Yes, I can code, but sometimes I’m just not in the mood, okay?
I agree - WTF?
All these people screaming impeachment have overlooked one minor, insignificant detail: he has to have done something impeachable. And he hasn’t.
Frankly, I think it’s spite, like kids in a sandbox. I think it’s the libs saying, “Nannynannybooboo - you impeached a lib President, we’re gonna impeach a conservative one!”. They tend to overlook the minor, insignificant fact that the lib President committed a felony while in office and was impeached for that reason.
“Blowjob”.
Impeachability is, as you well should know, whatever a bare majority of Congress says it is.
Wrong.
Now, where on the scale would you place “Lying us into a war of aggression”?
An impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. If Congress decides that lying to start a war is impeachable then it’s impeachable. So is wiretapping without a warrant.
Cite?
Clothahump! Hey, guy, where ya been! Party has been going on for days, we look around, no Clotty. Just not the same without you! I mean, joy is to share, and I definitely want to share this special, special moment with you. Pretty low on party hats, lessee, we got one “Mandate!” and one “Landslide!”, take yer pick. Foods pretty much gone too, maybe we can rustle up a crow sandwhich, if you don’t mind Extra Crispy.
But, yeah, the American public is woefully unsophisiticated as regards Constitutional law. They seem to think that lying us into a war is some sort of Big Hairy Ass Deal. Go figure, huh?
But, heck, no biggy. A long, drawn out public humiliation will fill the bill pretty well, don’t you think? I kinda think those prospective Congressional oversight investigations will bring forward some stuff that has been discreetly witheld from public view, and I look forward to hearing the explanations. As do you, I am sure. And the whole Abramoff thing, still a few ponies under that Christmas tree. Elections, the gift that keeps on giving!
Great to see you again! No, really!
This poll was linked to from the front page of the Huffington Post yesterday. I voted to impeach. I think a majority in this country, if they really thought about it, would agree. But not an 80%+ majority.
He absolutely deserves impeachment for lying to start a war. Period, end of discussion. He has the blood of more than 600,000 on his hands. As the Nuremburg tribunal said, waging aggressive war is the greatest of crimes, because it leads to all manner of other horrible crimes. This is not about partisan revenge, it’s about justice.
But is that going to be the best thing for the country at this point? Well, probably. But we’re in an awful fix, and that demands our attention. And unless there’s a way to impeach both him and Cheyney at the same time, I really don’t see any way we’d get anybody better in the office before 2008. So perhaps the better course of action would be to blackmail the butcher Bush with the prospects of what will happen to him if the worst of his crimes were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law during the last two years of his term in office and do our best to fix this horrible mess. Then, once he is out of office he can be persecuted for his crimes.
So, investigate and let the chips fall where they may. If folks want to impeach, I’ll build the fucking gallows. But bringing the would-be dictator to heel should be the first priority for the good of of the country.
I think that impeachment is enough of a political process that Congress could possibly engineer an impeachment based on the lead-up ot the Iraq war. The main problem would be that Congress voted to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. But it’s really just too late for this now, since the process hasn’t even begun. And then what do you get after impeachment and removal from office-- President Cheney. Doesn’t make sense to me. There’s enough to do with the investigative powers the Dems now have in Congress.
Oh, and elucidator, I can’t believe you got suckered into reacting to an internet “poll”. You’ve been around long enough to know that they’re always junk, since there is no way to verify their accuracy.
Something can be interesting and worthy of note without actually proving anything. I found it interesting, and noteworthy, and that’s all I said. If you can underline where I said I figured this proved something, do so.
And as far as verifying thier accuracy, I quote the illustrious me (paraphrase) “Ain’t no metrics here, nothing to measure it against, wonder why that is?” I still kind of wonder why that is, since the Pubbies were in such high dudgeon about The Pelosi and her radical-ass agenda. Seems like somebody would have asked that question by now, doncha think? Guess not. Wonder why? I do.
Congress gave Bush the discretion to use force if necessary. They didn’t give him permission to LIE about what was necessary. They could easily argue that he abused the discretion and trust that was granted to him. The Dems did not vote directly to invade Iraq and there would be no contradiction or hypocrisy in impeaching him, especially since they could argue that they voted the way they did largely because he misrepresented the intel on Iraq.
I don’t think the Dems should impeach because it would be a political trainwreck and Bush is a lame duck anyway (plus they’d have to impeach Deadeye Dick as well) but I also think that they’d have more than enough justification and ammunition for it. Certainly more than what the Pubs had against Clinton.
There is nothing worthy of note about an on-line poll. There are dozens and dozens of them every day. I saw Bill O’Reilly do an on-line poll about Kerry’s botched joke and something like 75% said that he had deliberately insulted the troops. Worthy of note? No. Worthless.
No, they gave him permission to determine what was necessary, so he had no need to lie. And if the Senators who voted for the AUMF had any misgivings about its actual use, they sure as hell kept quite about it. I don’t recall one Senator voicing an objection once the decision was made. You can spin this anyway you want, but Congress did vote to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.
High crimes, abuse of power, you name it. I don’t care if it takes two years, he, the vp, and half the cabinet deserve punishment and ignominy for their actions.
They didn’t know he was lying until after the invasion. Why would they object before they knew he was lying?
Hey! Don’t go dragging Senator-For-Life Ted Stevens into this argument, just because he’s a senile, out of touch moron. We love him and respect his opinions even though he’s been dead for seven years.
I’m sure there are going to be numerous pundits who feel they have more knowledge of the political goings on than I do. But, what the hell. After all, their years of self teachings, I’m sure supercede my minor in Political Science. First off, President Bush needs Congressional approval before sending more troops anywhere. Yes, until January, Congress
is controlled by the Republicans. But, as any first year political student, or even casual observer knows, there are many ways the Democrats can stall, or even stop this. My educated guess is, they (the Democrats) know this is the best way to win back a majority of the seats. The second, and last point, is on impeachment. Contrary to popular belief and those with vast political knowledge, impeachment is NOT “kicking” the president out of office. It is the process, or hearings, leading up to and determining, if the President will go on trial for the action(s) in question. But, what the hell, I’m not sitting in my parents’ basement, surrounded by my Star Wars action figures, obsorbed in vast knowledge.
We know all this. Who are you talking to?
While impeachment over the deceptive and cynical tactics this Administration used to bring the country to war in Iraq might be disingenuous and hypocritical (since the Dems who signed the authorization mostly knew damn well what was happening), it hardly seems to be precluded by having given that authorization.
But I do agree that impeachment is far less important than investigation. Let’s drag war profiteering out into the light of day and see where the slime tracks lead.
Oh, come on, now, luci. Snoopy could have kicked his happy dance up ten notches and he still wouldn’t have matched the joy and delighted incredulity you were expressing in the early stages of this thread. 
That’s what’s known in the trade as a stink bomb-- you hem and haw in your Senate floor speech to allow you plausible deniablility in the future. Which is one very good reason the SCOTUS should not use those floor speeches when interpreting legislation. Compare and contrast.