This Story is Archived
Don't allow impeachment of President Bush to fall off the table »
Posted by: Spadecaller 1 year, 9 months agoMy friends and colleagues say it's too late into Bush's term to impeach him. Impossible. Implausible. Impractical. My reply? Hold hearings, assemble evidence and pursue impeachment in earnest. Impertinent? I don't think so, and neither does a growing number of American citizens, including roughly 30 co-sponsors and growing.
Read Full Story at thnt.com »
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
I'm an artist, poet, survivor, and a work in progress.
Also submitted:
- 9.8 - Economists for Obama
- 9.5 - Who Are They - John McCain and Sarah Palin?
- 7.8 - The Heaven's Edge
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 783
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 8, 2007, 8:39 p.m."One of the most interesting aspects of the Nixon impeachment process was that, at that outset, impeachment also seemed 'off the table.' But by late 1973, the flames of public indignation had been stoked by several months of Senate Watergate Committee hearings and Nixon's attempt to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. When the Supreme Court ordered the release of Nixon's tapes showing his attempt to cover up the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, Nixon resigned as near certain, bipartisan impeachment stared him in the face."
Does this sound familiar?
-
Searchbeam
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:44 p.m.Spadecaller:
Great find! Thanks!
There will be lots of days and weeks like this! But as conscientious people that we are, this becomes our burden to carry! It will be well worth the effort!
Special Blessings to you for your outstanding and focused effort!
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings to our community here!
-
Searunner52
Jan. 9, 2007, 7:59 a.m.Actually sounds more like denial on the right! Denial that Bush, despite a considerable pile of mounting evidence that strongly suggests that Bush did in fact break numerous laws and has committed several acts of malefeasance!
Let the committee hearings begin and then watch the republicans on those committees start asking the pointed questions they didn't have the courage to ask when it was their responsibility to do so!
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 9, 2007, 6:58 a.m.There are about 30 or 40 Blue Dog Democrats who will not vote for this.
Bad enough that the party is split over the war.
Why add another issue to the devisiveness?
Harry Reid's back track on troop levels shows the split clearly.
My guess? In two or three months the Dem wings will not be talking to each other and the Rs will own the House.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/democr
*
-
Nowalive
Jan. 9, 2007, 8:56 a.m.The problem with all of this is that endless hearings, investigations, subpoenas, proceedings will do nothing but tie up the hill. We can not keep demanding INCREASED devisiveness! Stop all the hate on the hill. We need the far left and right nutjobs reigned in, and to hold our EMPLOYEES accountable for the "smoke and mirrors". We need to tell them that we want change, not more of the same vitreole!!!
-
ETproductions
Jan. 9, 2007, 11:53 a.m.Ike, More of your twisted SPIN mastering. Your latest straw man. Saddam DID have WMDs, and the gassing of the Kurds proves it.
Why is that a straw man? Because nobody, even the most left wing, denies that Saddam gassed the Kurds. But that happened in 1988. NOBODY disputes that Saddam had WMDs in 1988. NOBODY. Get it?
The Iraq invasion was launched to destroy the 10,000 WMDs and tons of poison gas Bush told us Saddam had in 2003. The UN Weapons Inspectors had already looked for these WMDs. They were fed the best intelligence the CIA had on their location. Scott Ritter had already told us the weapons weren't there. Scott Ritter was right. Bush/Cheney were wrong. Admitting the truth is not defeatism. It is the first fundamental step toward a rational foreign policy.
All the fake arguments and spin and lies and straw men in the world won't lead to "victory". They will only ensure a flawed foreign policy and eventual defeat.
-
Ebonvoice
Jan. 9, 2007, 1:10 p.m.Ike hits the nail right on the head! Some people can't get over personal grudges. Why else would a Republican Senate launch impeachment hearings over a Democratic President's liaison with an intern?
Taking into account that President Bush's reasoning for the Iraq invasion has changed about five times (including three times after proclaiming "Mission Accomplished"), it renders any justification for invasion as dubious at best. Impeachment is due for the 3,000-plus (and mounting) of our bravest citizens who died for the cause of such an elastic proposition.
...and stating "The hearings will produce nothing" sounds about as defeatist as "Why try O.J. in civil court?" It's impossible to determine what the hearings will produce until the evidence is aired.
One thing's for certain: Impeachment is called for, whether successful or not.
-
AnvilHead
Jan. 9, 2007, 2:02 p.m.to ike5266
I think that most people want to see us win this one, the question is how can we win with an ignorant arrogant crook Like GeorgiePorgie or the Ayatolla Cheney in charge?
-
-
-
-
Amazing1
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:02 p.m.Just today I finished sending e-mails to all 100 Senators calling for Impeachment. I am reminding them that they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all threats both foreign and domestic. I could not e-mail the seven newbies. They will be mailed letters tomorrow. And then I shall begin on the House. I only have one voice. But I shall make it heard. The Bush Administration is a domestic threat to our Constitution. And impeachment appears to be the only option available.
-
-
-
-
-
Searunner52
Jan. 9, 2007, 8:11 a.m.What you failed to realize sparky is that she has, more than likely, already written her Congressmen and the other members of the House. I know that my letters went out before the first of the year requesting the same thing.
What really has you cons worried is that you know - even if you haven't got the guts to admit it and like Judus will deny everything - that there is a case for impeachment and that should such a case be brought he would be found guilty and convicted.
