I think we're ready for this question

Pearl Jam and toast

know1 wrote:

No. It's a silly question. He's done nothing worthy of impeachment.

I wouldn't go that far..

I think he could and possibly should be tried for war crimes..

but as far as i know he's guilty of nothing more than gross incompetance and seemingly having no value on human life that is non-american.

SundaySilence

An impeachment is a trial, not a conviction. And there is plenty that deserves evaluation: His relationship with Ken Lay, outing a CIA agent, misleading into war, fixing intelligence, jailing protesters, money for influence, warrentless spying,

Pearl Jam and toast

SundaySilence wrote:

An impeachment is a trial, not a conviction. And there is plenty that deserves evaluation: His relationship with Ken Lay, outing a CIA agent, misleading into war, fixing intelligence, jailing protesters, money for influence, warrentless spying,

haha oh yeah i forgot all that stuff. I was focused in on the war itself..


okay, he DEFINETLY deserves impeachment.

Clinton got it for getting a hummer for christ's sake...

surferdude

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Clinton got it for getting a hummer for christ's sake...

Not to pick on you PJ & T but do Americans know what Clinton went throught Impeachment hearings for? This after I saw people complaining that some Americans still belive there are/were WMDs in Iraq. Amazing.

Eliot Rosewater

Cosmo wrote:

...
The problem is.. Bush didn't violate the Constitution... he perverted it by working around it... like, getting Congress to relinquish its Wars Power Act to him so he could unilaterally (along with his drinking buddy, England, Austrailia and some busboys from Costa Rica and two guys from Tonga) to go into Iraq... or warping the warrant process to allow wiretaps.
He didn't wipe his ass with the Constitution... more like, pissed on it.

Well, I'm tired and lazy but I'm confident there are several attorneys who specialize in constitutional law that say he definitely broke the law with the whole wiretap bullshit. And yeah, as others have mentioned, he's a war criminal. Sure I can't back it up but it's got to be true, right? If I weren't so tired I'd try to back up anything I say but again, I'm lazy and tired so without backup I'm sure it means nothing. Other than I'm usually right...hehe.

Pearl Jam and toast

surferdude wrote:

Not to pick on you PJ & T but do Americans know what Clinton went throught Impeachment hearings for?

He was impeached for lying under oath.

But why was he on trial? What did he lie about?

Getting a hummer... ?

Wasn't that it?

I was little at the time maybe i got my facts mixed..

Eliot Rosewater

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

He was impeached for lying under oath.

But why was he on trial? What did he lie about?

Getting a hummer... ?

Wasn't that it?

I was little at the time maybe i got my facts mixed..

That's right. He lied in an attempt to keep his sex life private, as it should be. There's a clear difference between lying about head that lead to...well, nothing and lying about WMDs that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent humans.

RainDog

surferdude wrote:

Not to pick on you PJ & T but do Americans know what Clinton went throught Impeachment hearings for? This after I saw people complaining that some Americans still belive there are/were WMDs in Iraq. Amazing.

He was impeached because he got a blowjob - and blowjobs are sexy and they sell. The lying part was just a technicality they needed to make it all, you know, legit.

After all, he sure as hell wouldn't have been impeached if he lied about a kiss.

surferdude

don't gimme no wrote:

That's right. He lied in an attempt to keep his sex life private, as it should be. There's a clear difference between lying about head that lead to...well, nothing and lying about WMDs that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent humans.

If he was trying to keep his sex life private then that should have been his answer. The lie was stupid and he got caught. I have to laugh how people try to justify it though.

Makes you wonder if he was willing to lie to Congress over something as inconsequential of a blowjob what would make anyone think he'd stoop to telling the truth on serious matters.

SVRDhand13

know1 wrote:

No. It's a silly question. He's done nothing worthy of impeachment.

attacking Iraq was completely against international law and any other ruler would be punished for this.

jeffbr

SVRDhand13 wrote:

attacking Iraq was completely against international law and any other ruler would be punished for this.

Huh? Any other ruler wouldn't face impeachment by the US congress. And presidents aren't impeached for disobeying international bodies like the UN.

As far as I know we're still a sovereign nation.

Milhouse VanHouten

surferdude wrote:

If he was trying to keep his sex life private then that should have been his answer. The lie was stupid and he got caught. I have to laugh how people try to justify it though.

Makes you wonder if he was willing to lie to Congress over something as inconsequential of a blowjob what would make anyone think he'd stoop to telling the truth on serious matters.

Makes you wonder about Republicans in congress who campaigned on fiscal responsibility and then spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a political witchhunt. The only things more stupid than the lie he told were the questions they asked him.

I laugh when I think about an opposition party that detested him so much that they'd use his personal life to find a way to take him down.

Pearl Jam and toast

don't gimme no wrote:

That's right. He lied in an attempt to keep his sex life private, as it should be. There's a clear difference between lying about head that lead to...well, nothing and lying about WMDs that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent humans.

That's what i thought.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

If the Dems win the house in November, should they impeach Bush?

No. Bush should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity, along with the rest of his administration, and along with Blair, and the Israeli leadership.

sliverstain

know1 wrote:

No. It's a silly question. He's done nothing worthy of impeachment.

