Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm. I think the sky may be falling down.

Edgar, is that you? You used to be just a mysterious nose and a mouth. :wink:
(Seems like everyone's avatar is starting to become them).

I know some folks like that www.votetoimpeach.org website,
but you think the sky could actually fall?

Uhoh, Now I've gone and gotten myself on some sort of terrorist list somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department.

I've been trying to follow the posts here, but I keep getting distracted by the tangents.

code
Yep, it's me.
I added the impeach page to my favorites. I think I may contribute a few bucks now and then.

Scipio (what a perversion of an otherwise honorable name) writes:



Apart from no tautology being in evidence, the analogy is feeble to the extent that it barely does not warrent refutation. Barely, but here goes, because i like Bumblebeeboogie, and it appears that no one has yet taken notice of this. The pre-war existence of Saddam Hussein was not doubted by anyone, nor were the resources of the nation mobilized, and thousands of Americans, Brits and Iraqis killed based upon the bare contention of his existence. However, the same cannot be said of weapons of mass destruction. Next time you come here to scream at people, and deport youself in such a disgustingly puerile manner, please bring a better argument than that, 'k?

I hope all here will have the good sense to ignore this obviously hateful poster, so that we can have some dignity in our interchanges. CdK, you are not behaving according to the new standards you've set for yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------

Article I, Section 2 of the constitution reads, in part:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

To impeach simply means to accuse--in this case, this means that the House is the only body which can indict a sitting president. Sorry folks, for however good such a case, it ain't gonna happen.

Article I, Section 3, reads, in part:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

In the extremely unlikely event that you got a Bill of Impeachment--you'd never convict.

Whereas it is a wonderful day dream to think of the Shrub haled before the Senate, it simply is not going to happen, given the current composition of the Congress. The only scenario in which this could reasonably be expected to occur would be after the next election, to have Bush in office, after the Democrats capture both the House and Senate. The prospect of former is so sickening, and the latter so fanciful, that i cannot investigate that further.

Scip old boy if you are going to be the first to answer a new thread and start it with YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK, don't expect much from anyone there, Dale Carnegie.

Good point. Sorry guys, got a little heated as I was just arguing this point with someone else.



I see a tautology. I thought I wouldn't have to draw it out. A tautology isn't necessarily a good thing, btw. I forget the latin phrase for my Saddam quotation, but I'll use the words of a famous way to end a concluding paragraph:

I did make a point. I could go on to say how huge Iraq is (have any of you driven through California?! quite big, if I say so myself). How easy it is to hide an inch square cube in 12 years. How easy it is to get it through the borders. Look at a map of Iraq, the only countries that MIGHT be a problem to get WMDs through are Iran and Turkey, but the word still is MIGHT.

Now, to the issue at hand, I do not believe that this is an impeachable offence. Why? Well, if my memory serves me correctly, and it does Proof, he not only went through this congress, but if he was Bill Clinton, he could have gone through the congress before last as well!

I also believe that he did not make this war in order for oil or beause his daddy had any unfinished business. Statements such as the former are assanine and puerile and statements such as the latter are easily refuted by cold hard fact.

Is this sentance really necessary? Makes the rest of your post look like sh*t.

Galdamn big words dictionary again, :wink: A2K word of the day club I tell ya, how my ever keep up and know literary stuff beyond me, fine just fine, then here ... :wink:

pu·er·ile (pyr-l, pyrl, -l) adj. -- Belonging to childhood; juvenile.
Immature; childish. See Synonyms at young.


tau·tol·o·gy (tô-tl-j) n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.

2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.


bel·li·cose (bl-ks) adj. --
Warlike in manner or temperament; pugnacious. See Synonyms at belligerent.


----------
What, the thread? Oh.
"What then is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history..."
(from www.votetoimpeach.org/notes_4.htm )

Damn pugnacious if you ask me.

Your opinion of my post is, McGentrix, i assure you, a matter of complete indifference to me. As for my comment on Scipio's use of that as a screen name, i happed to have some respect for Publius Cornelius Scipio, and none for this poster, who has come here and flamed many another member, simply for not having the same political point of view as he. Given, however, that he has had the decency to have apologized for his initial remark, i withdraw mine.

Dunno, Setanta. Looked up Scipio, and maybe the name is not such a funny choice. Lot of arrogance, and from an early age he thought he had divine inspiration. Was not particularly well-liked or admired, and retired early.

Yes, well Mamajuana, i did note that i had "some respect" for P. Cornelius Scipio, not unqualified respect. I also filter all such comments about figures in Roman history through the qualifier that Roman history was almost entirely written by members of the class of Patres, and that the petty jealousies and invidious attitudes of that class toward other members of their order, especially the successful, are a given. As far as "Lot of arrogance, and from an early age he thought he had divine inspiration. Was not particularly well-liked or admired, and retired early." -- i would not argue with much here, except that i fear our Scipio is not likely to retire early.

He may be your scipio, but he's not mine. And I think retirement is where the scipio is at, except not here.

Sic semper scipio.

Scipio,

Your comment on the vastness of Iraq is noted. Please note that I think WMDs will be found yet still think the administration overstated their case for the war in an untoward way.

By the way, Mamjuana, for a thoroughly devasting critique of Scipio, you should read Cicero's essay on that man. Cicero was a practicing lawyer in an era when virtually any literate member of the Patrician class was considered competent to argue a case before magistrates--and there were few following law as a profession. Without going the obvious route of taking the piss of lawyers, i'd simply note that he has a wonderful ability to write closely reasoned condemnations of others, a talent facilitated by freedom from answering the victim in person--Scipio had long been dead when Cicero vilified him. Given the evidence of great intelligence and an ability to very flexibly (zat a word?) respond to unexpected situations, i wouldn't give odds on Cicero, were it possible to arrange a debate between the two.

Read part of the Dream of Scipio in translation.

I think those who like Roman history like words and reading. I have always been fascinated by the study of languages, and what happened in the shifts of the Latin vulgate (none of which is here or there).

How did we get onto this, except for the pronouncements of a scipio here - obviouly the younger.

I don't care much if we stray from the initial theme of a thread--and, in fact, would posit that this is the best part of such fora as these. By the by, i said our Scipio only in the sense that we are obliged to deal with the fact of his presence, rather in the sense that P. Cornelius Scipio was to the Cartheginians, their Scipio.

The thread seemed pretty much decided anyways.
(No impeachment in 'da House).

Wow. You guys really really know how to make a new member feel welcome. Instead of saying "Scipio, this is how we do things here" you resort to written attacks. You are not the end all and be all. You do not have to deal with my presence. Feel free to ignore me. Who knows, i might just slip away into the darkness and reemerge in two weeks with a different name, a different IP, and you'd never know that I was the real Scipio. For all you know I might have been a member of a while ago.

The amount of pseudo-intellectualism here is amazing. In fact, Craven is one of the few I respect here. He's probably put up with the most **** from me, but at least he's trying to better myself.

I have made a decision. This will be the last post from me, the one you know as Scipio. The prophecy has come true, in a sense. Where it fails is that I will be resurrected, in a couple weeks from now, with a new name, a new persona, and the satisfaction that you'll never know the difference.

Mamajuana said it best

Untill a few weeks from now, lates

Codeborg said--
The thread seemed pretty much decided anyways.
(No impeachment in 'da House).
-------------------
But, I do think we had a lynchin'. <No need to go, scipio. Come back and take it like the rest of the non-libs!>

I think if you could prove a sitting President lied to fabricate reasons for war, there could be an impeachment.