Let's impeach the president.

[Crazyhorse1]

Bush is currently denouncing Iran for detaining five people without charges. The guy's a moronic laugh riot! Of course, he would never do such an un-American thing to innocent people. Ooops. My bad!
.

[SmootSmack]

Can't wait to see how quickly this thread spirals down into hell

[Redskin Rich]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Can't wait to see how quickly this thread spirals down into hell

Well.....:

FCK IRAN! THIS IS THE DUMBEST THREAD I'VE EVER POSTED ON! I'm sure if you don't like what the PRESIDENT is doing with those TARDS in iran, they've got plenty of room for you.
__________________
Keepin The Faith.....HAIL!

I guess it didn't take all that long.... The question now Smoot, is how deep the spiral will be?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Can't wait to see how quickly this thread spirals down into hell

Haha that is exactly what I was thinking. I agree with the thread though. He has a strong track list of lying to the American public, etc which is much worst than anything Clinton did. He is costing us Americans lives. I dont really wanna debate this, not because I cant or that I am not interested, but simply because whoever I argue with is just going to get upset and start attacking me. So please dont reply to this post expecting a response from me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Haha that is exactly what I was thinking. I agree with the thread though. He has a strong track list of lying to the American public, etc which is much worst than anything Clinton did. He is costing us Americans lives. I dont really wanna debate this, not because I cant or that I am not interested, but simply because whoever I argue with is just going to get upset and start attacking me. So please dont reply to this post expecting a response from me.

So I guess you just want to make a blanket statement "track list of lying to the American public" and not tell use what all these lies are then, OK.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So I guess you just want to make a blanket statement "track list of lying to the American public" and not tell use what all these lies are then, OK.

No actually I really can, but it isn't worth my time and effort.

If you want a good one, we can start with Iraq. There was clear evidence that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq at all. And from day one(9/11) Bush had asked several of his advisors if Hussen was somehow linked to 9/11, clearly showing a predisposition towards the Iraq issue. There were numerous times he was presented with information, that indicated Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or nuclear weapons, but those seemed to be ignored.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush did a great job in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan. He was put in a terrible situation, and dealt with it well. But beyond that is where the spiral downwards begins.

I can get links for Iraqi thing, that will confirm my point if you want.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

No actually I really can, but it isn't worth my time and effort.

If you want a good one, we can start with Iraq. There was clear evidence that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq at all. And from day one(9/11) Bush had asked several of his advisors if Hussen was somehow linked to 9/11, clearly showing a predisposition towards the Iraq issue. There were numerous times he was presented with information, that indicated Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or nuclear weapons, but those seemed to be ignored.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush did a great job in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan. He was put in a terrible situation, and dealt with it well. But beyond that is where the spiral downwards begins.

I can get links for Iraqi thing, that will confirm my point if you want.

Bush never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and even the 9/11 report said that there were links between Iraq and Bin Laden. There were some that said Iraq had no nuclear weapons but UN, Other major countries, most all in congress and senate, Bill Clinton, and many, many more said he did have them. Most of the debate at the time was not rather he had WMD's but was it worth going to war for. Many a politicians want you to think that they were tricked into the war but its just them trying to gt out of what they did.

[RobH4413]

This is retarded.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

This is retarded.

well his name is crazy horse

[GTripp0012]

For those of you who didn't learn it in middle school, impeachment is a tag only used in the ruling of criminial cases against the president. That means he actually has to do something against the law. Gross incompetance is not against the law (as this thread will soon prove).

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For those of you who didn't learn it in middle school, impeachment is a tag only used in the ruling of criminial cases against the president. That means he actually has to do something against the law. Gross incompetance is not against the law (as this thread will soon prove).

I'm pretty sure that starting a war over a lie IS against the law, though. But...I could be wrong.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For those of you who didn't learn it in middle school, impeachment is a tag only used in the ruling of criminial cases against the president. That means he actually has to do something against the law. Gross incompetance is not against the law (as this thread will soon prove).

