0

A number of Conservatives have recently come out in support of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney - NOW - in order to restore the Constitution and the balance of power in our three branches of government.

Bruce Fein - A Conservative Constitutional Scholar who was Deputy Atty General under Ronald Reagan, says that they have to be impeached because of all the unconstitutional power Bush has collected unto himself with the help of the Republican Congress over the last 6 years. He points out that Bush has taken more power unto himself than King George or Julius Caesar ever did. Neither of them ever claimed that they could reach into other sovereign nations anywhere in the world, kidnap someone, and hold them indefinitely without a trial and without notifying anyone.

Here is a video of a round table discussion of impeachment with Bruce Fein,Bill Moyers and Jon Nichols.

Paul Craig Roberts, The "Father of Reaganomics", a conservative economist who was asst sec of Treasury under Reagan, is also calling for impeachment because of his concerns about how Bush may intend to use the vastly increased powers he has gathered for himself.

He opened a recent article saying
:

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

These are not "left wing loonies",these are lifelong Conservatives with serious credentials who just happen to be paying attention to what has been going on over the last few years. (Its about time after 1000s of lives have been lost! :angry:)

13
Contributors
34
Replies
35
Views
11 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by EnderX
0

Impeachment is a power used to indict an official on criminal charges, not to remove an official from office that society dislikes. I think that after the Clinton impeachment attempt, people began associating this power with society's attitude and society's morals.

Expanding power of a branch isn't a crime (it's done in all branches constantly), neither was pardoning Scooter Libby or starting the war in Iraq.

Bush would be an impossible case if Congress were to actually attempt to impeach the President and not to hold a witch trial.

Cheney, on the other hand, could *theoretically* be impeached, though impeaching the VP isn't very practical.

I'm quite sure these so called "lifelong conservatives" are simply playing the political game for publicity.

0

There's no limits to the hatred of the left for someone who won 2 elections from them despite their best efforts at election fraud...

Only yesterday I read a blog where someone openly called for an armed insurrection "against Bush".

Bush may not be the brightest president, nor the most successful one, but he's not a criminal, and certainly not a convicted criminal.
He's also far too leftist for most of the electorate who voted for him, many of them doing so only because the alternative would be far far worse (Gore being a draft dodger and pathological liar, Kerry a war criminal by his own statements and recipient of a prestigious award by an enemy of the USA for aiding that enemy during the Vietnam war, both of them leftist hardliners with totalitarian tendencies).

After the next elections it'll likely get even worse. With the Republican candidates likely to come from the far left of that party and the "Democratic" candidates coming from so far left they're way outside the playing field, the establishment of the Union of Socialist Soviet American States is at hand.

0

Part of the problem is that war is against the religious beliefs of some liberals. They will go to any length to be rid of it.

But Presidenbt Bush hasn't committed any crimes, so he can't be impeached.

On the other hand, President Clinton not only committed crimes, but admitted that he committed them on TV. But he dismissed them as irrelevant.

He was not charged with sexual activites, but with lying in court (perjury) about them.

The only reason Clinton wasn't convicted is that Senate Democrats valued party unity more than justice.

0

Yes, for all that I loathe Bush and what this administration has done, I am not aware of any law which he has broken - except those of trust, responsibility, and decency.

If there are specific criminal charges outlined, then they could impeach them, but short of that it's all just a lot of arm-waving.

0

He points out that Bush has taken more power unto himself than King George or Julius Caesar ever did. Neither of them ever claimed that they could reach into other sovereign nations anywhere in the world, kidnap someone, and hold them indefinitely without a trial and without notifying anyone.

WTF.

As much as i think Bush is and idiot the logic this guy has used to come to this conclusion is rediculous. Not only would they have claimed to be able to do this but they would have and they would have used much less "humane" means of doing this. Sure they did not do this for the entire world but back then the areas that they were in would have been considered the world.

0

Strange isn't it how they on the one hand call Bush an idiot who doesn't know how to put on his underwear in the morning, yet at the same time they think he's some evil genius who's turned the US into some kind of dictatorial state without anyone noticing (and without getting rid of the political opposition, despite the claims that there are secret concentration camps where everyone who disappears because he's opposed to the man goes).

Something's not right there.
If those people disappear, why haven't they?
If Bush is an evil genius, explain why he's so stupid?
If he's so stupid, how can he have come up with such a brilliant plan to take over the country?

0

Yes, for all that I loathe Bush and what this administration has done, I am not aware of any law which he has broken - except those of trust, responsibility, and decency.

