Ralph Nader relates that Bush wont be impeached

[AAjax]

I dont know if he's correct on this but a scary idea all the same.
If this is true, we are far further down the rabbit hole than most people think. I always liked Naders consumer protection efforts, but truly know little about his overall credibility.

 

[Tab]

While I think Ralph Nadar is a bit crazy I do honestly do think this man has done more than most people on earth can ever hope of doing.

I may disagree with his opinions on some issues but I truly think he's a great man. His documentary is incredible.

Ralph Nadar

 

[First]

Nader didn't say that, he said another Dem said it (forget the name). He was using it as an example of the thinking of some Congressmen on Capitol Hill. I honestly doubt many Congressmen believe that and this Dem may have just been trying to play to his constituency that voted by a 2/3rds margin for impeachment.

In the end, though, I think it's pretty absurd to think that would happen. The outcry would be so huge, from both sides of the aisle, that he'd be removed by force somehow. Something historic would have to take place to remove him if that's what he did, but he'd get booted almost immediately if he randomly declared marshall law or bombed Iran or something asinine like that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:tinfoil;

:roll:
This same sort of BS was floated around the end of Clinton's term by the Clinton haters. Hopefully the left can shut their own kooks up like the Right did to the haters back around 2K. It does nothing for political dialog or debate as it's nothing but paranoia run amok.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nader is absolutely right. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and they should have long ago. Nader lists 5 crimes they are guilty of. The fact that the Democrats, either because they are paranoid imbeciles or cowards only shows too well they are worthless as a party and as an opposition. They are traitors too. The 2/3 majority that voted to impeach should recall their representative and replace him with one willing to represent.

Bush is the most titanic disaster the US have ever faced. He needs to be impeached. He has destroyed any credibility there might have ever been in the notion of the separation of powers to prevent fascism marching here in America. We are on our way.

 

[blackangst1]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Not according to John Dean - and he should know . . .

Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's, says Watergate aide

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nader is absolutely right. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and they should have long ago. Nader lists 5 crimes they are guilty of. The fact that the Democrats, either because they are paranoid imbeciles or cowards only shows too well they are worthless as a party and as an opposition. They are traitors too. The 2/3 majority that voted to impeach should recall their representative and replace him with one willing to represent.

Bush is the most titanic disaster the US have ever faced. He needs to be impeached. He has destroyed any credibility there might have ever been in the notion of the separation of powers to prevent fascism marching here in America. We are on our way.

If there were grounds for impeachment; you would think that Conyer and the rest of the rabid left side Democrats would have been able to come up with articles.

What they have is a ineffective anti Bush crowd that is unable to generate more that hot air. Bush has been able to outwit them at almost every turn; he seems to have more smarts than his opponents give him credit for.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nader is absolutely right. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and they should have long ago. Nader lists 5 crimes they are guilty of. The fact that the Democrats, either because they are paranoid imbeciles or cowards only shows too well they are worthless as a party and as an opposition. They are traitors too. The 2/3 majority that voted to impeach should recall their representative and replace him with one willing to represent.

Bush is the most titanic disaster the US have ever faced. He needs to be impeached. He has destroyed any credibility there might have ever been in the notion of the separation of powers to prevent fascism marching here in America. We are on our way.

Dang something I agree with you on 100%

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nader is absolutely right. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and they should have long ago. Nader lists 5 crimes they are guilty of. The fact that the Democrats, either because they are paranoid imbeciles or cowards only shows too well they are worthless as a party and as an opposition. They are traitors too. The 2/3 majority that voted to impeach should recall their representative and replace him with one willing to represent.

Bush is the most titanic disaster the US have ever faced. He needs to be impeached. He has destroyed any credibility there might have ever been in the notion of the separation of powers to prevent fascism marching here in America. We are on our way.

le to

If there were grounds for impeachment; you would think that Conyer and the rest of the rabid left side Democrats would have been able to come up with articles.

What they have is a ineffective anittBush crowd that is unable to generate more that hot air. Bush has been able to outwit them at almost every turn; he seems to have more smarts than his opponets give him creadit for.

House Resolution 333 has been filed on the " Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors " It currently has 20 cosponsors.

Article I:
... that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

That despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

That preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress of the United States.

Why not impeach Bush?

"... Because if we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president.