Lying to the US people is not worthy of impeachment? Wow, you hold the lives of your countrymen in disrespect.

How about; (1) saying that there were direct links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, (2) that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that could reach the US at 90 mins preparation and was ready to launch at the US, now totally dismissed by US investigators and a Pentagon report. (3) invading 2 soveriegn nations under the pretext's laid out above, which (4) has led to the deaths of thousands of US troops, which has also led to (5) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples, acts which, the crazy world of American constitutional law excepting, render him personally liable under Human rights conventions and or War Crimes tribunals. Or, maybe (6) illegally wiretapping every home in the US, or , maybe, (7) continuing to incarcerate innocent (no charges, no trial, equals innocent) detainees in Guantanamo which BREAKS A SUPREME COURT RULING.

Need I go further?

FredFlintstone

sliverstain wrote:

Lying to the US people is not worthy of impeachment? Wow, you hold the lives of your countrymen in disrespect.

How about; (1) saying that there were direct links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, (2) that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that could reach the US at 90 mins preparation and was ready to launch at the US, now totally dismissed by US investigators and a Pentagon report. (3) invading 2 soveriegn nations under the pretext's laid out above, which (4) has led to the deaths of thousands of US troops, which has also led to (5) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples, acts which, the crazy world of American constitutional law excepting, render him personally liable under Human rights conventions and or War Crimes tribunals. Or, maybe (6) illegally wiretapping every home in the US, or , maybe, (7) continuing to incarcerate innocent (no charges, no trial, equals innocent) detainees in Guantanamo which BREAKS A SUPREME COURT RULING.

Need I go further?

No - you needn't go further - you have already shown everyone here that you love terrorists and hate your own country.
Go live in France in you don't like it here - Cut and run wimp!

jeffbr

sliverstain wrote:

Lying to the US people is not worthy of impeachment? Wow, you hold the lives of your countrymen in disrespect.

How about; (1) saying that there were direct links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, (2) that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that could reach the US at 90 mins preparation and was ready to launch at the US, now totally dismissed by US investigators and a Pentagon report. (3) invading 2 soveriegn nations under the pretext's laid out above, which (4) has led to the deaths of thousands of US troops, which has also led to (5) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples, acts which, the crazy world of American constitutional law excepting, render him personally liable under Human rights conventions and or War Crimes tribunals. Or, maybe (6) illegally wiretapping every home in the US, or , maybe, (7) continuing to incarcerate innocent (no charges, no trial, equals innocent) detainees in Guantanamo which BREAKS A SUPREME COURT RULING.

I'm not going to argue with 1 or 2 because I agree that there was a lot of misrepresentation. 3 and 4 are results of the first 2, so are redundant as reasons. 5 is silly. You are the second poster who has suggested that breaking some international convention is grounds for impeachment. 6 is a misrepresentation of reality and is no different than what you acsuse Bush of doing in your #1 reason. AND 7 MADE YOU START YELLING FOR SOME REASON, SO I'LL YELL BACK. You have a funny notion of innocence. Enemy combatants and terrorists shouldn't be afforded the same presumption of innocence as US citizens are, and it only broke the supreme court's ruling once they made the ruling WHICH JUST HAPPENED. You can't be accused of breaking a ruling that didn't exist when you started.

sliverstain wrote:

Need I go further?

Please don't. You're really starting to stretch here.

I think Bush is a creep. I didn't vote for him. But I see this continued talk of impeachment to be nonsense.

Pearl Jam and toast

jeffbr wrote:

I'm not going to argue with 1 or 2 because I agree that there was a lot of misrepresentation. 3 and 4 are results of the first 2, so are redundant as reasons. 5 is silly. You are the second poster who has suggested that breaking some international convention is grounds for impeachment. 6 is a misrepresentation of reality and is no different than what you acsuse Bush of doing in your #1 reason. AND 7 MADE YOU START YELLING FOR SOME REASON, SO I'LL YELL BACK. You have a funny notion of innocence. Enemy combatants and terrorists shouldn't be afforded the same presumption of innocence as US citizens are, and it only broke the supreme court's ruling once they made the ruling WHICH JUST HAPPENED. You can't be accused of breaking a ruling that didn't exist when you started.



Please don't. You're really starting to stretch here.

I think Bush is a creep. I didn't vote for him. But I see this continued talk of impeachment to be nonsense.

(about #5) Breaking international law requires he be tried internationally right...? Like nurembourg?... So i guess technically impeachment would be out for that and all other stuff like that.

The wiretapping thing, if not technically illegal, is backhanded, completely immoral, and just running through loopholes in our laws. But honestly, god knows what else he's doing. Everytime we've discovered something about that he's said "no that's not true".. but it's proven true..

"No we don't know about any calls you're sending/recieving"

- false.

"Okay, but we only know calls from outside the country coming in"

- false.

etc..

His #7 would probably fall under the nurembourg thing...

He might not be able to be impeached solidly, but he sure as HELL is a war criminal and should be tried as such.

(don't flame me if I misspelled 'nurembourg' )

Jeanwah

NCfan wrote:

If the Dems win the house in November, should they impeach Bush?

They should impeach him now, but instead, they're holding back because they're nothing but WHIMPS!