Impeacheable? Bush?

englishmajor wrote:

Since we are off the topic, at the moment, of impeaching Bush, thought I'd send this thought provoking article along. Ignoring Geneva Conventions, for starters, ought to be grounds for impeachment......I'd think......

Some Kind of Manly
Bush administration, dead to morality, says torture is the American way

by Molly Ivins

Interesting.

So is torture supposed to be a high crime or a high misdemeanor, and how so?

0 Replies

I'm looking for practical answers oralloy. Not a cycle of chaos. I'm leaving.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Again, I am asking for someone to give me a charge with evidence that would lead to an impeachment.

You too?

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

I'm looking for practical answers oralloy. Not a cycle of chaos. I'm leaving.

My answers are unpractical and chaotic???

All I did was state the truth.

0 Replies

Your not looking hard enough.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
There's no lack of legal opinion (of the appropriately educated sort) suggesting Bush's actions may well be impeachable. There's just no possibility of that given a Republican controlled congress.

oralloy wrote:

Quote:

Is any of it of higher quality than what englishmajor just posted?

And do I still beat englishmajor's grandmother? It is, as they say, likely adequate to the task. The administration and the JD went immediately into full court press on this one, and in a christmasy gifting spirit (or re-gifting more appropriately - John Yoo to the JD, JD to you) offer up not one but two or three legal defences to the FISA go-around. Partly, that's just standard administration PR - immediately hit back at criticism. But the courts are not falling into line with this administration's notions of why the proclaimed war on an 'ism' logically/legally provide Bush with an excuse to shove his hand deep in his shirt a la Napoleon (eg lastest slapdown) and the legal boys in the WH know it.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Your not looking hard enough.

Looking hard enough for what?

I answered your questions.

I don't expect to spend a lot of time looking for impeachable acts on Bush's part. If anyone has something that they think fits, they can present it, and I'll see if I agree.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
The WMD threat was a lie.

Can you prove that?

You place the burden appropriately. Of course, there's the little matter of the administration's on-going obstruction of any investigation by congress or independent prosecutor into the question. And there is clearly good reason to suspect that the charge may very well be true. This question, like many others, will likely gain no purchase so long as one party rule is in place. 2006 could change that, of course, an eventuality which will be marked by a measureable rise in the Potomac (displacement from all those newly-rusting hard-drives).

0 Replies

oralloy said:

Quote:

Got an explanation to help the Republicans see why they should even care after Clinton was placed above the law?

Well, the question goes begging, why should dems care whether republicans care? Throughout the Clinton impeachment, the majority of American citizens didn't care about the issue and correctly understood it to be a political hatchet-job (see Joan Didion's "Political Fictions", for example).

As to the last sentence, please refer to Guiliani's exquisite reasoning a la "moral equivalences".

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Quote:

Is It good for the country what the Republicans are doing now?

Just what are their motives?

At what cost to America do the seek it?

oralloy wrote:

Quote:

I'd say good.

Their motives are to win the war.

Post 9/11, the cost of victory is irrelevant.

Oh goodness. I don't think I'm having fun any longer. That last sentence is of the absolutist sort which no libertarian-minded dem or republican of an IQ above 100 would countenance.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
blatham wrote:
There's no lack of legal opinion (of the appropriately educated sort) suggesting Bush's actions may well be impeachable. There's just no possibility of that given a Republican controlled congress.

oralloy wrote:
Quote:
Is any of it of higher quality than what englishmajor just posted?

And do I still beat englishmajor's grandmother?

?????

I would think you don't beat anyone.

blatham wrote:

It is, as they say, likely adequate to the task.

Article 1 charges Bush with creating a police state and a dictatorship, a ludicrous charge.

It also accuses Bush of "ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress".

Since when did it become illegal for the president to pressure lawmakers to vote his way on legislation?

And since when did partisan leftist sentiments, like "totalitarian" to refer to the Patriot Act, become part of any reputable charges?

In addition, the article seems to be completely unaware of the Geneva Conventions, and the fact that they allow captured combatants to be held until the end of the war. I would think even passing familiarity with the Geneva Conventions would be necessary for anyone making credible charges that someone violated them.

From there, it goes downhill, both logically and factually.

The entire gist of article 2 is that disadvantaged minorities are more likely to join the military because they lack other options.

How this long-standing social condition is Bush's fault, they don't quite manage to say.