It's significant and responsible to start in this way, because if the same charges would relate to the president as relate to the vice president, you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively..."
- Dennis Kucinich

$70+ million was spent impeaching William Jefferson Clinton in 1998 for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing ?the nature and details of his consensual relationship with a subordinate Government employee,? )

A simple majority in the House is all that is necessary to impeach Cheney.

Watch The Dark Side from PBS and see . . . . .

"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies," Cheney told Americans just after 9/11. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the "dark side."

In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.

Early in the Bush administration, Cheney placed a group of allies throughout the government who advocated a robust and pre-emptive foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. But a potential obstacle was Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration who had survived the transition by bypassing Cheney and creating a personal bond with the president.

After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there's a new line on it. There's a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it's as though there's a private line, private communication between those two," former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet's CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE details how questionable intelligence was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public.

From stories of Iraq buying yellowcake uranium from Niger to claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, "The Dark Side" dissects the now-familiar assertions that led the nation to war. The program also receounts the vice president's unprecedented visits to the CIA, where he questioned mid-level analysts on their conclusions. CIA officers who were there at the time say the message was clear: Cheney wanted evidence that Iraq was a threat.

At the center of the administration's case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report's principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made. Pillar also reveals that he regrets participating in writing a subsequent public "white paper" on Iraqi WMD. "What was the purpose of it? The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it," Pillar says.

For the first time, FRONTLINE tells of George Tenet's personal struggle in the run-up to the Iraq war through the accounts of his closest advisers.

"He, I think, asked himself whether or not he wanted to continue on that road and to be part of it. And I think there was a lot of agonizing that George went through about what would be in the best interest of the country and national interest, or whether or not he would stay in that position and continue along a course that I think he had misgivings about," says John Brennan, former deputy executive director of the CIA.

Tenet chose to stay, but after the failure to find Iraqi WMD, the tension between the agency and Cheney's allies grew to the point that some in the administration believed the CIA had launched a covert war to undermine the president. In response, Cheney's office waged a campaign to distance itself from the prewar intelligence the vice president had helped to cultivate. Under pressure, Tenet resigned. Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, would later admit to leaking key sections of the NIE -- authorized, he says, by Cheney. Libby also stated that the vice president told him that President Bush had declassified the material. Insiders tell FRONTLINE that the leak was part of the battle between the vice president and the CIA -- a battle that many believe has destroyed the CIA.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets not blame congressional democrats for a failure to impeach. The democrats can come up with enough votes to impeach in the house, but getting the 67 votes in the Senate
is presently impossible over lockstep GOP opposition.

Unlike watergate, where it took better than 15 months to get clear and unmistakable evidence that Nixon violated the law in obstructing justice, the case against Cheney and Bush is clear, compelling, and self admitted by GWB&co. The problem is and remains the public mood and the GOP. And given the basic fact that if the trial in the Senate were conducted today, GWB and Cheney would not get convicted, so why subject the American people to the agony?

Regardless if Nader or some other person said it, we can look to a possible future in which GWB&co. may do something so outrageous and stupid, and then a possible impeachment and conviction could become a real possibility as even the GOP feels compelled to desert GWB&co. In much the same manner that they did during watergate when the last tapes were released in late July or Early August of 1974. In the case of Nixon, he counted noses, realized he would be convicted, and resigned rather than make a fight of it.

For all the ill that can be spoken about Nixon, I still think a clear case can be made that he still put the good of our country above his person. He could have perhaps fought the 1960 election on the grounds of vote fraud in Chicago and declined to do it. Even though Nixon was fairly heavy handed at the end with sacking Cox and Elliot Richardson, Nixon could have been far more aggressive in quashing the watergate investigations.

And now Nader comes up with the unasked question, would GWB be able to put the good of they country above his own personal interests in event of almost certain impeachment and conviction? To a certain extent he has enabling legislation written into the Patriot act to enable him to declare martial law and just take over as dictator.
Would our courts stand idly by? Would the American people stand idly by?

On those latter three questions, I have to sadly conclude that our country has degenerated in the 34 years since Watergate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets not blame congressional democrats for a failure to impeach. The democrats can come up with enough votes to impeach in the house, but getting the 67 votes in the Senate
is presently impossible over lockstep GOP opposition.

Unlike watergate, where it took better than 15 months to get clear and unmistakable evidence that Nixon violated the law in obstructing justice, the case against Cheney and Bush is clear, compelling, and self admitted by GWB&co. The problem is and remains the public mood and the GOP. And given the basic fact that if the trial in the Senate were conducted today, GWB and Cheney would not get convicted, so why subject the American people to the agony?