That depends on point of view:

Only those who believe the news media theory of why we are in Iraq see a breach of trust. But Saddam did admit that he was using a false story of WMDs from Africa to smoke out a double agent. He found out who the agent was, and also found himself in a war.

Only those who believe that we can just get up and walk away from a war with no consequences see no responsibility.

And it's amazing how many who think Bush is somehow not decent also think that Clinton was one of the best presidents.

0

I really think taht they should not have gone to war with iraq to begin with. However i think pulling out now that we are there is even more problems for Iraq then if we stay.

0

I think mostly the real charges are "He's a bad, bad, ba-ad man' and 'BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD!', although I could be mistaken.

For the word ba-ad, pronounce as though bleating like a sheep.

0

If we were going to impeach Bush it should have been done 5 years ago when he first illegally invaded another sovern nation. And should have impeached the entire Congress for letting he do it. Too late now. The next President will have a huge job straightening that mess out.

0

Exactly what grounds are you using to declare it an illegal invasion? Please cite relevant laws.

0

Exactly what grounds are you using to declare it an illegal invasion? Please cite relevant laws.

Didn't you know? It's illegal in his house to invade any nation.

0

Because there were no WMDs and no link to Osama Binladen and he knew that

According to NPR, it was a pair of Italian ex-spies that forged the documents on the presence of WMDs. It is very possible that he had no knowledge of their forgery.

0

Didn't you know? It's illegal in his house to invade any nation.

Yes that is correct. Its illegal (or against USA prior doctrins) for USA to invade any nation as first strike. Iraq did nothing to us, they were not the cause of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor either.

0

Yes that is correct. Its illegal (or against USA prior doctrins) for USA to invade any nation as first strike. Iraq did nothing to us, they were not the cause of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor either.

Regarding bolded section: Please provide proof (reference of actual law or statute) regarding true illegality. And please explain why 'prior doctrine' is being held up as equal to law:

doc·trine (dŏk'trĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.

You seem to be applying definition two here, but definition three would seem to make the most sense of the context you're using the word in. And in such a case, it's a matter of policy, not of law. Last I checked, policies can, and often do, shift.

0

Its illegal (or against USA prior doctrins) for USA to invade any nation as first strike. Iraq did nothing to us, they were not the cause of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor either.

Wrong. There is no such law.
And the US has repeatedly attacked other countries that took action against US interests.
- Panama
- Vietnam
- North Korea
- Germany (twice)
- Grenada
- Iraq (twice)
- Italy
- Serbia

None of them had invaded or attacked the US. German attacks on US shipping early in WW1 and WW2 were sanctioned under international law as that shipping was providing aid to an enemy of Germany and therefore fair game (in fact the very act of sending those shipments could be construed an act of war by the US against Germany, depending on interpretation of international law as it stood at the time)
and that's just the ones I can remember right away.

All US law states is that the president cannot initiate armed conflict with another nation unless in defense of US interests (which are rather broadly defined, including for example all of NATO) without first consulting with congress.
And that happened.

As to the current situation in Iraq, the US intervention there was in accordance with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement in which Iraq was obliged to give full cooperation to UN arms inspectors and all member nations had the obligation to ensure such cooperation was received.
When Iraq threw out the inspectorate in 1995 the US (and indeed any member nation capable) was obliged under their treaty obligations to use force to ensure inspections could resume.
The US (under Clinton) failed to meet their treaty obligations. It took the US 8 years until Bush finally got his act together and did the necessary, which turned out to be removing Saddam from power and installing a legitimate, democratically elected, government.

0

Strange isn't it how they on the one hand call Bush an idiot who doesn't know how to put on his underwear in the morning, yet at the same time they think he's some evil genius who's turned the US into some kind of dictatorial state without anyone noticing (and without getting rid of the political opposition, despite the claims that there are secret concentration camps where everyone who disappears because he's opposed to the man goes).

Something's not right there.
If those people disappear, why haven't they?
If Bush is an evil genius, explain why he's so stupid?
If he's so stupid, how can he have come up with such a brilliant plan to take over the country?

George Bush is stupid, Carl Rove and Dick Cheney on the other hand... (Even though I strongly disagree with their ultra-conservative agenda I applaud their intelligence)

0

Sorry for the late response. I think its obvious that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are calling the shots.

0

Because there were no WMDs and no link to Osama Binladen and he knew that

Wrong.

I heard Saddam say he was going to provide financial support to Al-Qaeda on the 60 Minutes interview. As soon as I heard that, I said "We are going to war soon."

And Saddam admitted shortly after he was captured that he had been using a phony story about WMDs to flush out a double agent. He not only flushed out the double agent, but in the process, he also provoked the war.

The thing that really bothers me is that the news media went totally silent about these two events after they were initially reported. This tells me that, rather than reporting the truth, they are out to get Bush.

0

and those WMDs are known to have existed as well.
Manufacturing and storage facilities have been found, well maintained and ready for use.
Traces of weapons chemicals have also been found, as have chemical artillery shells and aircraft bombs.

Maybe not in the expected volume, but it's clear that Saddam had an active chemical weapons program and at least a small stockpile of weapons.

And yes, of course the media never reported anything. Just as they report every terrorist attack in the country as a major blow by the "freedom fighters" against the "imperialist US oppressors", while never reporting about the arrested terrorists, the new schools and hospitals being opened, the friendly sports matches between US troops and Iraqi civilians, the large numbers of Iraqi police and military that are being trained and are taking over the active duty patrolling.

0

Not the first time that kind of thing has happened. I just dredged this out of wikipedia:

The Tet offensive was a country-wide coordinated surprise attack by the NVA and VC on more than 100 towns and cities, including 36 provincial capitals and Saigon. The attack, at the time, was the largest battle of the war. The Viet Cong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) struck nearly simultaneously, during the most sacred Vietnamese holiday while many Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) troops were on leave. Initially the attacks took the South Vietnamese and Americans by surprise, but they were beaten back by the ARVN and the Americans, inflicting massive casualties on the Viet Cong. The offensive included attacks on the city of Hue, where intense fighting lasted a month, at the U.S. base at Khe Sanh, where fighting continued for 2 months, and the raid on the U.S Embassy in Saigon, which was repulsed within a few hours. It is widely seen as a turning point in the war, but although it was a military defeat for the Communists, media reports were misleading in America, where televised war footage showed the Americans retreating through the grounds of the US embassy in Saigon making for a profound psychological impact on the US public.

Bolded for emphasis.

0

yah.
US armed forces didn't loose a SINGLE armed confrontation with VC or NVA forces during the Vietnam war.
But their own idiotic political masters prevented them from winning the entire war by requiring them to not hold on to gained ground.
So the marines thought their way up a hill, loosing lifes and suffering wounded in order to take it away from the communists only to be airlifted off the top as soon as they got there.

The same was tried in Iraq for a while, but the ground commanders have learned a thing or two since Vietnam and quickly realised they were not doing things right and are now holding captured realestate until it's handed over to Iraqi police and army.

0

Wow, you (Conservative-leaning) guys are as good as Bush, Cheney and Rove at justifying your own ideology. For the record, Bush didn't *win* the first election; he had it handed to him by a majority-conservative Supreme Court. He was looking for a reason to go into Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. They fabricated stories and 'evidence' to bolster their case for invasion. They anonymously 'leaked' stories to the press, then quoted those stories as evidence to support their reasons to invade. They've used fear (and 9/11) as their ace-in-the-hole, any time they wanted to attack a naysayer, or justify their actions (see loss of civil liberties, illegal wiretaps, unfettered use of Executive Signing Statements, etc.). Karl Rove is the King of dirty politics, and the ONLY reason Bush isn't living in his mother's basement. Impeachable or not, this presidency will go down in history as one of the (if not THE) most damaging Administrations of the last century. If a Democratic President had done the things that Bush has, the Republicans would have impeached him years ago, and come out smelling like roses. Because, that's what they're best at; saying their own sh*t doesn't stink, but everyone else's does.

0

Wow, you (Conservative-leaning) guys are as good as Bush, Cheney and Rove at justifying your own ideology.

Wow. Liberals are really idiots.

For the record, Bush didn't *win* the first election; he had it handed to him by a majority-conservative Supreme Court.

The rule of law upheld! I feel bad.

He was looking for a reason to go into Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.

Just like Clinton and the US policy that preceded.

They fabricated stories and 'evidence' to bolster their case for invasion.

Damn the British! And Russians! And all of the other conspirators.

[Blah, blah, blah] illegal wiretaps, unfettered use of Executive Signing Statements, etc.).

Just like every other administration has done since the founding of the country! Those bastards.

Impeachable or not, this presidency will go down in history as one of the (if not THE) most damaging Administrations of the last century.

Yeah, this country is too liberal.

0

Wow. Liberals are really idiots.

Yo, D! You seem a little uptight. You might want to get that thyroid checked.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.