Kucinich is Enacting Articles of Impeachment against Bush!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The article is right: Bush will hide behind classified documents as he has shrouded his entire administration in secrecy to cover his tracks. It's his Get Out of Jail Free card, the administration planned it this way from the start. For example the >5000 government documents that USED to be public are now classified. Why? The best way to keep a nation in fear is to take away the evidence refuting that no threat existed...

WTF does this have to do with the article? The word "classified documents in no where int he article...
No kidding it doesn't say classified. It says substantiated by intelligence, which constitutes intelligence that cannot be revealed (IF it even still exists) due to its sensitive nature unless they declassify it (which won't happen). Hence no way to prove exactly what happened, just like the White House emails that were mysteriously erased. Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove Bush knew otherwise regarding Iraq which will allow him to play the "substantiated by intelligence" card.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove Bush knew otherwise regarding Iraq which will allow him to play the "substantiated by intelligence" card.

I'd call that hard evidence that you didn't read through my very long previous post. :p
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove Bush knew otherwise regarding Iraq which will allow him to play the "substantiated by intelligence" card.

I'd call that hard evidence that you didn't read through my very long previous post. :p
It's only what, 20 pages long? :p I'll check it out when I get home from work.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove Bush knew otherwise regarding Iraq which will allow him to play the "substantiated by intelligence" card.

I'd call that hard evidence that you didn't read through my very long previous post. :p

A post like that needs to end with "Better Nate than lever" to have any validity at all.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Both sides are guilty, they hide their guilt by perpetuating the illusion that there are "sides" at all. both of the party's are corrupt. Dems, Repubs, war criminals all. Though people like Kucinich and Paul are are trying to fight the good fight. Alas the populace seems to be all too willing to be spoon fed candidates that speak a good line but vote otherwise.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove Bush knew otherwise regarding Iraq which will allow him to play the "substantiated by intelligence" card.

I'd call that hard evidence that you didn't read through my very long previous post. :p

A post like that needs to end with "Better Nate than lever" to have any validity at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atomic playboy, you may live long enough to have your children and grandchildren ask why we did not impeach GWB. I certainly hope you can give them a better answer than you huts gave in your post.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Atomic playboy, you may live long enough to have your children and grandchildren ask why we did not impeach GWB. I certainly hope you can give them a better answer than you huts gave in your post.

Sweet zombie Jesus. First off, learn to take a joke. Second, if my children/grandchildren ask why we did not impeach GWB, I'll tell them it's because the Democrats in Congress lacked the testicular fortitude to actually put together a unified charge against an extremely unpopular president who had clearly committed several acts that warranted impeachment proceedings. In the 1990s, the Republicans impeached a popular president over an issue that the majority of the country felt was absurd. The Democrats today are so concerned about reelection that they refuse to do anything that appears to be rocking the boat, even if that is exactly what their constituents are clamoring for, and the whole reason they dominated the election of 2006.

Cheers to Kucinich for finally bringing forward these articles, but, in all fairness, this is just about the worst possible timing ever. How long did the impeachment against Clinton go on? It was 8 months, wasn't it? In 8 months, Bush won't even be President any more. This motion forces Obama to go on record voting for or against; people who are on the fence may see Obama vote for impeachment and think he's going too far, or see him vote against impeachment and think he's kowtowing to appease independents at the cost of his base. Kucinich shot the Dems in the foot by bringing this up this late in the game, and while I would like to see Bush and his cronies punished for their repeated abuses of power, this is not the way to do it.

And for the record, I think the current Democratic leadership needs some serious reformation. If every Democrat was as courageous as Kucinich, this motion would have come up two years ago when it was appropriate. The Democrats are spineless cowards, who place more emphasis on getting elected and staying in office than in doing the right thing. They want to maintain an appearance of being hard on Bush by censuring him (a meaningless gesture), but when push comes to shove, they fold and allow he and his organization to continue the exact same shit they've been doing for years. Oh, they forced out Gonzales, huzzahs all around! Meanwhile GWB and Cheney are still at the helm, completely unfazed by the weak attempts by Democrats to appear tough. I'm all for bipartisanship, but when one side is being run by assholes, you have to fight fire with fire. Watching the Dems twist in the wind on something they should have massive public support for is just sad.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Atomic playboy, you may live long enough to have your children and grandchildren ask why we did not impeach GWB. I certainly hope you can give them a better answer than you huts gave in your post.

