I sure do remember that, squinney! I'll never forget!!!
Montana wrote:Well gee, the fact that he attacked a country, killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason might call for impeachment!
Only if you can fit it into the prerequisite "high crimes and misdemeanors." You have to find actual written statutes that he violated. Not agreeing with the justifications for some war doesn't quite count as a statutory violation.
I think it goes way beyond not agreeing, Brandon. There are "No Weapons of Mass Destruction", which means there was "No" justifications!
Montana wrote:I think it goes way beyond not agreeing, Brandon. There are "No Weapons of Mass Destruction", which means there was "No" justifications!
I won't belabor the point, because "no justifications" is irrelevant to the process of impeachment. Any person trying to get a president impeached would have to find "high crimes and misdemeanors." This can only be violations of written laws.
Well, I thought war crimes was a high crime, but what do I know?
Anyway, it's Mothers Day and I don't want to debate today, so see you around.
I agree with Squinney that there aren't enough congressmen with guts enough right now to start the impeachment process. It ain't gonna happen, like she said. But, as to Brandon's suggestion that there exist no grounds for such an impeachment, that's not true at all. "High crimes and misdemeanors" can cover a whole gamut of improper behavior, including the somewhat sinister suggestion that there was, at best, a collusion, at worst, a conspiracy, to misrepresent facts about a potentially explosive national emergency. Andrew Johnson was brought up on charges for far, far less than that. What people don't seem to realize is that any member of Congress can, in theory, start the impeachment process on any charge whatever. Whether the Senate then buys the House's argument and actually convicts a sitting officer is another matter. In the case of George W. Bush, neither an impeachment nor conviction seem likely. However, in that same case, this is not because of a lack of cause or evidence to support that cause. It is due entirely to the temerity of the representatives that we, the people, have elected to high offices.
Merry Andrew wrote:I agree with Squinney that there aren't enough congressmen with guts enough right now to start the impeachment process. It ain't gonna happen, like she said. But, as to Brandon's suggestion that there exist no grounds for such an impeachment, that's not true at all. "High crimes and misdemeanors" can cover a whole gamut of improper behavior, including the somewhat sinister suggestion that there was, at best, a collusion, at worst, a conspiracy, to misrepresent facts about a potentially explosive national emergency. Andrew Johnson was brought up on charges for far, far less than that. What people don't seem to realize is that any member of Congress can, in theory, start the impeachment process on any charge whatever. Whether the Senate then buys the House's argument and actually convicts a sitting officer is another matter. In the case of George W. Bush, neither an impeachment nor conviction seem likely. However, in that same case, this is not because of a lack of cause or evidence to support that cause. It is due entirely to the temerity of the representatives that we, the people, have elected to high offices.
Yes, you can try to impeach someone because you don't like his tie, however, proper grounds are "high crimes and misdemeanors" which must be crimes. A crime is a violation of a written law.
I believe that conspiracy to willfully misinform the electorate qualifies as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor," Brandon.
Oh I see, I guess you have to have sex with Monica for it to qualify as high crimes.
I couldn't resist, heehee.
Merry Andrew wrote:I believe that conspiracy to willfully misinform the electorate qualifies as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor," Brandon.
Actually, since misinforming the electorate is not a crime, conspiracy to commit it is not a crime.
You people cannot be serious about this, give him a chance
he is only doing his job, doing what his boss tells him( the Israeli Government)
not2know wrote:You people cannot be serious about this, give him a chance
he is only doing his job, doing what his boss tells him( the Israeli Government)
Interesting. What, precisely, do you see as being the relationship between George Bush and the Israeli government. You said that they are his "boss." Do you think he is being paid by them? Could you flesh this relationship out a bit more?
yes sir :
click here =>
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Sharon's Infamous Comment -
"We Control America"
During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence might "turn the US against us".
To this Sharon retorted:
"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;
WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)
You ain't gonna get far with your anti-Zionist crap on this site, not2. A word to the wise.
Hmmm - say he lied about and had the intelligence fixed.
This seems odd to non-Americans:
Lie about having sex with a consenting adult = impeachment proceedings - massive public humiliation and exposure of sex life.
Fix and lie about the justification to invade another country = nothing to be airegated about. Not a "high crime or misdemeanour."
I know, Deb. Doesn't it seem crazy?
You think you're confused, Deb? Try living here.
