and US intelligence is flawed, when tautologies are deemed pointed out "wisely".
Here's a very interesting essay on the situation in Iraq, which I sometimes post here, by an academic called Michael Parenti. His arguments are very rhetorical, yes, but no more tautological than those of Blair. They're opinionated, but there's a dialectical reasoning based on historical understanding that renders his view far more than the inductive "logic" that blights conspiracy theories.
Althusser might say all utterance is interpellation contained within a dominant ideology to control the reader, but I think Parenti is wise enough not to set himself up like Blair as a speaker of binary-oppositional claptrap such as "us" and "them". He does privilege the reader's relative autonomy from propaganda, in appreciating their ability to see things, in subtler economic and material terms:
MICHAEL PARENTI, "To Kill Iraq":
http://www.michaelparenti.org/IRAQGeorge2.htm
Have a look around his archive site.
What I do think that they should do, is force Cheney to hand over the details of the closed-door energy meetings that happened before all hell broke loose. we still don't know what kind of back-room reaming America received in the name of Cheney's energy buddies.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
This piece is good ... Can I use this?
On many of the people who you probably agree with, I mean?
What's the legal deal these days, with getting classified material released for an impeachment trial, if the sensitivity of such documentation is deemed a threat to "national security"?
Sure. Regardless of anyone's political views, if you know how language, ideology and point of view slip into discourse, you can spot the interpellative, bullyboy tactic of anyone's utterance, and combat it with a bit of dialectic.
I may not always buy into your politics, Finsbury, but damn, I do admire you metadebating skills, if I may use that term ...
*increases text size, says "Oh, metadebating"
I think in these circumstances, so-called "executive privilege" could take a substantial blow. IF we get a Democratic congress, and the Bush administration fails to cooperate with regard to the secret energy meetings, it would be a crushing blow not only to the credibility of the Bush administration, but also the Republican party.
Americans are feeling the pin on the energy tip right now, and it's only going to get worse. I predict a national average of $4 a gallon by the end of the year.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader