Elucidator: I see where you’re coming from, but what exactly is the call for impeachment you would present? What evidence would the articles be based upon in the call, in other words?
brian, I feel I have answered your point (such as it were) quite sufficiently. As for my “honor and veracity”, which you are at pains to disparage, please note that no one’s life depends on those qualities but mine own. I do not offer myself as a Leader of Men, merely as one deeply disatisfied with one who has.
Do I hold him to a higher standard than I would myself, or you, for that matter? Well, of course I do. You do not?
Elucidator: I would never contend that the president does, or should, personally evaluate every piece of evidence that is flying around. No one, regardless of intelligence is capable of doing such a thing, while executing their duties under the executive branch. We have (fine?) intelligence organizations that make that call, and pass their ‘unfettered’ truth onto the president. Based on the best of his sources, and in the case of the letters it was the CIA, the president makes the decision. You could argue that three pieces of evidence that missed the mark have slipped through, and therefore the president is incompetent for not reorganizing his intelligence committees and whatnot, but not based on decisions he makes regarding the false intelligence they give him.
Although, in light of this, I’m sure most democrats(And perhaps some rebublicans.) would be more than happy to wait while the president searches Iraq for the uranium personally.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”
Is shoddy fact checking, and dissemination of falsehoods now covered under the faithful execution clause ? There may not be a lie here, but there’s certainly evidence that Bush takes the responsibilities of his office more lightly than he should.
You are apparently a very understanding and forgiving person, friend Copa. What you say may well be true in the matter of a county commissioner say, or a local clerk. If the office makes extraordinary demands, for going the extra mile beyond the extra mile, we must keep in mind he was not drafted, but put himself forth for an office to which he was very nearly elected.
If you would be more content with a charge of incompetence, I suppose I would be willing to oblige. Is that your stand?
Lord, is that what it says!? He probably misunderstood the word “execute”!
Interestingly, there are at least two serious movements afoot with a view toward impeaching President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft.
The first is Vote to Impeach. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has drafted proposed articles of impeachment that specify 17 high crimes and misdemeanors.
The second is the Impeach Bush Campaign being organized by Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois School of Law, who has drafted six proposed articles of impeachment.
Interestingly, of all the proposed grounds for impeachment in the two sets of proposed articles, none of them has yet been discussed in this thread as far as I can tell.
If you don’t want me to call bullshit, then just provide the damn sources to begin with, m’kay? Your sarcasm is noted, but unwarranted.
No, I do not stand on the grounds of incompetence, as the information is filtered through our intelligence organizations. What I would stand on is the grounds that the evidence provided in the support of the war was false and that the president had knowledge of it’s falsehood prior to it’s presentation. It’s easy to say that bad evidence was equated to a lie after it has been attacked. It’s harder to say that the knowledge of it’s falsehood was known prior.
I hesitate to mention the name “Ramsey Clark” in these circles, it has an unfortunate effect on the Usual Suspects, causing them to endure the sort of spasmic attacks we Texans refer to as “conniption fits”. It is unkind.
But these movements were afoot for quite some time before the more recent revelations, if I recall. If the esteemed Brian seeks to add more ammunition, I would be the last to forestall him. But a sufficiency is at hand.
As said, these have been going on for some time. Perhaps they will be revived and rejuvenated when the glad news arrives that the SDMB has thrown the full weight of our support behind them.
brian, I see both of those sites, they are providing scant evidence for their claims. It’s not to say their wrong, or lying, but providing an (pre-cite) Elucidator-like forum for impeachment based on poorly collected evidence and, in some cases, a flagrant attempt at interpretation of events by those who present them.
The problem with the proposed impeachment articles by both the Professor and Clark is that the Congress, in advance, carelessly and with little debate or other evidence of thoughtful consideration, ratified all of the actions described.
We need a paliamentary system where a new election can be called when enough people are really pissed.
Oh, piffle. Are you seriously suggesting you have heard none of these stories, that I have run up to you with Urgent News, of which you are, or were, entirely unaware? You are nobody’s fool, AD, and neither am I, so lets spare each other these trivialities, shall we?
So, let me ask you… If a president in WWII had made a statement that the Allies would land at Calais, and instead they landed in Normandy, would that be an impeachable offence?
If a president tells a lie in order to protect the security of the United States, would that be an impeachable offense?
I’m not saying that this is the case today, but I’m trying to understand your point. The fact that he took ‘an oath’ of any kind precludes him from lying in any way while president? Even if that oath doesn’t say anything about telling the truth?
Please describe, in detail, exactly what his impeachable offence is. And note that, “He makes elucidator very, very angry” doesn’t count.
Copaesthetic and David Simmons, I don’t disagree with you about the two sites that I posted a link to. I was not advocating the theories that those sites are advancing, just pointing out that, in the circles where impeachment is being considered as a serious option, they are taking entirely different paths than the wild-goose chase that this thread has been off on.
No doubt they will amend this failing when my views become more widely known.
Oh, you poor, poor baby you.
Look, you should realize that we on the SDMB are not a bunch of Kreskins. We can’t read your post saying, essentially, “Oh that bad, bad man Dubya had gone and done something terrible” and automatically know exactly of what you speak. You need to link to what’s got you hot-n-bothered on this particular Sunday morning so we can talk about it intelligently.
In this case, it’s not a link for citation purposes (as in, to prove a certain fact); here, we’re asking for a link for context purposes (as in, what the hell are you griping about, exactly?) It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth to get such a simple request fulfilled.
Can the president be impeached for incompetence? Well, as a matter of practicallity, the president can be impeached for anything you can convince the House of Representatives to vote for.
The more relevant question is, SHOULD the president be impeached for incompetence? Incompetence at what level?
Of course, the OP isn’t really stating that Bush should be impeached, he’s just trying to say that Bush is an asshole. Of course Bush cannot be impeached, since it would take convincing a large number of Republicans, and the Republicans have a majority in the house. So this is really another bash-Bush mental masturbation thread. Lord, I remember how I loathed Bill Clinton. But even I got tired of all the dirty tricks they tried to pull on him. If Elucidator is making the point that the same bullshit tactics that were pulled on Clinton should be pulled on Bush, then he is implicitly stating that the charges against Clinton were RIGHT. So which is it? Was Clinton’s impeachment bullshit, or was it justified? If Clinton’s impeachment was unjustified, calling for Bush’s impeachment is bullshit. If Bush’s impeachment is justified, since “everyone does it”, then hey, the charges against Clinton were valid political maneuvering.
Should we stoop to the terrorists level? Do the ends justify the means? We are getting a picture of where elucidator stands on these issues, but how about everyone else?
Again: it’s not a matter of Airman Doors or myself or anyone else being unaware of the news; it’s a matter of there being an awful lot of news out there, and your needing to specify which tidbit of news you’re referring to. We ain’t mindreaders over here.