Sweet zombie Jesus. First off, learn to take a joke. Second, if my children/grandchildren ask why we did not impeach GWB, I'll tell them it's because the Democrats in Congress lacked the testicular fortitude to actually put together a unified charge against an extremely unpopular president who had clearly committed several acts that warranted impeachment proceedings. In the 1990s, the Republicans impeached a popular president over an issue that the majority of the country felt was absurd. The Democrats today are so concerned about reelection that they refuse to do anything that appears to be rocking the boat, even if that is exactly what their constituents are clamoring for, and the whole reason they dominated the election of 2006.

Cheers to Kucinich for finally bringing forward these articles, but, in all fairness, this is just about the worst possible timing ever. How long did the impeachment against Clinton go on? It was 8 months, wasn't it? In 8 months, Bush won't even be President any more. This motion forces Obama to go on record voting for or against; people who are on the fence may see Obama vote for impeachment and think he's going too far, or see him vote against impeachment and think he's kowtowing to appease independents at the cost of his base. Kucinich shot the Dems in the foot by bringing this up this late in the game, and while I would like to see Bush and his cronies punished for their repeated abuses of power, this is not the way to do it.

And for the record, I think the current Democratic leadership needs some serious reformation. If every Democrat was as courageous as Kucinich, this motion would have come up two years ago when it was appropriate. The Democrats are spineless cowards, who place more emphasis on getting elected and staying in office than in doing the right thing. They want to maintain an appearance of being hard on Bush by censuring him (a meaningless gesture), but when push comes to shove, they fold and allow he and his organization to continue the exact same shit they've been doing for years. Oh, they forced out Gonzales, huzzahs all around! Meanwhile GWB and Cheney are still at the helm, completely unfazed by the weak attempts by Democrats to appear tough. I'm all for bipartisanship, but when one side is being run by assholes, you have to fight fire with fire. Watching the Dems twist in the wind on something they should have massive public support for is just sad.

1. There is time to impeach and convict Bush if the Congress wanted to.

2. This does not force Obama to vote on it. He's in the Senate; impeachment is in the House.

3. While I agree with you on what the Democrats should do, there's some blame to go around for what the public will reward and punish them for.

4. Kucinich deserves our support. He's an excellent leader at a hard time as a lone voice.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Atomic Playboy, you miss a number of very important points. (1) The dems have only had control of congress for 1.4 years. (2) The dems being weak and spineless is hardly an excuse for or an exoneration of the crimes of GWB&co. (3) Impeachment is basically an unproductive waste of time as long as 34 GOP Senators say no.

Your efforts to blame only democrats have no credibility as you fool only yourself.

If your grandchildren ever ask you that question, I am pretty confident they will be smart enough not to accept such a bullshit answer from you. Because its chock full of bullshiit from beginning to end.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234

1. There is time to impeach and convict Bush if the Congress wanted to.

Right. But they either dont want to, or as Atomic said, they dont have the balls. End of story.

Originally posted by: Craig234
2. This does not force Obama to vote on it. He's in the Senate; impeachment is in the House.
Right. But if, for example, an impeachment DID make it to the Senate, he WOULD have to vote. Of course.

Originally posted by: Craig234
3. While I agree with you on what the Democrats should do, there's some blame to go around for what the public will reward and punish them for.
The public neither rewards nor punishes POTUS. Other than badmouthing him. So whats your point?

Originally posted by: Craig234
4. Kucinich deserves our support. He's an excellent leader at a hard time as a lone voice.

