I stumbled on a wonderfully written article describing the redundancy and absurdity of partisan politics and its influence over Congress' greatest power over the Executive Branch: impeachment. You can take a look here: http://www.slate.com/id/2172547/fr/flyout In the article it mentions that 45% of the general public support an impeachment of President Bush given his unilateral abuse of executive privilege and the various lies which led us into war with a rather unempowered Iraq. I'm curious whether this poll will follow Sir Gallup. Personally, I firmly believe that partisan politics (which is neither required or protected under the Constitution itself) is the largest shortcoming of our republic insofar as maintaining proper checks and balances of Executive power and decision making. The chances of an impeachment -- our republic's greatest weapon against blind authoritarian rule -- of a Republican President with a Republican House/Senate are clearly quite slim; the same principle applies equally to Democrats. The constitutional debates did not suggest party politics or affiliation, and George Washington himself decried and criticized such division as unsuitable for a true representative democracy. As I recall, Jefferson also denounced the "party platform" as a means to gaining notoriety and positioning in government. I am most curious to find out what this poll reveals if you base your decision purely on the facts, and not by blind allegiance to your party.
On the one hand, I think most people expect an impeachment inquiry would get dragged down in partisan politics. The Democrats have a slender majority, but not enough to actually convict the President. As previous issues with this Congress have shown, it is hard for many to understand that the Dems just don't have the numbers to override a veto. None of this suggests they should buckle on the issue, but I think right now the only thing that will convince Pelosi to at least give the impeachment issue a chance before Congress would be a million or so Americans converging on Washington, D.C., quite literally demanding blood. Only if impeachment seems like a compromise will it get remotely fair consideration. If e'er we needed a proper third party on a national scale, it's now. Of course, I expect we'll be able to say that more and more frequently; I don't foresee a recession of political ineptitude, or a revival/institution of proper and decent good faith until circumstance demands it. And, of course, by then, it may be too late to save the Republic. Would we rather go the way of the Romans in history, or Coruscant in myth?
Yet, a Republican Congress saw fit to impeach Bill Clinton on moral standards. What's more important, Constitutional integrity and setting a landmark precedent on intolerable Executive decision and lies pertaining to national security, war, and billions of tax dollars spent on unnecessary and inappropriate nation building, or whether a President lied about an extramarital affair that has nothing to do with upholding the U.S. Constitution!?!? BTW, the vote is anonymous -- so please vote your position!
Tiassa: "Would we rather go the way of the Romans in history, or Coruscant in myth?" Coruscant? Surely most here aren't as ignorant as I of mythology. I'm shamed to admit, I had to look that one up. Help me, Wookipedia- You're my only hope!
If we don't impeach Cheney or his puppet, it will be a grave disturbance in the Force. Like thousands of people suddenly screaming in megadeath somewhere far, far away, and nobody caring who's accountable. My Jedi sense is telling me I shouldn't try any more Star Wars analogies. I seriously think the guidance of our Founders, and the Constitution is adequate for our understanding if we will only take heed.
Not that I agree with it, but Clinton was impeached for perjory, not moral standards. Furthermore having parties is not prohibited by the constitution, therefore it's part of our rights of assembly and free speech. Yes, Bush should be impeached, as well as Cheney and Gonzales. This isn't partisan, since whatever Bush can get away with now becomes a precedent for the next president in power, which could be a Democrat.
"This isn't partisan, since whatever Bush can get away with now becomes a precedent for the next president in power" Exactly right. Heaven help us if we leave this precedent, and competent fascists then take the stage.
Are you seriously saying that Bush should be impeached because of partisan politics? If that is your standard, is impeachment retroactive? Because every president is partisan. Wasn't this tried with Andrew Johnson? Fortunately, he was not removed from office. The whole idea is enormously absurd and indicative of major ignorance. You and your ilk should be terribly embarassed to have even brought it up. Can you find something substantive for such grounds?
No. I'm saying that partisan politics breaks the otherwise strong legs of impeachment and puts it in crutches. Substantiation? Sure. WMD = War with Iraq No WMD = Continued war with Iraq, plus billions in nation building and more US life lost. War on Terror = 6 year Deer Hunt for bin Laden, others w/ little success War on Terror + War with Iraq = overbroad executive privilege, billions spent on a propaganda machine known as Dept. of Homeland Security (what the hell color is it today anyway??), overreaching legislation on wiretapping/survellience, and a huge money pit for the war machine & oil industry. If 45% of the nation believes impeachment is proper (did you read the article???), I'm not all that embarassed of my views.
There are good reasons to impeach these guys. Sanctioning of torture and rendition, illegal spying on Americans, indefinite detention of Americans, lying about the reasons for the war in Iraq...
