You just gotta laugh at the low point the Neo Cons have gotten the USA to. Nowhere to go but up from here!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
Wow 35!
Congressman Dennis Kucinich Introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush on Monday Night....and they gotta vote this week.
I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
lol, I take it you did not actually read the articles or even a portion of them. I appreciate Kucinich' zeal, but there is a reason he is always dead last when running for the Presidency... it's because he is detached from reality. I won't bother going over them all, just some low lights.
## 1 - 4 are the same basic charge. The same charge should be levied against US forces for the Mexican American war, Spanish American, WWI, Korea, Vietnam... Also worth noting that he is charged with misleading Congress, but Dennis was never fooled based on the "information he saw." Was that information not available to everyone else?
# 7 is not an impeachable offense. You don't need a declaration of war to send troops by executive order. I think it's stupid too, but I don't set constitutional laws nor Congressional precedent.
#8 is not applicable and wrong. You can't impeach a US President based on international law and no one has ever shown what international law was violated.
#9 is not even a crime, let alone impeachable. Everyone knows you go to the war with the army you have, not want. And there is no law, stipulation, nor precedent for requiring the best equipment.
## 10 - 13 are probably not impeachable offenses as well as being amazing conspiracy theories. Secret societies, a war for oil, and permanent bases in Iraq, oh my!
# 15, providing immunity, is not a crime.
# 16, wasting tax dollars. Holy crap, if this was a crime...
# 17 Habeus has not been suspended. Suspending it is not a crime (see Civil war, WWI, WWII)
# 20 He should be impeached because "his agents" (the US military) imprisoned child combatants. lol.
# 21, misleading congress on Iran. How did he mislead them and even if he did, what crime is that?
# 28, he stole the Florida election. I thought the Supreme Court settled that one? No crime.
# 30, attempting to destroy Medicare. Awesome.
"#31 Katrina" Getting better and better. He should be impeached because of a hurricane and a horrible bureaucratic response to it.
# 32, Systematically undermining "global climate change."
# 35, endangering the health of 9/11 first responders.
- - -
Being incompetent or unpopular is not a crime. You need to be convicted of a CRIME to be impeached. He has some good points in there, but the vast majority are conspiracy theories and laughable "crimes" like "undermining global climate change."
Pay attention AOX, not even you can believe that most of this is any reason to impeach a president. "Attempting to destroy Medicare." Seriously, Bush is not a good president - but this is a joke.
Basically the impeachment can be summed up by stating "I am against all wars and you disagree with me on my environmental agenda, the government sucked in their response to Katrina, and I believe most internet conspiracies." What a waste of time when these guys have plenty of real problems they should be addressing.
Article 2 § 4 of the US Constitution.
quote:
The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The accusations within the articles:
quote:
#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq
#2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
#3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War
#4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
#5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114
#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.
#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.
#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.
#10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes
#11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq
#12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation's natural resources.
#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy
#14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)
#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq
#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors
#17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)
#18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy
#19 Rendition
#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.
#21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran
#22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
#23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.
#24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment
#25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.
#26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.
#27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.
#28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.
#29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06
#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.
#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.
#33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11.
Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.
#34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11
#35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders
Besides that, the dope's going to be out of office in about seven months anyway.
The "Liberal Media" will have a field day ignoring this.
Way too late of course, and he doesn't have a chance of accomplishing it... BUT...
It is the right thing to do. George W. Bush is guilty of high treason, and deserving of the worst treatment we can unleash upon a murderous war criminal.
Never thought I'd miss Nixon!
Hack partisan politics at it's very worst. Doesn't Kucinich have something more important to do?
I bet he has more to do than you dear Conman....I mean, take a look at his hawt wife.
Congrats on yet another total failure to address any coherent points AOX.
Saying he is guilty of treason doesn't make it so. Nor does the list of mostly ridiculous accusations levied make them so, or even actionable. There is a reason this is being ignored.
quote:
# 30, attempting to destroy Medicare
If you don't want to substantively discuss things, why bother posting it?
Kucinich has been a knucklehead since his days in Ohio government. I couldn't believe he was elected to 'serve' in Washington.
I'm holding out for an international war crimes trial -- ten or fifteen years down the road.
FOTD says "No where for the Neocons to go but up from here."
I say we could go even further into the hole.
According to an interesting astrologer I was reading not long ago, the world will continue its drift towards greater and greater authoritarism until 2030.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Congrats on yet another total failure to address any coherent points AOX.