Article 3 accuses Bush of offering countries incentives to support him on the Security Council.

As if that is not the way the Security Council has worked from the beginning. And as if that isn't the way international coalitions have always worked.

Truly ludicrous.

Article 4 seems to accuse Bush of nuking Iraq, as best I can tell.

"This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons"

Maybe we dropped a couple 1.2 megaton bombs on Baghdad one day and I was too busy to watch the news.

Article 5 accuses Bush of going to war without Congressional approval.

He got congressional approval.

The only task which that absurd document is adequate to is "summarizing leftist partisan mythology".

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

oralloy said:
Quote:

Got an explanation to help the Republicans see why they should even care after Clinton was placed above the law?

Well, the question goes begging, why should dems care whether republicans care?

Assuming that they gain the House after 2006, and that they manage to find some impeachable charges, they'll still need Republican votes if they want the Senate to convict.

blatham wrote:

Throughout the Clinton impeachment, the majority of American citizens didn't care about the issue and correctly understood it to be a political hatchet-job

That would be an incorrect understanding.

Perjury and obstruction are both high crimes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Post 9/11, the cost of victory is irrelevant.

Oh goodness. I don't think I'm having fun any longer. That last sentence is of the absolutist sort which no libertarian-minded dem or republican of an IQ above 100 would countenance.

Sometimes absolutist sentiments are the correct sentiments.

I want the annihilation of al-Qa'ida, no matter the cost. That desire has no bearing on my IQ (which is well over 100).

0 Replies

Do I recall correctly that the Senate found Clinton not guilty of those high crimes of which he was accused? Every time I see a reference to the Clinton impeachment by the Right, this fact seems to be conveniently overlooked. There seems to be a "guilty by accusation" mindset here. He was impeached, ergo...

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Do I recall correctly that the Senate found Clinton not guilty of those high crimes of which he was accused?

Correct, despite the fact that the evidence clearly showed that Clinton had committed the crimes.

So, the Democrats, having recently given Clinton a pass on his crimes (and being quite unapologetic about it), now expect the Republicans to hold Bush responsible for any crimes he hypothetically committed??

They just may have overestimated the Republicans' ability to stomach Democratic hypocrisy.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
blatham wrote:
There's no lack of legal opinion (of the appropriately educated sort) suggesting Bush's actions may well be impeachable. There's just no possibility of that given a Republican controlled congress.

oralloy wrote:
Quote:
Is any of it of higher quality than what englishmajor just posted?

And do I still beat englishmajor's grandmother?

?????

I would think you don't beat anyone.

blatham wrote:
It is, as they say, likely adequate to the task.

Article 1 charges Bush with creating a police state and a dictatorship, a ludicrous charge.

It also accuses Bush of "ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress".

Since when did it become illegal for the president to pressure lawmakers to vote his way on legislation?

And since when did partisan leftist sentiments, like "totalitarian" to refer to the Patriot Act, become part of any reputable charges?

In addition, the article seems to be completely unaware of the Geneva Conventions, and the fact that they allow captured combatants to be held until the end of the war. I would think even passing familiarity with the Geneva Conventions would be necessary for anyone making credible charges that someone violated them.

From there, it goes downhill, both logically and factually.

The entire gist of article 2 is that disadvantaged minorities are more likely to join the military because they lack other options.

How this long-standing social condition is Bush's fault, they don't quite manage to say.

Article 3 accuses Bush of offering countries incentives to support him on the Security Council.

As if that is not the way the Security Council has worked from the beginning. And as if that isn't the way international coalitions have always worked.

Truly ludicrous.

Article 4 seems to accuse Bush of nuking Iraq, as best I can tell.

"This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons"

Maybe we dropped a couple 1.2 megaton bombs on Baghdad one day and I was too busy to watch the news.

Article 5 accuses Bush of going to war without Congressional approval.

He got congressional approval.

The only task which that absurd document is adequate to is "summarizing leftist partisan mythology".

Sorry, I was unclear. I wasn't referring to the englishmajor paste (I didn't read it). Rather, I was referring to various legal/constitutional opinions that I've bumped into over the last few days regarding this matter. Constitutional knowledge and legal reasoning at this level is not something I can claim expertise regarding. I'm constrained to a narrow and quite insufficient band of adjudicating for myself whether the speaker has the requisite background himself or herself and whether they have a political axe to grind.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:
oralloy said:
Quote:

Got an explanation to help the Republicans see why they should even care after Clinton was placed above the law?