Regardless if Nader or some other person said it, we can look to a possible future in which GWB&co. may do something so outrageous and stupid, and then a possible impeachment and conviction could become a real possibility as even the GOP feels compelled to desert GWB&co. In much the same manner that they did during watergate when the last tapes were released in late July or Early August of 1974. In the case of Nixon, he counted noses, realized he would be convicted, and resigned rather than make a fight of it.

For all the ill that can be spoken about Nixon, I still think a clear case can be made that he still put the good of our country above his person. He could have perhaps fought the 1960 election on the grounds of vote fraud in Chicago and declined to do it. Even though Nixon was fairly heavy handed at the end with sacking Cox and Elliot Richardson, Nixon could have been far more aggressive in quashing the watergate investigations.

And now Nader comes up with the unasked question, would GWB be able to put the good of they country above his own personal interests in event of almost certain impeachment and conviction? To a certain extent he has enabling legislation written into the Patriot act to enable him to declare martial law and just take over as dictator.
Would our courts stand idly by? Would the American people stand idly by?

On those latter three questions, I have to sadly conclude that our country has degenerated in the 34 years since Watergate.

We can't remove the poison bullet from your artery Sir, because the operation might kill you. You will be dead of the poison in a month so why not take a nice vacation. I don't understand people like you who can rationalize catastrophe away because it's not politically convenient to address. We are indeed a different country than 34 years ago and you and people who think like you are the reason.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nader is absolutely right. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and they should have long ago. Nader lists 5 crimes they are guilty of. The fact that the Democrats, either because they are paranoid imbeciles or cowards only shows too well they are worthless as a party and as an opposition. They are traitors too. The 2/3 majority that voted to impeach should recall their representative and replace him with one willing to represent.

Bush is the most titanic disaster the US have ever faced. He needs to be impeached. He has destroyed any credibility there might have ever been in the notion of the separation of powers to prevent fascism marching here in America. We are on our way.

Dang something I agree with you on 100%

I was thinking the same thing

 

[nageov3t]

eh.

ralph nader is responsible for anything bad that comes out of the bush presidency, imo

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry Moonbeam, you are totally off base when you write-----We can't remove the poison bullet from your artery Sir, because the operation might kill you. You will be dead of the poison in a month so why not take a nice vacation. I don't understand people like you who can rationalize catastrophe away because it's not politically convenient to address. We are indeed a different country than 34 years ago and you and people who think like you are the reason.

I would get rid of Bush and Cheney in a hearbeat if I could. Then you blame me? I am just telling you the present reality I don't like in the larger Country and the real question Nader is asking of what happens when the mood shifts and its politically possible to impeach and convict. A basic case of killing the messenger while ducking the message that the sickness is in the larger country. And spare your prediction of sudden death, I have endured GWB&co for six plus years, I have not suffered in silence, and if the poison kills me, its also going to kill hundreds of millions of others. An all too distressing possibility with GWB&co.

The other point that should be made is that a premature and failed attempt to impeach GWB&co. would only strengthen GWB&co. Do you really want that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sorry Moonbeam, you are totally off base when you write-----We can't remove the poison bullet from your artery Sir, because the operation might kill you. You will be dead of the poison in a month so why not take a nice vacation. I don't understand people like you who can rationalize catastrophe away because it's not politically convenient to address. We are indeed a different country than 34 years ago and you and people who think like you are the reason.

I would get rid of Bush and Cheney in a hearbeat if I could. Then you blame me? I am just telling you the present reality I don't like in the larger Country and the real question Nader is asking of what happens when the mood shifts and its politically possible to impeach and convict. A basic case of killing the messenger while ducking the message that the sickness is in the larger country. And spare your prediction of sudden death, I have endured GWB&co for six plus years, I have not suffered in silence, and if the poison kills me, its also going to kill hundreds of millions of others. An all too distressing possibility with GWB&co.

The other point that should be made is that a premature and failed attempt to impeach GWB&co. would only strengthen GWB&co. Do you really want that?