Saying he is guilty of treason doesn't make it so. Nor does the list of mostly ridiculous accusations levied make them so, or even actionable. There is a reason this is being ignored.
quote:
# 30, attempting to destroy Medicare
If you don't want to substantively discuss things, why bother posting it?
Uh, maybe I have better waze to allocate my time than to go ego around with you.
I post things to get responses like Homey's or to get the cream to rise.
I have told you seveal times CF why I post. It's to expose the hypocrits, the lies, the injustices and the oppressions. Does this thread fit? I think so.
So that's a "no, I will not discuss the substance of my post."
How did Dennis' impeachment of Dick go?
He wasted 4 hours of our Congress' time. Everyone knows he doesn't like Bush. Most everyone admits that Bush has handled things very badly. Unfortunately, there is very little actual grounds for impeachment articulated in that document - which is supposed to be the point of the document.
And as for war crimes - wake up. The select few people convicted of war crimes have gone on admitted campaigns to kill entire groups of people. They sent soldiers to burn villages, rape women, and kidnap children. Are you actually accusing our military of doing such things as a matter of course or are you just spouting more "I hate Bush" hyperbole.
The renditions, secret prisons, domestic spying and allegation of intentionally withholding information from Congress are serious charges. Worthy of closer scrutiny in my opinion. But so much garbage was thrown in that it's just a joke.
Welcome to election year in the USA.
What is "is" in the history books. 4 hours is not wasted time in Congress. 8 years, now there's a lotta waste.
Cannon, You need to travel outside of your ORU circle to broaden your horizon.
The Iraq war was a war of aggression.
Now knock out 6,000 words in response. You got some time on your hands man. Idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So that's a "no, I will not discuss the substance of my post."
How did Dennis' impeachment of Dick go?
He wasted 4 hours of our Congress' time. Everyone knows he doesn't like Bush. Most everyone admits that Bush has handled things very badly. Unfortunately, there is very little actual grounds for impeachment articulated in that document - which is supposed to be the point of the document.
And as for war crimes - wake up. The select few people convicted of war crimes have gone on admitted campaigns to kill entire groups of people. They sent soldiers to burn villages, rape women, and kidnap children. Are you actually accusing our military of doing such things as a matter of course or are you just spouting more "I hate Bush" hyperbole.
The renditions, secret prisons, domestic spying and allegation of intentionally withholding information from Congress are serious charges. Worthy of closer scrutiny in my opinion. But so much garbage was thrown in that it's just a joke.
Welcome to election year in the USA.
OMG I just read that (I've been avoiding this thread). Kucinich is such an embarrassment. What kind of person keeps voting for him?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
The Iraq war was a war of aggression.
Oh man! I thought it was a war for OIL.
I can't keep up any more.
An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......
Is that helpful?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......
Is that helpful?
Not really, but nothing you post ever is...
First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?
Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?
And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?
* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research. I.E. not a blog.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
The Iraq war was a war of aggression.
Oh man! I thought it was a war for OIL.
I can't keep up any more.
No, silly fool, don't you remember that we went to war was revenge for his father. Keep it straight.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......
Is that helpful?
No. Too wordy.
It's a war so we know it's "aggressive." Duh!
Can't say "falsehoods" because that's a falsehood. Unless you're willing to implicate the intelligence organizations of 33 other countries too.
You could say "assumptions" or "poor intelligence."
Now for the oil part. We haven't taken the oil so that's a falsehood.
That just leaves " A war based on poor intelligence."
Oh! but what's the use. It will change again next week!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......
Is that helpful?
Not really, but nothing you post ever is...
First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?
Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?
And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?
* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research. I.E. not a blog.
Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil.... Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.
The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
An aggresive war for oil based on falsehoods......
Is that helpful?
Not really, but nothing you post ever is...
First, can you name a war in history that wasn't aggressive?
Second, can you explain to us how exactly this war was for oil?
And lastly, can you provide evidence* of these falsehoods?
* Evidence being defined as empirical, verifiable materials which are substantiated with credible research. I.E. not a blog.
Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil.... Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.
The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.
You and Dennis should get together. He could use the help of a guy like you who obviously knows where all the bodies are buried.
He's like your brother from another mother!
Drop him a quick e-mail. I think he may need a friend. [:I]
You could write far better articles for impeachment!
Do you realize he hasn't used one quirky nickname in his articles! Shame!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Ask Ruppert Murderyuck about the war for oil....
Why? What would he have to say, last time I checked he ran Newscorp, not Halliburton.
quote:
Sources? Our own government....Collin Powell...Richard Clarke.....the list is too numerous. But there lies evidence all over. You must spend too much time sucker punching on TulsaNow not to know what's going on.