And tell us Craig, what support could "we", who are not his constituants, give him? Pickets? Emails? All worthless in the scheme of things. If it makes you feel better to cheer him on and pump your fist go right ahead. But just know it wont do a bit of good or have ANY influence on the rest of the house AT ALL.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234

1. There is time to impeach and convict Bush if the Congress wanted to.

Right. But they either dont want to, or as Atomic said, they dont have the balls. End of story.

Originally posted by: Craig234
2. This does not force Obama to vote on it. He's in the Senate; impeachment is in the House.
Right. But if, for example, an impeachment DID make it to the Senate, he WOULD have to vote. Of course.

Originally posted by: Craig234
3. While I agree with you on what the Democrats should do, there's some blame to go around for what the public will reward and punish them for.
The public neither rewards nor punishes POTUS. Other than badmouthing him. So whats your point?

Originally posted by: Craig234
4. Kucinich deserves our support. He's an excellent leader at a hard time as a lone voice.

And tell us Craig, what support could "we", who are not his constituants, give him? Pickets? Emails? All worthless in the scheme of things. If it makes you feel better to cheer him on and pump your fist go right ahead. But just know it wont do a bit of good or have ANY influence on the rest of the house AT ALL.

That's the most worthless post I've seen in a while.

1. Try to follow the topic. The topic of my post was only whether there's time, which he said there isn't and I said there is. To which you said "right" to my post.

2. Duh. (I rarely say that). He said THIS will force Obama to vote, meaning that Kucinich's introducing it will. Everyone agrees this is almost certain not to get to the Senate.

My correction was that THIS, Kucinich's introducing it, will not make Obama vote on it. To which you said "right" to m post.

3. Try to follow the topic. I was discussing the public rewarding and punishing congress, not the president.

4. You can give him political support from his fellow representatives - yours, by calling your own representative. You can do it by sending him a message, which helps. You can do it by donating to his campaign budget. You can do it by talking to others, by posting here your support.

As for your attack on the processes of democracy doing any good, I'm pretty sick of right-wing 'do-nothing' cynics who may as well not live in a democracy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
They can get him on FISA alone. Shouldn't be hard to impeach him, but then he has to have a trial in order to remove him from office. By the time it's all done, he's out of office. I tend to think that rather than let Bush use his considerable power as Executive to block investigations, wait till he's out then crucify him when he's Joe Citizen.

Edit: Easy for this purpose means it should be easy to demonstrate that Bush broke the law, however it will not be easy getting this to trial. It's more a political issue than legal.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage. Nothing but grandstanding and using Bush as a diversion for their own failures and worthless governing policies.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,061
8,351
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage. Nothing but grandstanding and using Bush as a diversion for their own failures and worthless governing policies.

Grandstanding? Taking a stand against the years that Congressional Republicans stood idly by and even helped to approve laws that would help Bush violate the very Constitution this country was founded upon is grandstanding? You're ridiculous.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Atomic Playboy, you miss a number of very important points. (1) The dems have only had control of congress for 1.4 years. (2) The dems being weak and spineless is hardly an excuse for or an exoneration of the crimes of GWB&co. (3) Impeachment is basically an unproductive waste of time as long as 34 GOP Senators say no.

Your efforts to blame only democrats have no credibility as you fool only yourself.

If your grandchildren ever ask you that question, I am pretty confident they will be smart enough not to accept such a bullshit answer from you. Because its chock full of bullshiit from beginning to end.

When on Earth did I blame only Democrats? I voted a straight Democrat ticket in 2006 in the hopes that they would put an end to George W. Bush's unchecked power. And what have they done? They put Alberto Gonzales' feet to the fire (which I applaud), and had a motion to censure Bush (which was a complete waste of time). They also capitulated to Bush on budgetary matters, have continued rubber-stamping the Iraq war, and have not taken any considerable measures to curb Bush's abuse of power. Warrantless wire-tapping still happens, Guantanamo is still running, Bush continues to refuse to give evidence pertaining to Plame, or Libby, or the invasion of Iraq, or the politicization of the justice department, etc. One lone Representative introduces articles of impeachment with 7 months remaining in Bush's term, and that's supposed to make me happy? This should have come on November 8, 2006, right as Rumsfeld was announcing his retirement. Too little, too late, and I am not impressed in the slightest.

