George W. Bush faces impeachment
- Thread starter vibrokatana
- Start date
-_- wow this is.... disappointing.be interesting to see what happens
blackgravity
New Member
Why hasn't this surfaced anywhere else? (that I have seen anyway)
Edit: I really don't know how far this will make it, impeachment really is a pain in the butt to push through. Regardless, if under constitutional law he can be impeached, then he should, whether you like the man or not. I'm by no means an expert on the constitution, or politics, or government (I just think it's mostly a big sham), but even if an impeachment went through, I'd sure hope those dummies in DC wouldn't waste their time and our money trying to boot him out of office with less than 9 months in his term. I mean, that would just put Cheney in, and I don't think the democrats would rather have him. Unless...they go after him then too, or now, or whatever. Shenanigans on Congress, I say
Edit: I really don't know how far this will make it, impeachment really is a pain in the butt to push through. Regardless, if under constitutional law he can be impeached, then he should, whether you like the man or not. I'm by no means an expert on the constitution, or politics, or government (I just think it's mostly a big sham), but even if an impeachment went through, I'd sure hope those dummies in DC wouldn't waste their time and our money trying to boot him out of office with less than 9 months in his term. I mean, that would just put Cheney in, and I don't think the democrats would rather have him. Unless...they go after him then too, or now, or whatever. Shenanigans on Congress, I say
Last edited:
Durruck
Pirate!
this is a real article.... but it looks as though it's a single man's endeavor. I don't see it getting the support it needs to go forth. It seems as that Kucinich is just playing partisan politics. (Impeach Bush 1)
I'm guessing that nearly every president in US history *could* face impeachment hearings for events that have transpired during each term, respectively. It's just a matter of if you believe the "crime" is bad enough to warrant changing presidents (especially this close to the end of term). Further, you'd have to take into consideration the likelihood of the impeachment being successful. The cost to US taxpayers for an impeachment trial is astronomical. (cost 1 cost 2)
I'm not proposing that we shouldn't hold elected officials accountable, but to pick and choose what we look at. I wasn't a Clinton fan, but I hardly see it worth the cost to impeach a president over an extra-marital affair.
Not looking to spark a debate about who is right and wrong, but I don't see much value in blowing millions of dollars on a trial that would extend PAST the president's current term, anyway. He can't be re-elected, so what would it accomplish?
I'm guessing that nearly every president in US history *could* face impeachment hearings for events that have transpired during each term, respectively. It's just a matter of if you believe the "crime" is bad enough to warrant changing presidents (especially this close to the end of term). Further, you'd have to take into consideration the likelihood of the impeachment being successful. The cost to US taxpayers for an impeachment trial is astronomical. (cost 1 cost 2)
I'm not proposing that we shouldn't hold elected officials accountable, but to pick and choose what we look at. I wasn't a Clinton fan, but I hardly see it worth the cost to impeach a president over an extra-marital affair.
Not looking to spark a debate about who is right and wrong, but I don't see much value in blowing millions of dollars on a trial that would extend PAST the president's current term, anyway. He can't be re-elected, so what would it accomplish?
vibrokatana
New Member
I think the move was later blocked by the house leader. It was rather shocking if you listened, it about broke into chaos once everyone knew what was happening.
Of course congress has no spine so we probably wont see much come of this.
Of course congress has no spine so we probably wont see much come of this.
Durruck
Pirate!
VK said:
You are mostly correct. The whole thing was initiated by Kucinich (a Democrat), but blocked by Pelosi (Speaker of the House, also a Democrat). As wonky as I thought she was for some of the things she said and did early in her appointment, I'm glad to see that she's making (what I believe are) good choices.
Avesther
New Member
Reading up on him on wiki (Dennis Kucinich) kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
And appearantly he brought up the impeachment proceedings against the Democratic's will.
And appearantly he brought up the impeachment proceedings against the Democratic's will.
blackgravity
New Member
I believe he has already tried to do it once before.
Baddwin
New Member
Even the conspiracy theorists think Kucinich is 'out there'. This is going nowhere.
And on top of that, he's based this whole nonsensical affair on those tired allegations that Bush willingly led us into war based on a lie. That assertion has been debunked so many times that I can't believe people still swallow it. Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (WV) just chaired the latest report on these allegations. I can't say that I've read it, but the Washington Post chimes in here.
And need I remind everyone that during the late 90s it was the Clinton administration banging the war drums about Iraq, their WMD programs, and the fact that we could not allow Saddam to arm himself with these types of weapons. You can read what you will into some of those quotes, but they leave the recent assertions of the left that Bush manufactured the whole Iraqi/WMD scare out of whole cloth sounding rather hollow.