Evidence of what? That every nation in the world had the same information?
quote:
The Civil War was to defend the Nation....not to go aggressively out and murder your ancestors.
Someone needs to read a history book, and what does murdering ancestors have to do with anything Shadows?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Cannon, You need to travel outside of your ORU circle to broaden your horizon.
The Iraq war was a war of aggression.
Now knock out 6,000 words in response. You got some time on your hands man. Idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?
HT, you don't pay attention do you?
My social and religious views would not serve me well in the ORU crowd. My TU avatar would indicate that I probably wouldn't get along with their sports fans. And my criticism of the Roberts and other ministries finances probably has me on the outs with all their supporters. Not too mention my constant advocacy for gay rights would probably land me in some trouble.
I don't even like GW. The war was a poorly executed. His fiscal plan is spend and worry about it later. His social agenda is repressive. My civil rights have been diminished in direct proportion to the executives asserted authority. And some of the actions that have taken place (did he lie*, what purposes were rendition used for, spying/detention of US citizens) deserve scrutiny.
But I fail to see, and no one has taken the time to read and explain to me, what most of the document has to do with an actual impeachment. "War of aggression" is not grounds for impeachment, and it is not a war crime. You either fail to grasp the concept or simply don't care.
I go out of my way to be very clear in my positions. I avoid hyperbole and grandstanding, I do not cast wild accusations, and I actually read and research to support my posts. You, on the other hand, for some reason assumed I am a GW loving ORU zealot who refuses to look objectively at the situation. Plenty of evidence to the contrary has been presented, now care to support your opinion in any way, shape or form? "Discussion" is a means of communicating thoughts and ideas between individuals – you are simply engaged in opinion stating.
DAMN! Just over 300 words, I couldn't reach 6,000 in the 5 minutes I alloted to read and respond to the forums. The ability to read, comprehend, and draft a coherent response to several blurbs on the internet should not take significant time.
*A lie is a known falsehood. Not persuasion or relying on bad intelligence, it's "I know this is not true but will try to convince others of it's validity anyway."
CF,
Haven't you learned by now that every time someone disagrees with Hometown, it's because they're a repressive and hateful "christian?"
As bad as GW is, it could have been worse. We could have had Algore or Kerry.
Time to duck and cover.....
Another 1,668 man hours of congressional time wasted.
Articles dismissed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/bush_impeachment
Thanks for playing Dennis.
When are people going to wake up and stop allowing their elected officials to spend our time and money for personal publicity.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Dennis_Kucinich.jpg/160px-Dennis_Kucinich.jpg)
The Esteemed Rep Dennis J. Kucinich
For those of you that don't know Dennis The Menace, this is a summery of everything he has done as a member of the house. Lets review his contribution to the country.
Since 1997 he has worked very diligently on the following legislature:
1. H.CON.RES.23 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
2. H.RES.333 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
3. H.RES.799 : Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
4. H.RES.1258 : Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
5. H.J.RES.39 : Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
6. H.R.808 : To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
7. H.R.1234 : To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
8. H.R.2707 : To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
9. H.R.3183 : -- Private Bill; For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
10. H.R.3400 : To fund capital projects of State and local governments, and for other purposes.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
11. H.R.3875 : To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
12. H.R.4060 : To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
13. H.R.6000 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas (and products thereof) and to allow an income tax credit for purchases of fuel-efficient passenger vehicles, and to allow grants for mass transit.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
14. H.R.6150 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio, as the "John P. Gallagher Post Office Building".
Rejected & Referred to Committee
15. H.AMDT.29 to H.R.700 An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new subsection on eligibility.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
16. H.AMDT.246 to H.R.2446 Amendment sought to provide $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 for a United States contribution to the Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief Fund of the U.N. International Security Assistance Force.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
17. H.AMDT.253 to H.R.2638 An amendment to reduce the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management of the Department of Homeland Security by $500,000 and increase appropriation for FEMA by $500,000.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
18. H.AMDT.998 to H.R.2537 Amendment provides that in cases where a source of pathogenic contamination is identified, the State or local government shall make information on the existence of such source available to the public on the Internet within 24 hours of the identification of such source.
Rejected & Referred to Committee
19. H.AMDT.1043 to H.R.5818 An amendment numbered 5 printed in House Report 110-621 to modify the purposes of the legislation to emphasize the increasing rates of vacant and abandoned properties, and change the state-to-local jurisdiction funding formula to ensure that up-to-date vacancy statistics are used to allocate the funds.
Approved
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Cannon, You need to travel outside of your ORU circle to broaden your horizon.