You seem to believe the message you are sending so my criticism stands as far as I can see. I am not worried about your hypothetical as it is just what I described about the poisonous bullet. I know what the political reality is, I'm telling you you are a part of why its what it is. Damn the torpedo's, bro, full speed ahead.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481
eh.

ralph nader is responsible for anything bad that comes out of the bush presidency, imo

And boy is that true.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Topic Title: Ralph Nader relates that Bush wont be impeached
Topic Summary: because he would declare martial law and suspend elections

Nader didn't say that. It would help to keep the discussion on track if you assigned the quote to the person who actually did. In the video, Nader starts by saying that dozens of communities in Vermont, Massachusets and Connecticut had voted to passed resolutions calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment, and thirteen towns in one Congressional district around Stockbridge, Ma passed their vote by a 2/3 majority and presented their petitions to their representative, Congressman John Olver, who refused. Nader continued:

Rather, he expressed his opinion that the current autocratic executive, meaning the Whitehouse, would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law and call off the 2008 national elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:tinfoil;

:roll:
This same sort of BS was floated around the end of Clinton's term by the Clinton haters. Hopefully the left can shut their own kooks up like the Right did to the haters back around 2K. It does nothing for political dialog or debate as it's nothing but paranoia run amok.

For the umpteenth time, Clinton WAS impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Congressional trial. Clinton was convicted of purjury, for which he was fined and had his license to practice law revoked.

He was NOT convicted of starting a war based entirely on lies that, as of 10/13/07 11:59 pm EDT, has resulted the deaths of 3,827 American troops, left tens of thousands more American troops wounded, disabled and scarred for life, and squandered TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

Those numbers aren't going to go down. They will only get worse, and your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of murderers and traitors are directly responsible.

Unlike Clinton, the Bushwhackos are guilty of far worse crimes against the American people and the world than lying to Congress about their failure to restore their flies to their full upright position upon landing. They're guilty of TREASON, [/b]MURDER[/b] and more.

Originally posted by: Generic Neocon Bullshitter
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

If we can't impeach these criminal assholes when they're so damned guilty of so many egregious high crimes, you're right. The blue sky promise of our beautiful Constitution is falling.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AAjax
Topic Title: Ralph Nader relates that Bush wont be impeached
Topic Summary: because he would declare martial law and suspend elections

Nader didn't say that. It would help to keep the discussion on track if you assigned the quote to the person who actually did. In the video, Nader starts by saying that dozens of communities in Vermont, Massachusets and Connecticut had voted to passed resolutions calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment, and thirteen towns in one Congressional district around Stockbridge, Ma passed their vote by a 2/3 majority and presented their petitions to their representative, Congressman John Olver, who refused. Nader continued:

Rather, he expressed his opinion that the current autocratic executive, meaning the Whitehouse, would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law and call off the 2008 national elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:tinfoil;

:roll:
This same sort of BS was floated around the end of Clinton's term by the Clinton haters. Hopefully the left can shut their own kooks up like the Right did to the haters back around 2K. It does nothing for political dialog or debate as it's nothing but paranoia run amok.

For the umpteenth time, Clinton WAS impeached. He wasn't convicted in the Congressional trial. Clinton was convicted of purjury, for which he was fined and had his license to practice law revoked.

He was NOT convicted of starting a war based entirely on lies that, as of 10/13/07 11:59 pm EDT, has resulted the deaths of 3,827 American troops, left tens of thousands more American troops wounded, disabled and scarred for life, and squandered TRILLIONS of dollars of current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

Those numbers aren't going to go down. They will only get worse, and your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of murderers and traitors are directly responsible.

Unlike Clinton, the Bushwhackos are guilty of far worse crimes against the American people and the world than lying to Congress about their failure to restore their flies to their full upright position upon landing. They're guilty of TREASON, [/b]MURDER[/b] and more.

Originally posted by: Generic Neocon Bullshitter
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

If we can't impeach these criminal assholes when they're so damned guilty of so many egregious high crimes, you're right. The blue sky promise of our beautiful Constitution is falling.

So tell me trollboy...if Bush IS impeachable, what explaination do you have why Pelosi will not press for it? As rabid as the Democratic base is to bury Bush, I would think impeachment would be a free bone. And why is it the bill subitted by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Cheney has been buried in commitee since April?

The way I see it is...one, Bush isnt impeachable, or two, the Democrats are blowing hot air and support him 100%. Is there another explaination?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So tell me trollboy...if Bush IS impeachable, what explaination do you have why Pelosi will not press for it? As rabid as the Democratic base is to bury Bush, I would think impeachment would be a free bone. And why is it the bill subitted by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Cheney has been buried in commitee since April?

