Nader Calls for Bush to Be Impeached

[conjur]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_el_pr/nader_8

CHICAGO - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) called Tuesday for President Bush (news - web sites) to be impeached for "deceiving the American people night after night after night" about U.S. involvement in Iraq (news - web sites).

"When you plunge our country into war on a platform of fabrications and deceptions, and you bring back thousands of American soldiers who are sick, injured or dead, and that war is unconstitutionally authorized to begin with, Mr. Bush's behavior qualifies for the high crimes and misdemeanor impeachment clause of the Constitution," the 2000 Green Party presidential nominee said to applause from about 200 students at Columbia College Chicago.

Nader said President Clinton (news - web sites) was impeached for "far less of an offense."

"Lying under oath is not a trivial offense, but it cannot compare with deceiving the American people night after night after night on national television, staging untruths and rejecting the advice of his advisers," he said.

Merrill Smith, a spokeswoman for Bush's re-election campaign, declined to comment.

Nader previously called for Bush's impeachment during an anti-war rally March 20 in the president's hometown of Crawford, Texas, to mark the first anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Nader, a longtime consumer advocate, was in Illinois to gather the 25,000 signatures he needs before June 21 to qualify for the state ballot. He failed Monday to qualify for Oregon's ballot, but said he would try again under another option there.

Many Democrats blame Nader for Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites)'s loss to Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and have urged him not to run this time. They cite the vote Nader captured in close contests in New Hampshire and Florida and argue that Gore would have won if either state had gone to the then-vice president.

But Nader says Gore is to blame for his misfortune, and he rejected the idea that he could draw support away from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

In Portland, Ore., on Monday, former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean (news - web sites) warned that "a vote for Ralph Nader is the same as a vote for George Bush."

An audience member in Chicago was booed for suggesting something similar.

Nader responded: "What we have to tell the two parties in unmistakable terms is that this country does not belong to two parties."

 

[Ferocious]

Nonsense.

Bush needs to get a little intimate action on the side first.

Then get caught and lie about it.

 

[NumbersGuy]

Ferris Buehler to Nader:

"You are still here? It's over, go home"

 

[ElFenix]

constitution says you can only be impeached for a crime. bad as it is, so far there is nothing criminal.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Damn, C, if your company pays you for looking up stuff and posting it here, then you must be the richest mofo here.

 

[Harvey]

John Dean, the Nixon aide who told him, "There's a cancer on the Presidency," agrees. Last Friday, Bill Moyers inteviewed him on "Now with Bill Moyers." From the synopsys:

Thirty years ago as counsel to Richard Nixon he mesmerized the country with his testimony in the Watergate hearings about "a cancer growing on the presidency." Eventually Nixon would resign and John Dean would go down in history for his role in the Watergate scandal. Now Dean has written a new book - his sixth - in which he concludes that the obsessive secrecy and deception in Washington today is "Worse Than Watergate." The conversation with Bill Moyers is Dean's first television interview on "the hidden agenda of a White House shrouded in secrecy and a presidency that seeks to remain unaccountable" and his book WORSE THAN WATERGATE: THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH.

Here's the transcript of the whole interview[l=here[/url]. From the transcript:

BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write, quote, "The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."

JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states. I cite one. I cite one that I found, I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.

I agree.

 

[rickn]

there's not a chance he would be impeached with a republican dominated congress.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: rickn
there's not a chance he would be impeached with a republican dominated congress.

youre probably right.
the next best thing would be to send him back home to TX to continue life as a one-term failure like his father and the Adams' before them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: rickn
there's not a chance he would be impeached with a republican dominated congress.

youre probably right.
the next best thing would be to send him back home to TX to continue life as a one-term failure like his father and the Adams' before them.

He would be dead, politically, though.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Gee, kind of ironic that Nader is calling for Bush's impeachment, while at the same time he's going to help George Bush get re-elected by taking away votes for Kerry!

HAHAHA, what a great country. You go Ralph!!

I'm gonna send you more money for your campaign!!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
constitution says you can only be impeached for a crime. bad as it is, so far there is nothing criminal.

The Constitution says getting a BJ is a crime???

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: rickn
there's not a chance he would be impeached with a republican dominated congress.

youre probably right.
the next best thing would be to send him back home to TX to continue life as a one-term failure like his father and the Adams' before them.

LOL. A one term president a failure? Isnt that kind of calling someone that won the lottery a loser?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix
constitution says you can only be impeached for a crime. bad as it is, so far there is nothing criminal.

The Constitution says getting a BJ is a crime???

No, but lying under oath is. No matter what it is about, it's still a high crime.

My how quickly we forgive and forget our liberal buddies.

 

[XZeroII]

Show me what Bush did that was unconstitutional. I'm very curious about this. It says something about a war, but since we are not involved in a war, that can't be it. What could it be?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ElFenix
constitution says you can only be impeached for a crime. bad as it is, so far there is nothing criminal.

The Constitution says getting a BJ is a crime???

last i checked perjury is a crime.

 

[rickn]

conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: rickn
conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

So we should punish any public official who makes a mistake and was fed bad information? I know there was a dilbert comic that went into this subject. The only thing it did was it made the employees stop working for fear of being punished if they made a mistake.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: rickn
conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

So we should punish any public official who makes a mistake and was fed bad information? I know there was a dilbert comic that went into this subject. The only thing it did was it made the employees stop working for fear of being punished if they made a mistake.

when it kills 626 americans and climbing, countless innocent civilians, and makes us look like a nation of fools, hell yes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rickn
conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

the way to do that is through the vote. you can't impeach someone if they haven't broken the law. show me the law bush has broken and i'll get in line right behind dave for impeachment.

 

[Wolfdog]

Bush is just as guilty of Clinton was. Congress still went after congress on a technicality that he purjured himself during his testimony about "sexual intercourse". Which of course would be "tecnically" defined as having vaginal intercourse which he hadn't had. Still they pressed on to impeach him for said "technicallity". Now utilizing that example, Bush purgered himself along with his office to the UN, and Congress when he stated his "proof" weeks before he ultimately attacked. He then lied to the entire nation about his now fabled WOMD. The proof is now right here in front of everyone, there were no WOMD. If Congress went after Clinton for that offense than Bush is just as guilty. They don't even have to try him, they could use his public speeches as ample evidence. All I can say is at least Clinton's mistake didn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars of the tax payers money, and the lives that went along with it. So if you feel strongly for it, write, call or generally harass your local congressman and senators. Its why they get paid the big bucks. (to get whined at that is.)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: rickn
conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

So we should punish any public official who makes a mistake and was fed bad information? I know there was a dilbert comic that went into this subject. The only thing it did was it made the employees stop working for fear of being punished if they made a mistake.

when it kills 626 americans and climbing, countless innocent civilians, and makes us look like a nation of fools, hell yes.

631 after today with over 3,000 wounded.

 

[heartsurgeon]

technicality that he purjured himself during his testimony about "sexual intercourse".

You are trying to revise recent documented historical facts.

Clinton purjured himself to a Grand Jury, and suborned purjury (entice and encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie before a Grand Jury).

He was disbarred in Arkansas because of this.

He was not prosecuted by the Special Prosecutor, who could have chosen to do so, because he signed a settlement that included admission of wrongdoing.

He lost a huge civil harrassement suit to Paula Jones because of his actions.

Yep, he brought Dignity to the office of the President of the United States, and it wasn't over a technicality, it was over his actions (multiple i might add).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Bush is just as guilty of Clinton was. Congress still went after congress on a technicality that he purjured himself during his testimony about "sexual intercourse". Which of course would be "tecnically" defined as having vaginal intercourse which he hadn't had. Still they pressed on to impeach him for said "technicallity". Now utilizing that example, Bush purgered himself along with his office to the UN, and Congress when he stated his "proof" weeks before he ultimately attacked. He then lied to the entire nation about his now fabled WOMD. The proof is now right here in front of everyone, there were no WOMD. If Congress went after Clinton for that offense than Bush is just as guilty. They don't even have to try him, they could use his public speeches as ample evidence. All I can say is at least Clinton's mistake didn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars of the tax payers money, and the lives that went along with it. So if you feel strongly for it, write, call or generally harass your local congressman and senators. Its why they get paid the big bucks. (to get whined at that is.)

again, where is the statute that he broke?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: conjur
Nader said President Clinton (news - web sites) was impeached for "far less of an offense."

Clinton was impeached for lying about failing to return his fly to its full upright position. Bush has only lied to Congress, the American people and the world about why he's getting hundreds of American troops killed pursuing WMD's that weren't there while spending us into a half trillion dollar deficit to do it and forgetting to spend enough to catch Bin Laden and finish the job in Afghanistan. :|

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: rickn
conservatives won't argue that he lied, they'll just say he told half-truths and was fed bad information. but in the end, it was the president who stood before the nation and the congress to build his case for war, albeit on false information. He should be held accountable for his actions if they were indeed illegal.

So we should punish any public official who makes a mistake and was fed bad information? I know there was a dilbert comic that went into this subject. The only thing it did was it made the employees stop working for fear of being punished if they made a mistake.

when it kills 626 americans and climbing, countless innocent civilians, and makes us look like a nation of fools, hell yes.

And what if things had turned out differently, and Iraq did have WMD? Would we still flog him? Even though the evidence turned out to be false, if Iraq did have the WMD, should Bush still be punished?