The Iraq war was a war of aggression.
Now knock out 6,000 words in response. You got some time on your hands man. Idle hands are the Devil's playground, right?
HT, you don't pay attention do you?
My social and religious views would not serve me well in the ORU crowd. My TU avatar would indicate that I probably wouldn't get along with their sports fans. And my criticism of the Roberts and other ministries finances probably has me on the outs with all their supporters. Not too mention my constant advocacy for gay rights would probably land me in some trouble.
I don't even like GW. The war was a poorly executed. His fiscal plan is spend and worry about it later. His social agenda is repressive. My civil rights have been diminished in direct proportion to the executives asserted authority. And some of the actions that have taken place (did he lie*, what purposes were rendition used for, spying/detention of US citizens) deserve scrutiny.
But I fail to see, and no one has taken the time to read and explain to me, what most of the document has to do with an actual impeachment. "War of aggression" is not grounds for impeachment, and it is not a war crime. You either fail to grasp the concept or simply don't care.
I go out of my way to be very clear in my positions. I avoid hyperbole and grandstanding, I do not cast wild accusations, and I actually read and research to support my posts. You, on the other hand, for some reason assumed I am a GW loving ORU zealot who refuses to look objectively at the situation. Plenty of evidence to the contrary has been presented, now care to support your opinion in any way, shape or form? "Discussion" is a means of communicating thoughts and ideas between individuals – you are simply engaged in opinion stating.
DAMN! Just over 300 words, I couldn't reach 6,000 in the 5 minutes I alloted to read and respond to the forums. The ability to read, comprehend, and draft a coherent response to several blurbs on the internet should not take significant time.
*A lie is a known falsehood. Not persuasion or relying on bad intelligence, it's "I know this is not true but will try to convince others of it's validity anyway."
Cannon, Your one virtue is that you are sincere. I do wish I had your time to research and respond with more deliberation, but all I have is a few minutes at lunch, if I'm lucky.
Here's a snip from the first thing that popped up on a quick google search.
"Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would 'not be in conformity with the Charter' and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm
Let's face it we waged war against an already weakened nation that had made no attack against us or posed no real threat to the U.S. I know it's not easy to face difficult truths about ourselves or what we have done.
Cannon, one might say, the Devil made us do it.
Now, in my life I've learned that you can do what you want but you'll have to pay the price.
HT,
The war was certainly an act of aggression, I don't think anyone denies that. Aggressive acts are not always wrong so it's a moot point.
I do not deny that many view the invasion as against the UN charter. However, the UN had authorized the use of force previously and failed to revoke the authorization AND failed to issue a proclamation decrying the invasion. Which is all a moot point - the UN did nothing to actually punish Iraq for mass murdering it's own people or to enforce it's other regulations; so even if it did pass a resolution specifically forbidding the US from invading - it wouldn't do anything about it anyway.
Regardless of all of that, UN resolutions nor international law are grounds for impeaching a US President.
I also stand by the fact that given what we knew at the time the invasion was justified. As it turns out, we were wrong. AND if it turns out Bush knew this and took measures to hide the truth, then he should be impeached. BUT, as it stands all we have is conjecture. We know Bush wanted to sell the war, but did he do anything actually criminal in his attempt (as bad as it is, trying to persuade a country to go to war is not criminal)?
- - -
I'm not arguing the war was a good idea. I'm not even arguing that Bush is a good president. We can even pretend the US just decided to invade Iraq for oil wealth and no other reason (in actuality our presidents who fought actual wars of aggression for actual prizes were much more popular and no articles were ever introduced) - those are STILL not reason under our constitution to impeach a president.
The truth is the war has been a misguided effort, GW Bush has been a failed president in most respects, and the economic and political position of the US is weaker now than when he took office. I will agree to those truths, but that has little bearing on the topic at hand... the articles of impeachment are a joke.
He's gotta be hung like a donkey, wealthy, or both. Certainly isn't his intellect:
(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Regardless of all of that, UN resolutions nor international law are grounds for impeaching a US President.
Actually, some treaties to which the US is a party have the full force of federal law behind them. The Geneva Conventions are in that category, and if it could be proved that, at Bush's behest we broke those laws, then it stands to reason that he'd be prosecutable.
Generally, wasn't there a lot of argument during Clinton's impeachment about what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors?" I seem to remember that the Senate had very wide latitude to consider what that meant, and that those crimes and misdemeanors didn't necessarily have to directly correspond to state or federal laws. In short, if enough people wanted a president gone, then they could do it through impeachment for whatever reason.
Consider this:
There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges. IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.