Well, the question goes begging, why should dems care whether republicans care?

Assuming that they gain the House after 2006, and that they manage to find some impeachable charges, they'll still need Republican votes if they want the Senate to convict.

blatham wrote:
Throughout the Clinton impeachment, the majority of American citizens didn't care about the issue and correctly understood it to be a political hatchet-job

That would be an incorrect understanding.

Perjury and obstruction are both high crimes.

OK. On the first, I assumed you referred to the electorate generally. Impeachment would require Republican votes only if some Dems don't go along (likely scenario) as this is established by majority vote, in my understanding.

On the second, a deeply relevant question isn't whether he was guilty of perjury (he was...but was he also found guilty of obstruction?) but rather whether the entire political process which ended up in impeachment was driven by a goal of smear/impeachment. And that's where the citizen perception was absolutely understandable.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Post 9/11, the cost of victory is irrelevant.

Oh goodness. I don't think I'm having fun any longer. That last sentence is of the absolutist sort which no libertarian-minded dem or republican of an IQ above 100 would countenance.

Sometimes absolutist sentiments are the correct sentiments.

I want the annihilation of al-Qa'ida, no matter the cost. That desire has no bearing on my IQ (which is well over 100).

The annihilation of al qaida and "the war on terrorism" are no longer the same thing at all.

Clearly your IQ is well over 100. But note the "libertarian-minded" modifier. That's a mindfulness which is not compatible with absolutism of the sort you voice.

I asked previously (I didn't see an answer though you may have advanced it) whether you'd lost someone in 9/11. If so, please let me know and I'll end off on this line of discussion.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
Do I recall correctly that the Senate found Clinton not guilty of those high crimes of which he was accused?

Correct, despite the fact that the evidence clearly showed that Clinton had committed the crimes.

So, the Democrats, having recently given Clinton a pass on his crimes (and being quite unapologetic about it), now expect the Republicans to hold Bush responsible for any crimes he hypothetically committed??

They just may have overestimated the Republicans' ability to stomach Democratic hypocrisy.

I'm a Canadian though presently living in Manhattan. I don't belong to any party anywhere and was active politically only once briefly, when I was too young to vote (in support of an exceptional man, Pierre Trudeau). I mention all this as lead in to a proposition I'd like you to seriously consider, a proposition arising from a fairly objective observer.

As you likely know, when Clinton's impeachment was in the works, there was a broad consensus outside of the US that the whole matter was quite trivial because it 1) involved a personal sexual matter at base and 2) it was broadly seen as a consequence of not merely a certain oddly American take on sexuality (rather Victorian) but also that it was a political hatchet-job - that is, that it was driven by a purposive strategy involving lots of funding and activism to discredit Clinton and to regain the White House for Republicans (for perspective, the present administration has suffered merely a handful of investigations while the Clinton administration suffered hundreds).

Of course, many in your country held simillar notions. In the end, the Republicans had to ease off on the whole matter because it was hurting them in the polls and electorally. Increasingly, the matter was seen inside (and moreso outside) the US as a political ploy which involved Clinton lying, true, but lying about a matter which many thought insufficiently serious and lying because, it was perceived, he had been forced into that position exactly because of the political machinations going on to unseat or discredit him.

For many, the more egregious acts in this whole matter related not to Clinton's blowjob and lying, but rather to the expenditures of money and civic representatives' time taken up by the matter (when they ought to have been thinking about governance and the citizens instead).

And I'll ask you further, as part of this proposition, to consider that for many of us looking at the US from outside or from inside, that there are matters relevant to this administration of far deeper import, most specifically, the possibility that the administration began a questionable war (Iraq) while knowingly forwarding deceits and exaggerations to manufacture support and now, perhaps also while violating laws carefully worked out previously to prevent abuses of political power.

It is from this perspective that the charge of democratic hypocisy carries rather less weight. Not all lies are equally despicable. Not all searches for lies are equally well-motivated.

0 Replies

re opinions on impeachment, I'll paste those I bump into in my reading.

First, from Norman Ornstein (of the American Enterprise Institute, no less) said yesterday on the Dianne Rehm show on public radio,

Quote:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

0 Replies

Impeacheable? Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know