I'm anything but a wholehearted supporter of Bush, but this whole 'Bush lied' meme is patently ridiculous.
And on top of that, he's based this whole nonsensical affair on those tired allegations that Bush willingly led us into war based on a lie. That assertion has been debunked so many times that I can't believe people still swallow it. Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (WV) just chaired the latest report on these allegations. I can't say that I've read it, but the Washington Post chimes in here.
And need I remind everyone that during the late 90s it was the Clinton administration banging the war drums about Iraq, their WMD programs, and the fact that we could not allow Saddam to arm himself with these types of weapons. You can read what you will into some of those quotes, but they leave the recent assertions of the left that Bush manufactured the whole Iraqi/WMD scare out of whole cloth sounding rather hollow.
I'm anything but a wholehearted supporter of Bush, but this whole 'Bush lied' meme is patently ridiculous.
Avesther
New Member
Had the world, back in 1938 done away with Hitler and his regime, WWII would not have happened and 50,000,000 would have surived the next 6 years and beyond. Of course we know this because of hindsight. What has been saved now that Saddam is out of the picture? That is a tough question to answer and I like to think that the world today and tomorrow is slightly better off with whatever has been averted being so.
Lazarus
New Member
So how many more American men and women have to get maimed and killed for nothing overseas before this country wakes up and pitches President Bush out on his ear?
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Christians to do it, that's for sure.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Christians to do it, that's for sure.
Baddwin
New Member
I guess that would depend on one's definition of 'nothing'.
And that's the great thing about our country, that each can hold their own opinion and freely express it.
And, of course, then go frag each other in virtual worlds.
And that's the great thing about our country, that each can hold their own opinion and freely express it.
And, of course, then go frag each other in virtual worlds.
Avesther
New Member
So how many more American men and women have to get maimed and killed for nothing overseas before this country wakes up and pitches President Bush out on his ear?
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Christians to do it, that's for sure.
Please support your position that they are serving for nothing. And for that matter, that the worlds armed forces serving in hot spots around the world to maintain peace and order are doing so for nothing.
Is it your position that its better to go through the likes of WWII and loose 50,000,000 (or more) people then to be proactive when leaders of rogue nations makes threats against the world community at large?
It should be noted that I am not an American but I do support initiatives to bring peace and order to nations that have tyrants for leaders who do nothing more then opress their population. Bringing peace, order, freedoms and good government is a proper social thing to do. To allow tyrants to continue to brutally opress their people is socially unacceptable, for myself at least. If I can make a difference and know that in some small measure I've helped keep another Hitler or like from gaining anymore power then should ever dream of, then it is good to do so.
Last edited:
JimL2112
New Member
oy veh politics
I for one am greatly saddened that...
(1) politics over-rides government these days.
(1a) The lobby-ists pay to get what they want, whether it's what's best for the USA or not.
(1b) We have Judges making Laws (not their job!)... look at what the Supreme Court did to Roy Moore...
(2) we're back to where we were in 1773: taxation without representation...
{after all, when's the last time YOUR Representative asked you for your opinion?}
(3) gasoline co$ts only $2.00 / gallon in Mexico... WHY? is it because the US government profits from the high price of gas? (taxes, don't forget, are a %)
(4) the Popular Vote doesn't even elect the President! {therefore, we do not have a Democracy... we have a Republic}
I am patriotic, but maybe I don't understand what's really going on... I admit that I do not follow these (& other) issues very closely, as VK obviously does. I was training our Military to shoot M16s, M60s, 9mm pistols, etc. right before Desert Shield / Desert Storm. I just keep praying for our leaders like the Word says to do.
I for one am greatly saddened that...
(1) politics over-rides government these days.
(1a) The lobby-ists pay to get what they want, whether it's what's best for the USA or not.
(1b) We have Judges making Laws (not their job!)... look at what the Supreme Court did to Roy Moore...
(2) we're back to where we were in 1773: taxation without representation...
{after all, when's the last time YOUR Representative asked you for your opinion?}
(3) gasoline co$ts only $2.00 / gallon in Mexico... WHY? is it because the US government profits from the high price of gas? (taxes, don't forget, are a %)
(4) the Popular Vote doesn't even elect the President! {therefore, we do not have a Democracy... we have a Republic}
I am patriotic, but maybe I don't understand what's really going on... I admit that I do not follow these (& other) issues very closely, as VK obviously does. I was training our Military to shoot M16s, M60s, 9mm pistols, etc. right before Desert Shield / Desert Storm. I just keep praying for our leaders like the Word says to do.