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I meant. The only difference is that Clinton said no to "sexual relations" under judicial oath, whilst Bush said WMD under his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and its principles. To me, a breach of the latter is far more superior and incredulous.
And then whenever questioned, he goes behind closed doors, not under oath, with Dick Cheney by his side to coach him, with no transcripts available as well. Hey, at least he's covering all his bases, heh. - N
You still do not get it do you? It is partisan politics driving the “movement” and there are no impeachable offenses. You are pissed because some won’t impeach Bush and you are bitching because you think it partisanship politics driving the anti-impeachment idea. However, it is partisanship driving the impeachment idea to begin with. Again, you have nothing substantive to complain about. You don’t like Bush, primarily because you have been entirely mislead by your people, so you want him impeached. When those who could won’t you are pissed at them; so you want someone in there who will force the issue. You are so blinded that you cannot even see the hypocrisy. Beyond your own blindness, politically speaking partisanship is not a bad word. It has been going on for quite awhile now. The manner in which it is used is what has made it a bad name. Otherwise, partisanship is nothing more than standing for your principles (at least it used to be). Pelosi has no principles. That is why she can give you the impression that she will do something to get the ball rolling and not do it. She bought you off and others and you are pissed. Don’t get me wrong it happens on both sides of the aisle, but you cannot deny the media role in all of this. Look, if I go to your work and bitch about you everyday. If I point out all of your mistakes daily and any other negative related to you, your co-workers will start to see my point. If I convince your boss, you may get fired. The truth is all that happened was that I just simple bad mouthed you and left everyone with a negative impression of you. But the truth is you may be the most wonderful person in world to work with. Now I am not saying Bush is wonderful, he isn’t. I am unhappy with him politically. However, the point is that when you are told every day for six years what a dunce someone is after a certain point you are prone to believe it. Especially, if you are not a very good thinker. Let me clarify a bit, and allow me to admit that my meaning could be cleared by using other words or phrases. However, I do not necessarily equate intellect with being a good thinker. Nor was I saying you are not a good thinker or not intelligent, I was referring to the masses. Returning to the point at hand, I can tell you that 95% of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh listeners that call in to their shows do not want the president impeached, so which side is right? Did the American Research Group ask you what you thought? I know they did not ask me. So what is your point? Your substantiation is poor. I will not go into great detail over my opinion of war or this particular war. Suffice as to say: 1. WMD’s were found. As of June 2006 500 chemical weapons were found in Iraq (reported by Fox News). The article did say that the weapons were probably made before 1991. But, as far as your claims and others who think similarly, the fact remains that weapons were found. Beyond that, simply saying that the president believed there were weapons and not finding them is not grounds for impeachment. 2. Saying that Bin Laden has not been found is not grounds for impeachment. If this were a legitimate case, then one must consider O.J. O.J. vowed that from the day he lied until the day he died that he would find Nicole’s killer. That has been 13 years ago. It is only fitting that he should be picked up and placed in jail for not catching the killer. I grant that is obviously not a good comparison, but I trust you are clever enough to get my point. 3. Executive privilege is not grounds for impeachment. If it were, then every president would have been impeached. Sorry, but you have failed to provide substantive reasons for impeachment. Did the Clinton impeachment not teach you anything?
"Sorry, but you have failed to provide substantive reasons for impeachment." HR 333 contains what you seek in reference to Cheney: Grounds for impeachment of the President are available at impeachbush.org, along with a wealth of information on the Constitutional purposes and procedures of impeachment. I apologize for the length of the quote, but I couldn't sensibly pare it down any more. The entire document is worth reading for anyone sincerely interested in considering the alleged crimes of this administration.
Stop this bullshit about WMD's! Everyone believed Sadam had WMD's before the war! Bush was mistaken on that issue, not lying. Why would he lie? Wouldn't he know his lie would soon be found out? And if he lied, why not go whole hog and plant WMD's if we didn't find them? Unless you have proof that Bush knew what no one else did, then you are full of shit on this issue.
Let's assume the Bush administration intentionally lied about the WMDs and look at today how nothing is even happening in regards to them not being found. Lie or no lie, they got away with it and nobody is doing anything about it, so it matters little. - N
besides most assumed the dolts in charge were privy to shit tack on imminent danger and a mushroom kinda day in ny.......most kowtowed
There is proof Bush was pushing for Iraq for a long time. Richard Clarke informed us he tried to twist 9/11 into an Iraq connection, for one example. And not everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. Sadly, the Democrats in Congress did spinelessly and unforgivably fall in line with Bush. That is why I can't support Hillary (beyond believing in WMDs she even helped make the case...she makes me ill). However, lots of people did not buy it. The rest of the world/UN did not...Obama did not...I did not... Why? Because the case was entirely flimsy...