Now you can read that paragraph and see that I only mention Democrats and take it to mean that I hold Democrats responsible. But I don't honestly expect a majority of Republicans to vote for the impeachment of their guy, do you? I certainly don't expect them to introduce articles of impeachment against him. That's the opposing party's job, and in that regard, the Democrats have utterly failed in my estimation of what they should have done. I'm not going to vote for a single Republican who rubber-stamped Bush's policies during his tenure as President, which is why I vote Democrat to begin with. They have not been true to my intentions as a voter, nor to the constituents they represent, nor to the Constitution they swore to uphold, and I hold them just as responsible as the Republicans for what has happened (slightly more, actually, since the Republicans said from the beginning that they would go along with Bush, while the Democrats were elected on promises of stopping his tyranny).

And your points don't really address the crux of my argument. The Democrats have had control of Congress long enough to introduce an impeachment long before this eleventh hour gambit which is doomed to go nowhere. My objections to the cowardice of the Democratic leadership are not intended to convey an exoneration of Bush or his administration; certainly Bush and Co. are the larger problem. But when I vote for people because they tell me they are going to put a stop to this sort of behavior, and then they do nothing but continue the exact same politics that they ran a campaign against, it makes me upset. The Democratic leadership has betrayed my trust, has openly lied to me to be elected, and has abused the faith I placed in them for their own political gain. I'm not going to support that from anyone, Dem or Rep, because it is wrong. And finally, if, as you contend, impeachment is an unproductive waste of time when you don't have the votes, then why are you complaining that I called this an unproductive waste of time? I think we agree here, no?

I think we need to understand each other. I think Bush is the worst President in the modern era (I won't say ever, because I really don't know that much about the 19th Century or earlier). I think he and his administration have enacted reforms to try and strengthen the Executive branch at the expense of the Legislative and Judicial, I think he has undermined the Constitution on many occasions, I think he misrepresented intel to get us into an unjust war, I think he took steps to politicize the judiciary, I think he was complicit in exposing the identity of an undercover agent, I think he supports torture in defiance of the Geneva Convention, I think he blew the response to 9/11 and Katrina, I think he believes the laws do not apply to him and I believe he thinks himself a king. I hope Bush and his administration are tried, and convicted, of war crimes by the international court and I hope they live out their last days in the Hague. I also think the Democrats have not used anywhere near all the resources at their disposal to effectively stop Bush's reign of terror, I think they have intentionally kowtowed to him because of political pressure rather than doing what is in the best interest of the country, and while I don't feel their inaction is anywhere near as bad as Bush's actions, I do feel they misrepresented their intentions to get elected, and now they are content to maintain the status quo.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage. Nothing but grandstanding and using Bush as a diversion for their own failures and worthless governing policies.

Grandstanding? Taking a stand against the years that Congressional Republicans stood idly by and even helped to approve laws that would help Bush violate the very Constitution this country was founded upon is grandstanding? You're ridiculous.

That's right, Grandstanding. This Democrat controlled congress is worthless and their only hope for re-election is to distract the American people from what's really going on with this garbage.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage. Nothing but grandstanding and using Bush as a diversion for their own failures and worthless governing policies.
:thumbsup:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
When the House and Senate members of both parties make up their minds that they need to get rid of GWB&Cheney, the whole thing can be done in one single day and maybe two
tops. The Supreme court has no jurisdiction and its totally up the the legislative branch. And its final without any appeal when 67 or more senators say aye.

GWB does not even have to be present or be offered a chance to defend himself. Private citizen GWB&Cheney can later bitch all they want but it will not change anything. Any pardons will be up to the next President of the United States.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the House and Senate members of both parties make up their minds that they need to get rid of GWB&Cheney, the whole thing can be done in one single day and maybe two
tops. The Supreme court has no jurisdiction and its totally up the the legislative branch. And its final without any appeal when 67 or more senators say aye.