There is already dissent among the rank and file of the republicans in the House and Senate and more and more voices are being raised questioning the actions of this poor dammed excuse for a President!
-
-
-
capecoralM
Jan. 9, 2007, 8:44 a.m.The Senate is not where impeachment proceeding or hearings or investigations or anything official in regards to this matter takes place. It is the house. If you had actually read the constitution you would find it is in the first paragraph. But since you obviously have not read the constitution perhaps spending a little time reading it and a civics 101 class may be in order.
From Article I:
...The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment....
-
-
-
Eagle_Eye
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:06 p.m.Forget about impeachment, takes up to much of nations time and resources. Just try them all for war crimes or turn them over to Germany.
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:16 p.m.I understand your sentiment and good intentions.
But, for the future of democracy and our contitutional rule of law, our government must show that it is able to perform its functions. Impeachment and accountability for crimes against humanity -- neither should be neglected.
-
jordan11
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:45 p.m.Forget about impeachment, takes up to much of nations time and resources. Just try them all for war crimes or turn them over to Germany.>>>>>>
The two would go together. If the Congress found evidence of serious wrong doing, they'd have no choice but to impeach.
-
Beeboppin71
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:03 p.m.I tend to agree but I'd like to see the investigations started. If they get enough info in time... then impeach!
-
david_nwpa
Jan. 8, 2007, 11:06 p.m.Just remember that impeachment is not the same as removal from office. I say the President should finish out his term as a lame duck president. It sets a bad precedent for future sitting US Presidents to have them tried for war crimes during their term in office.
I would, however, love to see him arrested the moment the next president is sworn in. Let him suffer the indignation of a trial as citizen Bush.
-
Searunner52
Jan. 9, 2007, 8:25 a.m.See Article 1, Section 8 To whit:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
Bush can certainly be tried for "Offenses against the Law of Nations" if it is found that Bush committed them!
-
ETproductions
Jan. 9, 2007, 12:07 p.m.Interesting comment, Troll. However Reid v. Covert would have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I must admit, though, that this is one of the more cleverly constructed straw men you con[men] have rolled forth.
-
-
Searchbeam
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:25 p.m.Eagle Eye:
I fully understand your viewpoint, but I beg to differ with your conclusion.
Our Constitution is very clear on one point: The integrity of the people who serve us.
The bar of High Crimes and Misdemeanors has been set high, but once that threshold is reached, there is no choice but to proceed with the process of impeachment!
Nancy Pelosi and all the members of Congress are sworn and duty-bound to uphold the Constitution in fill faith! This is a commitment that she and her colleagues must honor, otherwise her term as the Speaker of the House would, indeed, be very short! She may even be charged with dereliction of her duty!
That is why the only choice is:
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
-
Searchbeam
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:31 p.m.Eagle Eye:
One more thing!
If cost was our only concern, we would have pulled our troops out of Iraq even before we went in!
But we did go in, and at a cost of $100 Billion each year (maybe even more, if you pull the curtains on the other hidden items!), this administration does not show any intention of stopping! Actually, it is hell-bent on increasing it way beyond!
If we let this runaway train roll on, the financial disaster would be beyond any body's comprehension!
That is why we must stop this madness!
IN, VF!
Peace and Blessings!
-
-
gatitabonitasen
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:26 p.m.i already signed the petition for impeachment in impeachment.org , also send letters to the senators and congress members of florida will send more this week . If we need to do someting else please let me know . I gave you guys positive votes thanks for caring all of you . There still hope for us .
-
white-pawn
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:13 p.m.As long as good people like yourself refuse to take this lying down, there is always hope. Great work.
-
-
Searchbeam
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:39 p.m.gatitabonitasen:
Great Job!
If you wish, you can visit:
This is a very useful website where you can send your message to all Senators and Congress persons and also can start a petition. It will save you a lot of time and postage, and the delivery is instantaneous! Starting a petition does cost a little bit of money, but it is well worth it! The money you save in postage can almost cover it!
All the best to you in your efforts!
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
-
Searchbeam
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:48 p.m.One interesting angle:
What would happen if BOTH Dubya and Shotgun Dickey get impeached and are kicked out?
Would Nancy automatically inherit the "throne!"?
Is that why she wants to keep it off the table?
IN, VF!
P & B!
-
Beeboppin71
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:10 p.m.Yes, the Speaker of the House is next in line for the job as President. And perhaps that is the reason why she wants to keep it off the table. Who knows? I don't blame her if that is the reason why. The next President is going to have a mess to fix and most will not be happy with him/her. But reguardless she is sworn to uphold the constitution and she knows that she's third in line for the Presidency. So, she should buck up and do her job. Or she should have never accepted the position.
-
pazuita
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:13 p.m.not likely to happen that way.
Even if the Dems get the cabas to do their jobs, as they have sworn to do, and they do attempt to impeach both Cheney and Bu$h, most likely, Bu$h would resign, making Cheney president.
While proceedings were in progress, Cheney would pick some stooge, probably one named Jeb as his VP.
Cheney would resign, leaving Jeb as pResident, and his first action would be to pardon Big Bro, Cheney, and about a thousand other Republicons.
-
-
pazuita
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:09 p.m.My favorite bumper sticker, seen several of them around.....
Pelosi 07
sure beats the heck out of Hillary 08
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:23 p.m.The mere removal, impeachment, and censur of a President and an administration that has breached the public's trust and betrayed the mandates of our Constitution is not what is at stake -- nor is the office of the Pres