Where have you been. Bush has broken literary dozens of laws, from lying to Congress to spying on Americans without warrants. I could fill up this page with Bush's crimes. But why bother. It's enough to say he waged aggressive war, which is an international crime by agreements he was sworn to uphold by oath of office, and then added to that by authorizing torture, a violation of both international and American law.

[saden1]

It's easy to blame everything on the president but the fact of the matter is the people elected him and the people elected members of congress who are suppose to have oversight. Frankly, the people in congress who vote for his proposals worry me more than anything else. And of course who can forget the American people. There are a lot of Americans out there that scare the hell out of me.

[70Chip]

The Democrats could end this war tomorrow by cutting off the money. They won't, though, because it's good politics for them. They need the war to go on through next fall. They won't impeach the President for the same reason. Their plan is to keep the current political atmosphere, which is toxic for Republicans, frozen in place until they can get a Democratic President elected. At that point Iraq will drop off the media radar regardless of the situation on the ground and we will get their full on domestic agenda shoved down our throats. We are moving into an activist, Liberal cycle after thirty years of conservative domination. If I weren't such an optimist I would say that it will be difficult for the country to survive this. Turning and turning in the widening gyre..

Oh yeah, I meant to address Gtripp's post. An impeachable offense is whatever the house says it is. There is only the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is subjective. One of the impeachment articles against Nixon was over his bombing of Cambodia which may have been morally wrong but was not a crime in any meaningful sense of the word. It was impeachable because it got enough votes.

Also for those who are too young to remember the last impeachment extraveganza, "impeachment" refers to the formal charges brought to the floor of the house by the judiciary committee and passed by simple majority vote. It's like an indictment. Removal from office is a seprate proceeding that takes place after a trial in the Senate and requires a two-thirds majority. Often people say impeachment when they mean removal. Three Presidents have been impeached. None has ever been removed, although surely Nixon would have been. Johnson, Andrew was "acquitted" by one vote if memory serves. My point is, it's alot easier just to wait for the next election which is how the founders wanted it.

Now that I think about it, I believe that the Judiciary Committe voted articles of impeachment against Nixon but I don't know that the full house had the chance, so I suppose you could say that Nixon was not truly impeached. Maybe someone else here knows.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The Democrats could end this war tomorrow by cutting off the money. They won't, though, because it's good politics for them. They need the war to go on through next fall. They won't impeach the President for the same reason. Their plan is to keep the current political atmosphere, which is toxic for Republicans, frozen in place until they can get a Democratic President elected. At that point Iraq will drop off the media radar regardless of the situation on the ground and we will get their full on domestic agenda shoved down our throats. We are moving into an activist, Liberal cycle after thirty years of conservative domination. If I weren't such an optimist I would say that it will be difficult for the country to survive this. Turning and turning in the widening gyre..

Oh yeah, I meant to address Gtripp's post. An impeachable offense is whatever the house says it is. There is only the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is subjective. One of the impeachment articles against Nixon was over his bombing of Cambodia which may have been morally wrong but was not a crime in any meaningful sense of the word. It was impeachable because it got enough votes.

Also for those who are too young to remember the last impeachment extraveganza, "impeachment" refers to the formal charges brought to the floor of the house by the judiciary committee and passed by simple majority vote. It's like an indictment. Removal from office is a seprate proceeding that takes place after a trial in the Senate and requires a two-thirds majority. Often people say impeachment when they mean removal. Three Presidents have been impeached. None has ever been removed, although surely Nixon would have been. Johnson, Andrew was "acquitted" by one vote if memory serves. My point is, it's alot easier just to wait for the next election which is how the founders wanted it.

Now that I think about it, I believe that the Judiciary Committe voted articles of impeachment against Nixon but I don't know that the full house had the chance, so I suppose you could say that Nixon was not truly impeached. Maybe someone else here knows.

I believe Nixon indeed resigned before the Senate took the case to trial. Later Ford granted a full pardon of said crimes committed by Nixon.