GWB does not even have to be present or be offered a chance to defend himself. Private citizen GWB&Cheney can later bitch all they want but it will not change anything. Any pardons will be up to the next President of the United States.

It's a pity that so many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle consider it political suicide. I don't see why personally; Bush and Co. are so unpopular, you'd think the people who ended their sorry excuse for a Presidency would be looked on as heroes. Apparently, American voters are a hard lot to peg...
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
When the House and Senate members of both parties make up their minds that they need to get rid of GWB&Cheney, the whole thing can be done in one single day and maybe two
tops. The Supreme court has no jurisdiction and its totally up the the legislative branch. And its final without any appeal when 67 or more senators say aye.

GWB does not even have to be present or be offered a chance to defend himself. Private citizen GWB&Cheney can later bitch all they want but it will not change anything. Any pardons will be up to the next President of the United States.

Or maybe you and most other left wingers on this forum are so deranged and foaming at the mouth, you're like a little child who thinks they should get something just because they want it 'SO VEWY MUCH'.

The extreme left wingers on here reminds me of a little kid who keeps begging his Mom and Dad for a new Alienware $4000 tricked out computer when they can barely afford to put away some money for his college. Everytime one of his friends get something new (everytime some bad news come out from Bush), they begin to foam at the mouth and call out how NOT FAIR IT IS (IMPEACH BUSH!). In the end the kid is a deranged mess if he doesn't get his reality checks in time. That's what most of you are. Deranged little kids that twist every tiny news story and blow it completely out of proportion and form in your heads that it's "ground of impeachment". Like a little kid who has no idea about the value of a dollar, most liberals on here don't care to realize that OPINIONS AREN'T ALWAYS FACTS.

What civil liberties have YOU had to give up?

Personally, I'm afraid to put my future kids into public school because of how bad Liberals have made them. They've dumbed down education, made them unsafe physically and mentally and removed all religions from our NATIONAL HERITAGE from them. How's that for civil liberties obstructed?

Now, in Minneapolis the Government gets to tell people how long they can Idle their cars. Bye bye civil liberty.

In Washington or some other west coast state they're considering (last I heard) banning burning a campfire on the beach because of GLobal Warming. Bye bye civil liberty!

If it hasn't passed yet, (I HOPE), then by 2012 or something we won't be able to buy the lightbulbs we want anymore because of some wackjobs who push unproven theories as petrified science. Bye bye civil liberties!

I look around and I see the Liberal democratic movement DESTROYING this countries backbone and infrastructure with their insane policies and they still manage to get people to believe that Bush is the real problem.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage.

"This garbage" includes TREASON, MURDER, TORTURE, WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and WAR PROFITEERING by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. :thumbsdown: :|

In light of everything that's known about what they've done, anyone who doesn't understand that by now is either brain dead or one of the lying, murdering traitors, or both. Which are you? :shocked:
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Is it any wonder that Congress' ratings are so low?

They could be finding ways to curb spending and shrink the government. Instead, they're wasting their time on this garbage.

"This garbage" includes TREASON, MURDER, TORTURE, WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and WAR PROFITEERING by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. :thumbsdown: :|

In light of everything that's known about what they've done, anyone who doesn't understand that by now is either brain dead or one of the lying, murdering traitors, or both. Which are you? :shocked:

If you had 1/10th as much conviction about what Saddam did... and you actually had some evidence that would hold up in a court of law...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Finally, I find something to half way agree with in what Atomic Playboy said---Apparently, American voters are a hard lot to peg...

What is somewhat unmistakable in the republican primaries of 08 is the fact that the GOP voter still has a grip on reality and the GOP leadership has lost its collective mind in its lock step support of GWB.

And who did the GOP electorate pick, namely the harshest GWB critic to be found in the GOP Presidential field. Here McCain is being pilloried for being the too tame lap dog of GWB,
but compared to the rest of his fellow GOP candidates, he is the only one who said anything critical of GWB.