The GOP played a stupid game impeaching Clinton over perjury. Now there will be special investigations and calls for impeachment of every President from here forward. That was a huge waste of taxpayer money. The tab of wasted money by the GOP on so many other things keeps piling up. [V]
Yes, there is wide latitude Weavus and I granted that some (even many) of the items on the list could have merit. But including "attempting to destroy Medicaid" and "Katrina" on the list made it a total joke.
And all treaties adopted by the Federal government have the force of law. They are actually usurp Federal law for that matter (it's why we can't shoot Canadian Geese on golf courses... stupid Migratory Bird Treaty). But the ramifications of an executive order to breach a treaty are not clear cut (international relations are the domain of the executive).
And what particular treaties were violated? The Geneva Convention covers uniformed soldiers, so that wouldn't really apply. Maybe something in the rendition (which I gave credence to) and certainly the detention in Gitmo has treaty implications... but what they are and if the breach of them is a crime by the President I can not say.
However, Obstruction of Justice and Perjury are well established Federal crimes. Not that the whole Clinton debacle was worth a damn either. How many people wish he would have just said "Yeah, I kinda got a think for fat chicks. Sorry." and the whole thing just went away?
I'm actually looking forward to Bush getting out of office. I want to see if the blood lust continues if McCain gets elected and/or if Obama gets a free pass if he is elected. Not pointing figures, I'm really curious to see.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Consider this:
There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges. IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.
Actually, I think there might have been several charges brought after the 2006 congressional elections, but Pelosi and Reid both said explicitly that impeachment was off the table. In mine and a lot of peoples' opinions, Bush has far surpassed the Clinton Threshold for impeachment hearings, we've just been saddled with a political leadership that couldn't stomach that fight (and truth be told, didn't have the numbers in congress to even attempt it).
And an impeachment of Bush is almost always characterized as a fishing expedition -- ie, looking for a crime when there's no evidence that one might have occurred -- but that definitely mischaracterizes the situation. There's more than enough evidence to support further investigation. And Kucinich's list, while being scattershot and bloated, contains several kernels of truth that at least warrant further digging. God knows we've found out enough this far WITHOUT Congress getting involved. Imagine what we might find if they did?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Consider this:
There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges. IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.
Actually, I think there might have been several charges brought after the 2006 congressional elections, but Pelosi and Reid both said explicitly that impeachment was off the table. In mine and a lot of peoples' opinions, Bush has far surpassed the Clinton Threshold for impeachment hearings, we've just been saddled with a political leadership that couldn't stomach that fight (and truth be told, didn't have the numbers in congress to even attempt it).
And an impeachment of Bush is almost always characterized as a fishing expedition -- ie, looking for a crime when there's no evidence that one might have occurred -- but that definitely mischaracterizes the situation. There's more than enough evidence to support further investigation. And Kucinich's list, while being scattershot and bloated, contains several kernels of truth that at least warrant further digging. God knows we've found out enough this far WITHOUT Congress getting involved. Imagine what we might find if they did?
There are enough members of Congress to make impeachment happen. The 104th Congress consisting of 230 Rep, 204 Dem, and 1 Ind managed to impeach Clinton. As we know, the vote went 50/50 in the Senate.
The 109th Congress consists of 233 Dems and 202 Reps.
IOW- more than enough votes to conjure up impeachment.
Impeachment sounded great leading up to the '06 mid-terms, but Pelosi and Reid both knew there were no sustantive charges which explicity violated the Constitution, otherwise we'd be up to our ears in hearing transcripts and Bush would either be out on his donkey by now or close to it.
People can brush it off and say it was a fear of Cheney becoming President had impeachment happened, been affirmed in the Senate, and Bush was removed from office. Or they can say there wasn't enough time. Look, they had since 2003, when it was first determined that Bush "mis-spoke" in the SOTU address to investigate.
Pelosi, Reid, and the whole lot of them were willing co-conspirators in this war and there were donors and companies within the consituencies of many members of Congress who have benefitted by this war. Don't even get me started on the direct and "indirect" business investments of members of Congress and their spouses who have profited from the war while at the same time run for cover from it.
At the least, I don't think there's any real grounds for impeachment. At the most, there probably are some things which could be looked at closer. But, considering this admin has about 7 months left in office, what's the point in another circle-jerk investigation on the backs of tax payers, when there are plenty of other serious issues which have been overshadowed for the last six months with primary fever?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
He's gotta be hung like a donkey, wealthy, or both. Certainly isn't his intellect:
(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg)
Well, didn't Hank Kissinger once say that power was the ultimate aphrodisiac?