The way I see it is...one, Bush isnt impeachable, or two, the Democrats are blowing hot air and support him 100%. Is there another explaination?

Because if they pretend to have a shred of ethics, credibility, or guts, go ahead and impeach Bush & Friends, then they themselves would have to continue to act ethical and credible, and those kinds of behavior has no place in modern politics. Having ethics is also less profitable than being corrupt.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So tell me trollboy if Bush IS impeachable, what explaination do you have why Pelosi will not press for it?

It's called politics, and I'm not very happy about it.

As rabid as the Democratic base is to bury Bush, I would think impeachment would be a free bone. And why is it the bill subitted by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Cheney has been buried in commitee since April?

You could have stopped right after, "I would think." You don't think; you LIE.

The way I see it is...one, Bush isnt impeachable, or two, the Democrats are blowing hot air and support him 100%. Is there another explaination?

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 10/13/07 11:59 pm EDT, your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have murdered 3,827 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 3,684 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

The lack of action by Congress doesn't change the facts and the law that make George W. Bush and his administration guilty of the murder of all of those American troops who have died in Iraq. If you believe otherwise, you get to show us why. Facts, not opinions, please.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son

(tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. If you still argue that any excuse the Bushwhackos have offered is anything but lies, either you haven't been paying attention, or you're one of the participants in their conspiracy of lies.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?

Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office.

"The way you see it" is the view you get when your head's buried so far up between your gluteal cheeks. Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes, despite all the documented evidence against them, means you're far worse than any troll. Either you're in complete denial, or you're one of the traitors.

Which is it? :roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Alright Harv. How about adressing what I asked?

one, Bush isnt impeachable, or two, the Democrats are blowing hot air and support him 100%. Is there another explaination?

You said, "The lack of action by Congress doesn't change the facts and the law that make George W. Bush and his administration guilty of the murder of all of those American troops who have died in Iraq. If you believe otherwise, you get to show us why. Facts, not opinions, please."

Last time I checked the House of Representatives determines what offences are impeachable, not the public. Perhaps YOU need to get your facts straight.

You said, "If you still argue that any excuse the Bushwhackos have offered is anything but lies, either you haven't been paying attention, or you're one of the participants in their conspiracy of lies."

Last time I checked, the MAJORITY of congress, BOTH parties, AND the public, found justification for war. Remember that? Memory a little foggy? Unless, of course, you believe alllll those speeches by senators PRIOR to GWB taking office were brainwashed when he was still governer of Texas? Partisan much?

And finally, in your very poignant description of murder, perhaps you are a little too simple to understand the rules for war are different. Bitch and moan all you want, but it is what it is. Also, lets say for a minute we take your word here. You >>DO<< understand EVERY president and VP has had servicemen/women die in the line of duty whether it be a peacekeeping mission or a skirmish...do you support their conviction of murder also? I doubt it.

Now. Please answer my first question.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets examine the Nadar, Moonbean, and Harvey contentions.

First the Nadar version expressed by Harvey----------Rather, he expressed his opinion that the current autocratic executive, meaning the Whitehouse, would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law and call off the 2008 national elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment.

Second the Moonbeam version--------You seem to believe the message you are sending so my criticism stands as far as I can see. I am not worried about your hypothetical as it is just what I described about the poisonous bullet. I know what the political reality is, I'm telling you you are a part of why its what it is. Damn the torpedo's, bro, full speed ahead.

Third the Harvey conclusion-------------If we can't impeach these criminal assholes when they're so damned guilty of so many egregious high crimes, you're right. The blue sky promise of our beautiful Constitution is falling.

I too would like to see full speed ahead, damn the torpedo's bro. I also agree that our constitution is failing. But do we want to see the Nadar contention come true when GWB
political support is still 30% and GWB could possibly get away with it? Is it not better to wait until some future giant scandal so politically weakens GWB to the point where he can't possibly get away with trying the worst Nadar's fear method.

Meanwhile, I maintain our congress should be doing far more than it is doing to limit GWB&co's options. And better press ahead on the investigations, put the pressure on many more small fish and big fish. It took 15 months to get Nixon, slow and steady wins the race.

Or do you want the Nadar contention to come true? Choose wisely because you may only get one bite of the apple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets examine the Nadar, Moonbean, and Harvey contentions.

First the Nadar version expressed by Harvey----------Rather, he expressed his opinion that the current autocratic executive, meaning the Whitehouse, would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law and call off the 2008 national elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment.

