Impeachment's Back in the News »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 5 months agoIt would be important to impeach this president even if it were done after the November '08 election, because not to impeach Bush for his many crimes and abuses of power would be to give them the stamp of Congressional approval, making them the standard of acceptable behavior for all future presidents.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 42
-
50%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
More bull pucky from populistamerica......always a source of insanity.....
Reply -
-
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 5 months ago
Democrats are the only ones talking about impeachment. Pat Buchannan called for impeachment years ago over the borders. And Republican Dana Rorhrabacher has said impeachment is an option if either of the border guards who were prosecuted by the Bush administration for doing their job end up dying in prison.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=...
And this latest firing fiasco has both democrats and republicans upset.
Reply
-
-
0%
Watchman_Dave1 year, 5 months ago
Again people don't understand what impeachment is. Bill Clinton was impeached but nothing came of it. Impeachment is not a war crimes trial and jail time does not come out of this.
But, unlike Bill who had sex with Miss Lewinski by himself, Bush was not acting alone in this War on Terror. The UN sanctioned it. The Congress approved it. Most leading democrats (and heads of other countries) offered the same evidence Bush did as reasons to go ahead.
So, either we put everyone on trial or no one.
But, hey why invoke logic when it cannot be comprehended.
Reply-
56%
nakedtruth1 year, 5 months ago
While congress is not without some blame for the fake war on terror, you must remember that they got their information AFTER it was manipulated by members of the Bush administration. The were NOT privy to the behind the scenes discussions with the intelligence services. They had no way of knowing, for instance, that the CIA felt that the informant named "Curveball" (who had been subjected to torture) was lying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
They also were not privy to the caveats in the Niger "yellowcake" fiasco until ambassador Wilson went public. Also for heads of other countries? Well some (like France, Germany and Russia) were openly questioning the WMD arguments. Tony Blair was likely in on the manipulation (read the Downing street memo) but the U.S. congress has no jurisdiction over him.
Reply-
67%
ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 5 months ago
"they were NOT privy to the behind the scenes discussions with the intelligence services. They had no way of knowing, for instance, that the CIA felt that the informant named "Curveball" (who had been subjected to torture) was lying."
...and I suppose you were privy to all of this info. You have the "nakedtruth" that no one else knows. Bull.
There will be NO Impeachment. Next Item.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
"cover the fact that they have now been operating with questionable ethics (Feinstein, Jefferson, Pelosi, Clinton and the rest) "
ROFLMAO, yeah those Republicans bringing Honor and Integrity back to the White House. WHo knew they were two prostitutes for the Republican good ole boys club.
Reply -
100%
nakedtruth1 year, 4 months ago
Have any of their "questionable ethics" gotten thousands of people killed? As for questionable ethics why don't you ask Bill "insider trading" Frist about that?
Reply
-
-
0%
aniokly1 year, 5 months ago
Well, let's get going. Democrats have been blowing smoke for 6 years now. They cannot Impeach the President for the war in Iraq, because they are just as guilty as he is said to be. They gave him permission to go to war with the same information he had, they are accomplicies. Aside from that, they do not hold a 2/3 majority in either chamber. They play on the stupifity of a handful of people.
Reply -
0%
aniokly1 year, 5 months ago
Don't believe me, call your Congressman today, and ask for a date when they will start Impeachment proceedings. They will give you a song, and dance, but no date.
Reply -
-
100%
doppich1 year, 5 months ago
It was obvious in Clinton's case that the Senate would not convict, but the GOP House went ahead anyway with its impeachment and the show trial in the Senate.
It is just as obvious now that the Senate won't convict Bush, but I think it would be better TV than Anna Nicole Smith, Don Imus or Britney Spears, so go to it!
Besides, I'm curious whether Judge Roberts will design himself a special robe like Rehnquist did.
Reply -
83%
eugenegerard1 year, 5 months ago
IMPEACH BUSH, CHENEY. and GONZALES!!! Not necessarily in that order. It should have been done yesterday.
Reply -
-
100%
nakedtruth1 year, 5 months ago
Not all Republicans hate America. Some Republicans want to see Bush impeached more than the dems.
Reply
-
-
0%
Raiderwall1 year, 5 months ago
The Bush administration serves as an example of what we do not want in government. Leaders who misled to get what they want, who pass the buck when things go wrong. Everything goes wrong from New Orleans to Iraq and all points in between.
Bush is a perfect example of what happens when conservatives take power. It goes to their head, they corrupt the government in the futile quest to hold power, they screw everything up and then blame others for their screw-ups.
Bush in 08 will remind voters why they should stay away from Republicans, as long as the GOP relies on conservatives as it's base of support.
If the Republicans were smart they'd impeach both Bush and Cheney so they could run against Pelosi in 08.
Sadly, though, conservatives are only good at spinning events after the fact, foresight is not a conservative strength at all.
Reply-
100%
Watchman_Dave1 year, 5 months ago
"...serves as an example of what we do not want in government. Leaders who misled to get what they want, who pass the buck when things go wrong."
You just described almost every politician in history.
So when Clinton claimed he had intelligence stating that a factory was an illegal munitions factory so he had it destroyed only to find out it was an aspirin factory, to focus attention off the Lewinski matter he wasn't misleading us to get what he wanted. Ever watch "Wag the Dog" it was made by his hollywood friends about him.
When he told the people of Arkansas he wouldn't run for president if re-elected govenor, then, just months after being re-elected, he announces he's running for president...his position was strengthened by winning re-election. If he had lost, who would have voted for him as pres if he can't even win the governorship?
Get real...there aren't any Mr. Smiths in Washington DC anymore.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
saneman1 year, 5 months ago
Congress voted to give Bush authority to use force against Iraq ONLY if necessary. Congress did not declare war on Iraq and did not command Bush to invade Iraq.
Reply -
100%
Watchman_Dave1 year, 5 months ago
Go to the UN website and read the resolutions passed since 1992 in regards to Iraq. Saddam was in direct violation of 17 of them and the last two did state that military action could be taken by member nations to inforce these resolutions.
The opposition from France, Russia and China was because they had multi-billion dollar arms and oil contracts personally guaranteed by Saddam and would (and did) lose these billions if he was removed from power. Of course these facts weren't reveled until after the invasion. This was reported by CNN, BBC, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. It was big news but because it doesn't fit in the anti-Bush hysteria you and many others have conviently forgotten the facts.
The Bush intelligence you speak of came from members of the Clinton administration and UN information both of which had publicly decried the fact that Saddam had WMD before Bush was ever in office. The Kurds can tell you form personal experience. Do some research.
Reply-
77%
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
I thought the Republicans claimed the UN was totally worthless and corrupt organization that didnt have a clue in terms of what it was doing. So we go to war to enforce a resolution from a corrupt clueless organization??
BTW as long as you're reading UN resolutions, count the number that Israel has violated and refused to obey. Should we invade them next?? Oh no wait thats when the Cons fall back on they;re a corrupt, worthless organization argument again.
"The Bush intelligence you speak of came from members of the Clinton administration and UN "
Yes Cons tend to post quotes quite A bit from 1998. But its amazing that Bush used information that at the time of the invasion was over 5 years old. He didn't bother to check? Especially since NO WMD were found.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
saneman1 year, 4 months ago
Being diplomatic tends to be the real crux of the matter. In order to be diplomatic, a person has to be articulate and has to have the ability to logically explain things. As a result, I have envisioned what it would be like if Bush were a patent attorney and was required to explain the differences between utility and design patents and the meaning of "obviousness". Frightening to say the least.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 5 months ago
most libs don't want impeachment. that would give bush the "out" he's looking for. it would be something cons could point to as to why bush wasn't able to accomplish all he wanted to accomplish.
as it is now, bush is going to cut and run on just about everything.
he's gonna dump Iraq on the next president.
he's gonna dump all this debt on the next president.
he's gonna dump a highly de-valued dollar on the next president.
etc etc etc.
Bush will truly be the cut and run president.
Reply-
67%
wastedvoteinNY1 year, 5 months ago
so delay the inevitable.....
change the constitution, end term limits.
re-elect President Bush for life or until he clears up all these issues. No president has ever left a successor with problems in the past, right? There was never a change in administrations during war, recession, depression or other inconveneiences, right?
Meanwhile the dems can continue to investigate instead of legislate, as they are so want to do.
Reply-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago
"Meanwhile the dems can continue to investigate instead of legislate, as they are so want to do. "
So thats what the REPUBLICANS were doing when they investigated Monicagate. That explains why they refused to back CLintons terror initiatives and continually yelled "Wag the Dog" and Terrorism isnt as big a threat as Clinton claims. ROFLMAO, you clowns are amazing, investigating a BJ is considered high importance and a national issue but lieing to start a war, failing to account for money spent in Iraq, firing attorneys for prosecuting REPUBLICANS, violating the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and the list goes on. Those are important?? Seems COngresses job is to uphold the Constitution and those investiogations that happen to be showing YOUR boys as guilty (gee do ya think thats why you want them stopped?) seem to be EXACTLY what Congress should be doing now. REMOVING those who want to remove the Constitution.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
WCFIELDS1 year, 5 months ago
There needs to be a giant automatic mouse-trap machine in D.C. that will SNAP Down and flatten Presidents as bad as this one. Had we had such a machine earlier we may never have heard of George W. Bush. Bill Clinton would have been Flattened early in his first term, a decent President would have been put in Bill's place and George W. B. would be working at the 7-11
Reply
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - That Dam Senator: A River Ran Through Him
- 1.0 - And Then We Will Die
- 1.0 - Triangulating an Asian conflict
- 1.0 - "Renegotiate NAFTA": What?s lurking behind the TRADE Act?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