Odale
Active Member
This is all about the regional sociology... what is acceptable to you or me may not be acceptable to them (I am not saying that it is 'okay' to oppress people, and I am not saying that I supported Saddam Hussein). The peoples living there have been oppressed many times throughout their history. All you have to do is take a look at the history of the area: the worlds three greatest religions started there! Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all three have some level of strife with the others, to top it off there are many sects of the same religion living together in close quarters in a region, many of whom do not agree at all with the opposing sect. Religion plays a much larger part in the role of government over there as well, generally speaking of course (absolutely no Separation of Church and State over there).
I have never seen Saddam Hussein as a role-model figure, but forcing Democracy onto a region that is not equipped to deal with it is a terrible, ignorant mistake, especially coming from a country with such a high caliber of tolerance such as ours. It has certainly done nothing more than tarnish our image throughout the world.
The answer is not Democracy, but instead it is education and tolerance.
Edit:!
Besides, aren't most of the new officials of the Sunni sect, and not Shia? It could be reversed, but it is just as bad.
Last edited:
vibrokatana
New Member
No, I just troll too many sites :\
Durruck
Pirate!
Saddam used chemical and biological weapons against Iraqi citizens in the late 1980's.
His. Own. People.
Saddam committed genocide. How is it possible that people think it was not a good idea to remove him from power after everything he's done? It should have been done 15 years ago after he invaded Kuwait.... when we had the chance the first time.
I know I'm cutting a short quote, and I hope that I don't take your post out of context (nor any future readers, either). I can't remember exactly who told me, but it was someone I work with that had a close family member currently serving in Iraq. The statement was that nearly every house they raided that contained insurgents also contained large amounts of pornography... yet those same people would condemn the average person on the street to death for being caught with a single lewd photograph. They obviously can't handle tolerance or equality, either. They kill because they've been given false promises and directives from zealots.
The problem with the American media is that it is so slanted against the war that you never hear about any of the good things that are happening in Iraq right now. But every letter I've seen from soldiers, first-hand accounts from my step-brother who came home a year ago... is that things are getting better, progress is being made, and that there is hope for a free Iraq... Christians won't be hunted, people have a voice in their government, they can finally have satellite dishes and internet. They may have opportunities to see how messed up their belief structure is, and have an opportunity to see how other cultures live.
lots more on my mind, but trying to keep this from turning into a flame war :/
His. Own. People.
Saddam committed genocide. How is it possible that people think it was not a good idea to remove him from power after everything he's done? It should have been done 15 years ago after he invaded Kuwait.... when we had the chance the first time.
I know I'm cutting a short quote, and I hope that I don't take your post out of context (nor any future readers, either). I can't remember exactly who told me, but it was someone I work with that had a close family member currently serving in Iraq. The statement was that nearly every house they raided that contained insurgents also contained large amounts of pornography... yet those same people would condemn the average person on the street to death for being caught with a single lewd photograph. They obviously can't handle tolerance or equality, either. They kill because they've been given false promises and directives from zealots.
The problem with the American media is that it is so slanted against the war that you never hear about any of the good things that are happening in Iraq right now. But every letter I've seen from soldiers, first-hand accounts from my step-brother who came home a year ago... is that things are getting better, progress is being made, and that there is hope for a free Iraq... Christians won't be hunted, people have a voice in their government, they can finally have satellite dishes and internet. They may have opportunities to see how messed up their belief structure is, and have an opportunity to see how other cultures live.
lots more on my mind, but trying to keep this from turning into a flame war :/
Avesther
New Member
1. If it is acceptable for me to accept that freedom for all is ok for me, why does it have to end at my countries borders?
2. Saddam Huisen was quite addamete (sp?) that he did not subscribe to any religion
3. How do you plan to educate the people of an oppressed society. Going back to control, your assumption is that the tyranical leaders will allow you to teach their subjects your ideals. Thats not going to happen. And even when they do become educated, what can they do? Look at China, despite all that education, they are still one of the most opressed societies today.
2. Saddam Huisen was quite addamete (sp?) that he did not subscribe to any religion
3. How do you plan to educate the people of an oppressed society. Going back to control, your assumption is that the tyranical leaders will allow you to teach their subjects your ideals. Thats not going to happen. And even when they do become educated, what can they do? Look at China, despite all that education, they are still one of the most opressed societies today.
Durruck
Pirate!
JimL2112 said:
Source? Stickers on the pumps where I live indicate it's a flat rate for federal tax on fuel. We're up to something like 47.4 cents/gallon...and have been for 7 or 8 years (last time Ohio passed a fuel tax)
JimL2112
New Member
(off topic)
Bah, real Christianity has no strife with Judaism!Odale said:
I stand corrected... note I admitted "I don't follow these issues..." / I thought ALL taxes were a %.Durruck said: