Conyers says if 3 more congressmen sign onto HR 333, he'll begin Imp. proceedings

[Paulie]

Same thing with Bush, he will be impeached on allegation of lying, then he will go under oath and will lie about his knowledge of the connection of Suddam to Al quada. Impeachment is only half the battle, but it opens the door for slip ups like it did for Clinton.

Bush under oath?? Without Cheney holding his hand and rubbing his back, and whispering sweet nothings into his ear?

I'd pay to see that!

 

[Superlative]

Well did Clinton lie under oath? Why was he under oath in the first place? Because he was imeached on allegations. Same thing with Bush, he will be impeached on allegation of lying, then he will go under oath and will lie about his knowledge of the connection of Suddam to Al quada. Impeachment is only half the battle, but it opens the door for slip ups like it did for Clinton.

Impeachment is like being indicted.

He didnt lie, he was misinformed, there is difference.

what he had been told by his intel and what he found out at a later date, only proves Bush was ill informed.

Not a liar.

And that is exactly what they will say.

"We couldnt predict the future, and we couldnt afford to wait"

Remember the Smoking mushroom cloud-gun horseshit?

Waste of time and money impeachment.

 

[Paulie]

Waste of time and money impeachment.

No, Iraq is a waste of time and money.

Impeachment is accountability.

The next administration needs to know that this country will not be allowed to be run like this ever again...democrat, republican, libertarian, fucking ARYAN, what the fuck ever. It doesn't matter.

I'm tired of watching history repeat itself.

 

[Superlative]

No, Iraq is a waste of time and money.

Impeachment is accountability.

The next administration needs to know that this country will not be allowed to be run like this ever again...democrat, republican, libertarian, fucking ARYAN, what the fuck ever. It doesn't matter.

I'm tired of watching history repeat itself.

We agree on that.


But honestly with this admins track record of executive priviledge, you really think its possible to hold them accountable??

You think there is ANY evidence in existance to actaully be able to Impeach Bush or Cheney??

 

[Paulie]

You think there is ANY evidence in existance to actaully be able to Impeach Bush or Cheney??

I'll be completely honest...

I don't really know.

I'm 10000000% sure they've committed crimes, but as far as physical evidence to be used in legal proceedings is concerned...I don't know.

The fact that Bush and Cheney are so scared to testify under oath, with transcripts, about ANYTHING (9/11, CIA leak, wiretaps, Iraq intel, attorney firings,etc), leads me to believe that there's a lot for them to be worried about.

If they knew there was no evidence to ever convict them of anything, or they knew they really haven't actually committed a crime, then they shouldn't have a damn thing to worry about, should they?

 

[Superlative]

I'll be completely honest...

I don't really know.

I'm 10000000% sure they've committed crimes, but as far as physical evidence to be used in legal proceedings is concerned...I don't know.

You me, and most rational Non-Cons.(but all we gots is theories, Conspiracy Theories, as far as any republican is concerned)

The fact that Bush and Cheney are so scared to testify under oath, with transcripts, about ANYTHING (9/11, CIA leak, wiretaps, Iraq intel, attorney firings,etc), leads me to believe that there's a lot for them to be worried about.

If they knew there was no evidence to ever convict them of anything, or they knew they really haven't actually committed a crime, then they shouldn't have a damn thing to worry about, should they?

I know its a conspiracy theory, but the "people" in charge (not Bush) will never allow impeachment to happen, because washing off the dirt on top, will unveil whatever is beneath it.

And America just cant handle the truth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'll be completely honest...

I don't really know.

I'm 10000000% sure they've committed crimes, but as far as physical evidence to be used in legal proceedings is concerned...I don't know.

The fact that Bush and Cheney are so scared to testify under oath, with transcripts, about ANYTHING (9/11, CIA leak, wiretaps, Iraq intel, attorney firings,etc), leads me to believe that there's a lot for them to be worried about.

If they knew there was no evidence to ever convict them of anything, or they knew they really haven't actually committed a crime, then they shouldn't have a damn thing to worry about, should they?

Nutter. "golly gee, I can not prove it, I can not provide evidence, I can not even name what crimes they have committed BUT Bush committed crimes"

 

[ReillyT]

Nutter. "golly gee, I can not prove it, I can not provide evidence, I can not even name what crimes they have committed BUT Bush committed crimes"

I think that the warrantless wiretapping program is sufficient grounds for impeachment, although I don't think that impeachment is appropriate. It is a program that I don't believe is even arguably constitutional, and violated the civil rights of untold (literally) Americans. It eviscerates that 4th Amendment and was conducted (in spite of some briefings on the hill) in violation of a specific law to cover such circumstances (establishing the FISC).

However, if one wanted to try to adhere to a uniform standard of impeachment for the Executive branch, it seems that this itself wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Under dire circumstances (as deemed by the Executive), Lincoln (susp. of HC), F.D.R. (New Deal legis.) and Truman (seizure of steel mills) each took actions that were very predictably determined to be unconstitutional. If one wanted to impeach Bush for the NSA program, it seems as that it would establish a whole new standard for impeachment of the executive - one that granted very little leeway for use of Executive super-authority (a word I just made up) in times of emergency.

* P.S. I am a wee bit drunk, so if this didn't make sense to you, it is probably because it didn't make sense. I'm just letting you know - to preserve my reputation when sober.

 

[Superlative]

Nutter. "golly gee, I can not prove it, I can not provide evidence, I can not even name what crimes they have committed BUT Bush committed crimes"

-- Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.

-- Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

-- This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

-- Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress.

----Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

---Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship.

---Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1307530,00.html

---Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq.
These claims originated from Curveball,
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_curve.html
a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html



http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

 

[pegwinn]

I think that the warrantless wiretapping program is sufficient grounds for impeachment, although I don't think that impeachment is appropriate. It is a program that I don't believe is even arguably constitutional, and violated the civil rights of untold (literally) Americans. It eviscerates that 4th Amendment and was conducted (in spite of some briefings on the hill) in violation of a specific law to cover such circumstances (establishing the FISC).

However, if one wanted to try to adhere to a uniform standard of impeachment for the Executive branch, it seems that this itself wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Under dire circumstances (as deemed by the Executive), Lincoln (susp. of HC), F.D.R. (New Deal legis.) Not to mention the concentration camps for Japanese Americans. Oh wait, it was reservations like we did for the Indians. and Truman (seizure of steel mills) each took actions that were very predictably determined to be unconstitutional. If one wanted to impeach Bush for the NSA program, it seems as that it would establish a whole new standard for impeachment of the executive - one that granted very little leeway for use of Executive super-authority (a word I just made up) in times of emergency.

* P.S. I am a wee bit drunk, so if this didn't make sense to you, it is probably because it didn't make sense. I'm just letting you know - to preserve my reputation when sober.

Nutter. "golly gee, I can not prove it, I can not provide evidence, I can not even name what crimes they have committed BUT Bush committed crimes" Damn, where was this guy when OJ needs a juror?

He didnt lie, he was misinformed, there is difference. Just So.

what he had been told by his intel and what he found out at a later date, only proves Bush was ill informed. Yep, hence the reorganisation of intel and the resignation of whassisname.

Not a liar. All pols are crooks and liars. But in this instance the benefit of the doubt goes to GW. Even pols get the same presumption of innocence as a crack dealer or another pol who froze his assets (literally)
And that is exactly what they will say.

"We couldnt predict the future, and we couldnt afford to wait" Very true statement. I used the same excuse as I ran another prospective boyfriend for my daughter out of the county.
Remember the Smoking mushroom cloud-gun horseshit?

Waste of time and money impeachment.

 

[dilloduck]

The minority party has proven to be totally incompetant in maintaining any accountability and oversight yet now wants to blame the executive branch for the situation we are in.

 

[Gunny]

Im very interested in seeing if this goes anywhere.

One can call for impeachment, but finding evidence is an entirely different story.

This administration has rewritten the rules into such a shade of grey that they dont have to worry about any incriminating evidence surfacing.

Anything that does, will fall under an area so ripe with ambigious terminology, open to interpretation, that it will be impossible to decide one way or another of any wrong doing.

Couldnt executive privilege encompass everything?

Did he know?, didnt he know? Not guilty.

Exactly what I was thinking. What are they going to charge him with? Being a Republican?

And I agree with Steph .... this has the potential for BIG backfire.

 

[red states rule]

I think that the warrantless wiretapping program is sufficient grounds for impeachment, although I don't think that impeachment is appropriate. It is a program that I don't believe is even arguably constitutional, and violated the civil rights of untold (literally) Americans. It eviscerates that 4th Amendment and was conducted (in spite of some briefings on the hill) in violation of a specific law to cover such circumstances (establishing the FISC).

However, if one wanted to try to adhere to a uniform standard of impeachment for the Executive branch, it seems that this itself wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Under dire circumstances (as deemed by the Executive), Lincoln (susp. of HC), F.D.R. (New Deal legis.) and Truman (seizure of steel mills) each took actions that were very predictably determined to be unconstitutional. If one wanted to impeach Bush for the NSA program, it seems as that it would establish a whole new standard for impeachment of the executive - one that granted very little leeway for use of Executive super-authority (a word I just made up) in times of emergency.

* P.S. I am a wee bit drunk, so if this didn't make sense to you, it is probably because it didn't make sense. I'm just letting you know - to preserve my reputation when sober.

Yea, who are we to tap the terrorist phone calls as they plan thier attacks?

To libs, terrorists have rights that need to be protected

 

[ReillyT]

Yea, who are we to tap the terrorist phone calls as they plan thier attacks?

To libs, terrorists have rights that need to be protected

That is your response?

My post was about limits on the exercise of executive power, and whether executives should be granted leeway for the exercise of extra-constitutional authority in times of crisis, or whether the executive should be held accountable any time he knowingly crosses the Constitutional line.

And that is your response?

Anyway, my post wasn't a value judgment on the NSA wiretapping program. It was merely pointing out that this was not Constitutional.

 

[ReillyT]

To libs, terrorists have rights that need to be protected

Americans have rights that need to be protected, regardless of the relative value of the American. That is part of the importance of the Bill of Rights.

 

[red states rule]

That is your response?

My post was about limits on the exercise of executive power, and whether executives should be granted leeway for the exercise of extra-constitutional authority in times of crisis, or whether the executive should be held accountable any time he knowingly crosses the Constitutional line.

And that is your response?

Anyway, my post wasn't a value judgment on the NSA wiretapping program. It was merely pointing out that this was not Constitutional.

Libs have a cow over a leak about a CIA paper pusher - yet when a covert program that was monitoring terrorist phone calls is leaked by the NY Times - libs shit their pants over the rights of terrroists being violated

I do not care what methods the government is using to capture terrorists and prevent their attacks

 

[red states rule]

The kook left picks up a HUGE endorsement for impeachemnt


On Hardball Michael Moore Pitches 'Sicko,' Calls for Imprisonment of Bush/Cheney
By Geoffrey Dickens | July 23, 2007 - 19:09 ET
Appearing live on the "Hardball Plaza," leftist film-maker Michael Moore pitched his movie "Sicko" and called for Bush and Cheney's impeachment, all in front of live audience and sympathetic "Hardball" host Chris Matthews. On tonight's edition of "Hardball," Matthews devoted the entire hour to Moore and praised "Sicko" as "amazing film-making," wondered why Americans were afraid of "socialized" medicine and stood by as Moore charged Bush and Cheney should be led out of the White House on a "perp walk" and be imprisoned for their war crimes

Chris Matthews: "Michael Moore. Let's make some news."

Michael Moore: "Alright."

Matthews: "Russ Feingold wants to censure the President, the Vice President, other administration officials for the way in which they talked us into war in Iraq. What do you make of it? Where do you stand on that kind of thing?"

Moore: "Good idea. I think, it's, it's something though that, actually they should be lucky just to get censured. Personally I'd like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House."

Matthews: "Do you think they're guilty of war crimes?"

Moore: "Absolutely."

Matthews: "Name ‘em."

Moore: "Lying to go to war. Start with that one. Making up something. Tricking up the evidence for war in order to take us into a war that's cost us over 3600 soldiers' lives and countless Iraqi lives. It's, history will not be kind to Mr. Bush for what he's done."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffr...e-pitches-sicko-calls-imprisonment-bush-chene

 

[ReillyT]

I do not care what methods the government is using to capture terrorists and prevent their attacks

Then you don't deserve the liberties that you have.

 

[red states rule]

Then you don't deserve the liberties that you have.

What liberities are being taken away? This is another piece of crap the left tosses out whenever they can - to bad they can't name any

 

[ReillyT]

What liberities are being taken away? This is another piece of crap the left tosses out whenever they can - to bad they can't name any

Well, to be specific, you didn't indicate any specific liberty, you stated you would be okay with "any method" the government employed, which is a short-sighted, and if I may say, unpatriotic attitude.

Second, as for what liberties the government has stepped on in its WOT, the first two that come to mind are the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the warrant provisions of the 4th Amendment. Those are two biggies. Oh, also the Right to Confront witnesses under the 6th Amendment.

Wow, that is 3 out of 10. Nice.