Isn't it time to impeach Bush?

You can't ignore what it actually says. It says:

Treason - a crime
Bribery - a crime
High Crimes - it even says a crime
Misdemeanors - a category of crime

OMFG here we go again:



I am going to say it again becuse it is an irrefutable fact:

William Jefferson Clinton never admittted to having committed perjury.

The standard reading is "high crimes or high misdemeanors" The thing to note about all these crimes is that they are all crimes against the country or malfeasance in office. The intent was not to impeach for jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk.

The standard was and should be a crime against the country in some form or another. The fuzziness comes in deciding what is "good" for the country and "bad" for it in deciding the "high misdemeanor." Lying while in office is hardly a high misdemeanor but lying to take the country in a certain direction might be. It all depends on the point of view.

In my opinion, this says that the basis of the impeachment must be an actual crime, that is, a violation of a written statute. Lying (I don't think this happened, but assume it did) without being under oath is not a crime.

I guess that depends on what the meaning of "or" is. Someone who doesn't have a clear understanding of that simple word should not be attempting to argue Constitutional Law.

Everyone has the right to state and defend his opinions here.

How many HUNDREDS of thousands of innocent people did Saddam kill?????

No.....you probably wouldn't want to answer that question.......you would rather appologize for Saddam and impeach your own president for removing a butcher who laughed while he killed.. Get real kids.

It just makes my skin crawl to even seem to agree with Brandon on any political issue, however . . .

This is a fantasy. You'd never get a bill of impeachment through the House, and even in the event that such a near impossibility did occur, you'd never get a conviction in the Senate. It just ain't gonna happen.

As for the Shrub's future happiness, that boy is so far gone, he don't even need to inhale anymore. The fantasy world he inhabits will be peaches and cream for him for the rest of his days.

Say whatever you wish; that does not in any way alter the fact Clinton admitted to perjury.

In the past you would never have agreed with me about anything. Now you're agreeing under protest. You see the trend? A year from now, you'll be asking me what your opinion should be.

HEY

BRANDON


WAKE UP ! ! !


Yer dreamin' . . .

zzzzz...zzz....What? Where am I?

Here's a thread from way back, long dormant now, which addressed much same issue from a different point of view.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3180

I believe he is actually joking.

Is not telling the truth to the American people, Congress and others not a crime? Not impeachable?

Is spending billions of dollars on a war and killing / maiming thousands of Americans based on those lies not a crime?

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

squinney

Apparently it isn't

Having read the 36 page document, and having read just about all the cited supporting documentation - in its entirety - it is my assessment Hyde proves nothing beyond that some folks of a given partisanship viewed the available information differently than did some others of a differing partisanship, and that the document strongly indicates Hyde, et al, are not to be trusted with matters of national concern. I take great comfort in the knowledge the voice of such is The Minority Voice.

I certainly would not deny that voice the right to be heard. In fact, it is my feeling the proponents of that minority voice serve chiefly to further marginalize the weight of their opinion, and thus their influence over matters of national policy, with every trip they make to the forum of public debate. In many respects, The Opposition is deserving of The Re-Elected, Strengthened, and Ongoing Administration's "Most Valuable Player" award. I wish The Opposition well in its efforts to cement its position as The Minority Voice, and applaud their success so far in their many accomplishments to that end.

Whatever

It seems that we tax-and-spend bleeding heart libruls aren't the only ones concerned about these revelations.
Merry (who said there ain't 'nuff votes for impeachment?) Andrew


Eighty-Eight Members of Congress Call on Bush for Answers on Secret Iraq Plan
Raw Story

Thursday 05 May 2005

Eighty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

The members say they are seeking an inquiry.

"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."

The letter follows.

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.


British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."


A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.


A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Members who have already signed letter:
Neil Abercrombie
Brian Baird
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Harold Ford, Jr.
Barney Frank
Al Green
Raul Grijalva
Louis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Rush Holt
Jay Inslee
Sheila Jackson Lee
Jessie Jackson Jr.
Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
William Lacy Clay
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Zoe Lofgren
Donna M. Christensen
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Carolyn McCarthy
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Michael Michaud
George Miller
Gwen S. Moore
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
James Oberstar
John Olver
Major Owens
Frank Pallone
Donald Payne
Charles Rangel
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Bennie Thompson
Edolphus Towns
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Chris Van Hollen
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Robert Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert R. Wynn