Second the Moonbeam version--------You seem to believe the message you are sending so my criticism stands as far as I can see. I am not worried about your hypothetical as it is just what I described about the poisonous bullet. I know what the political reality is, I'm telling you you are a part of why its what it is. Damn the torpedo's, bro, full speed ahead.

Third the Harvey conclusion-------------If we can't impeach these criminal assholes when they're so damned guilty of so many egregious high crimes, you're right. The blue sky promise of our beautiful Constitution is falling.

I too would like to see full speed ahead, damn the torpedo's bro. I also agree that our constitution is failing. But do we want to see the Nadar contention come true when GWB
political support is still 30% and GWB could possibly get away with it? Is it not better to wait until some future giant scandal so politically weakens GWB to the point where he can't possibly get away with trying the worst Nadar's fear method.

Meanwhile, I maintain our congress should be doing far more than it is doing to limit GWB&co's options. And better press ahead on the investigations, put the pressure on many more small fish and big fish. It took 15 months to get Nixon, slow and steady wins the race.

Or do you want the Nadar contention to come true? Choose wisely because you may only get one bite of the apple.

Dad gum it Lemon you went completely sour on this one and you're not getting out by making lemon aid. Nadar, regardless of how much he may have contributed to the election of Bush wants him impeached and now, just as I do. He is not saying that Bush will bomb Iran and all that other crap. He is saying that that is either the delusions of a paranoid democrat congressman or else evidence of the worthlessness of the Democratic opposition. Nadar wants Bush impeached and is saying that timidity you express is a paranoid delusion or evidence of worthless cowardliness. Nadar is saying, 'Grow a pair, man'. We are dying of poison and need to operate now. We have a bad case of fascist cancer.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Alright Harv. How about adressing what I asked?

one, Bush isnt impeachable, or two, the Democrats are blowing hot air and support him 100%. Is there another explaination?

You said, "The lack of action by Congress doesn't change the facts and the law that make George W. Bush and his administration guilty of the murder of all of those American troops who have died in Iraq. If you believe otherwise, you get to show us why.
Facts, not opinions, please."

Last time I checked the House of Representatives determines what offences are impeachable, not the public. Perhaps YOU need to get your facts straight.

Then, you'd better check again. The U.S. Constitution defines impeachable offenses as high crimes and misdemeanors, not the House of Representatives. I already posted the facts and the law supporting the reasons Bush, Cheney and their entire criminal adminstration are eminently impeachable for TREASON, MURDER and numerous other high crimes. We can skip the misdemeanors. It would appear you're too reading challenged to understand plain English.

Last time I checked, the MAJORITY of congress, BOTH parties, AND the public, found justification for war.

Remember that? Memory a little foggy? Unless, of course, you believe alllll those speeches by senators PRIOR to GWB taking office were brainwashed when he was still governer of Texas? Partisan much?

Then, you'd better check again. Then you'd better check again, instead of continuing to spread those same LIES!

Congress passed a resolution giving your TRAITOR IN CHIEF (not some previous administration) authoriity to use force as a LAST RESORT. It has since become known that the Bushwhackos were planning to go to war against Iraq from the very beginning of their first term of office. 9-11 was the reason we attacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and it was the obvious and right thing to do. Then they LIED to Congress and the American people to use 9-11 as an excuse to springboard their more sinister objectives against Iraq and forget about every option other than their war of LIES.

In so doing, they screwed the pooch in Afghanistan, and today, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are almost as strong as they were before we started that battle against our REAL enemies.

George W. Bush and his lying, murdering cabal spewed a successive pile of LIES on LIES on LIES to Congress and the American people, the same LIES the last straggling, blame shifting, knuckle dragging neocons like you are still trying to shove at us years after they've been discredited. GET OVER IT!

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear and "stovepiped" their bogus "intel" to lie to Congress and the American people about their reasons for starting their war of LIES.
  
• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

And finally, in your very poignant description of murder, perhaps you are a little too simple to understand the rules for war are different.

This has nothing to do with the rules of war. It has to do with Federal and state statutes against MURDER.

• The Bushwhackos LIED to start a war that has been the direct cause of the deaths of thousands of Americans.
  
• Those deaths are a foreseeable consequence of the war they started for their entirely false reasons.
  
• They LIED in callous, reckless, wanton disregard and with depraved indifference for the lives and safety of our troops.

They are guilty of MURDER. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: