1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Double impeachment gains momentum

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by MarinJohn, Mar 7, 2007.

Page 1 of 3
  1. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=172344
    Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney

    "It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

    By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

    So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.

    Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.
     
    #1 MarinJohn, Mar 7, 2007
  2. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    One little-known provision in the Constitution is that if a state introduces a motion to impeach to the US House of Representatives, the House must act on it immediately (whereas if a US Congressman introduces an impeachment resolution, it can be held up in committee). I am hoping that one of the 50 states has the gumption to do it.
     
    #2 larkinmj, Mar 7, 2007
  3. livelychick

    livelychick Missin' My Prius

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    1,085
    0
    0
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 7 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]401792[/snapback]</div>
    C'mon BLUE!!!

    (My little red commonwealth would never do it...)
     
    #3 livelychick, Mar 7, 2007
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Yea, that's just the distraction our country needs...
    I don't think there's any mystery about where I stand on Bush and his presidency, but an impeachment would be a gargantuan waste of time and money....even if successful it's unlikely it would be accomplished during the time Bush will be in office.

    And, trust me, Bush doesn't need any distractions...even using all his brain power and energy and attention he's still doing a crappy job!
     
    #4 efusco, Mar 7, 2007
  5. etyler88

    etyler88 etyler88

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    450
    2
    0
    Location:
    Dover, DE
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 7 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]401809[/snapback]</div>

    I disagree. I would want it to go down in history and to the rest of the world that Americans do not not condone this Mess-o-potamia.
     
    #5 etyler88, Mar 7, 2007
  6. airportkid

    airportkid Will Fly For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    2,191
    538
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 7 2007, 10:48 AM) [snapback]401809[/snapback]</div>
    It's interesting how the framers constructed one of gov't's three branches as a single executive, with power to act quickly when quick action is necessary (nat'l emergency, etc.), but there's no provision for rapid removal from office of someone who's clearly wreaking enormous harm. I suppose setting such a provision up so that it cannot be used capriciously would be a challenge (and even impeachment got invoked capriciously w/Clinton) - but if we insist that an arm of gov't have the ability to act quickly to get us out of trouble by putting that power into the hands of a single executive, we should also have the ability to quickly jettison any executive who gets us INTO trouble and keep the damage to a minimum. The aim, after all, is the welfare of the nation, and if it sometimes requires fast action to protect it from external threats, it sometimes also requires fast action to protect it from internal threats.

    Mark Baird
    Alameda CA
     
    #6 airportkid, Mar 7, 2007
  7. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 7 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]401816[/snapback]</div>
    Congress had the power to keep us out of trouble...but believed information later proven untrue. That said I still think they could have and should have stopped the Iraq debacle...but it's much easier said than done once the momentum for such an act gets going. There are plenty of democrats to blame along with Bush and his fellow republicans.

    I do agree that history needs to record these events in proper context and can see how forcing an impeachment would put some emphesis on that, I think the times need our gov't stable and I don't think it would truely accomplish much. The republicans did it to Clinton to make a point and it ground gov't to a halt for months.
     
    #7 efusco, Mar 7, 2007
  8. Darwood

    Darwood Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    5,259
    268
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    It's all feel good wishful thinking. The time it would take to complete a double impeachment is longer than we have to go until the next election. So we'd be just pissing money and time away. The WH is in stall mode already and will be till they leave office. I'm sure they could stall/obfuscate the process that long, so that no impeachment occurs. It'd be no better than spending millions trying to impeach Clinton for a BJ.
     
    #8 Darwood, Mar 7, 2007
  9. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 7 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]401778[/snapback]</div>
    The cream is rising to the top here.

    Tell me what the charges are your honor that he was convicted of :lol: Please tell me what charges he was convicted of? Then tell me the charge given to Patrick Fitzgerald by the DoJ - hint: it has to with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Then tell me who was the leaker? Then tell me what the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence Assessments of Iraqi WMD (Pages 49-57) calls Mr. Wilson - hint: a bald faced liar. Then tell me who ordered his trip to Niger - did the Vice President’s office? Hint : no -- i will give you this asnwer to make it easier for you -- the Counterproliferation Division at the CIA did. Last question before i get back to work - did or did not American forces discover 500 tons of yellow cake uranium at the nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha, Iraq in 2003?

    go ahead, try to impeach Bush AND Cheney - fire up the conservative base all you want. better yet, after the dems get the ba**s to defund the war have hillary or obama hussein barak lead the impeachment movement. but for hecks sake - the dems should do SOMETHING - stopp flappppping the lips and ACT - PLEASE - its getting boring watching them do NOTHING. you guys are sooooo SMART - prove it.
     
    #9 dbermanmd, Mar 7, 2007
  10. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    I definitely favor the removal of Bush and Co. from office. At this point, i don't think it could happen quickly enough to have any real effect prior to the next elections and whoever is elected then.

    However, i do see plenty of political motivation for impeachment hearings at this point. First, it would serve to point out all of the presidents flaws and give the impression that the republicans cannot be trusted. Second, if double impeachment succeeded, It would put Pelosi in the presidents chair, possibly before the presidential elections, which would potentially help Hilary in her campaign. After all, she wouldn't be the first woman president at that point.

    Both of those political reasons for doing so are, IMO, horrible. The government should do what is in the best interests of the country. A few years ago, that would have meant impeaching Bush and Co, and putting in place an executive capable of making the appropriate decisions regarding the war in Iraq. Now, however, there wouldn't be enough time for any successor to actually do anything before the next guy came along. Impeachment hearings would only serve as a political ploy and a national distraction. In the long term it would show that we, as a nation, did not support the President's war, but in the short term it would embolden terrorists and sectarians in Iraq and demoralize our troops. I cannot, at this point in time, support a move for impeachment.
     
    #10 eagle33199, Mar 7, 2007
  11. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 7 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]401834[/snapback]</div>
    This is basically how I feel on the subject. As much as I dislike this administration and am appaled at their service, I see too many negatives invlolved with impeachment. That does not mean they should not be tried for their errors and made an example of. Otherwise our tolerance for corruption will continue to rise and our collapse immenent.
     
    #11 F8L, Mar 7, 2007
  12. dragonfly

    dragonfly New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    2,217
    7
    0
    Rock on!

    Now THIS is the country I grew up loving!
     
    #12 dragonfly, Mar 7, 2007
  13. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]401830[/snapback]</div>
    For once I am totally in agreement with something that dbermanmd said (although I have to be skeptical about his motives, as the Republicans lately seem to be goading the Dems into cutting off funding for the war, so they can turn it against them). The Dems should have the ba**s to defund the war (are we not allowed to say "balls" on Priuschat?- Stephen Colbert uses that word all the time!) However, they listen to their consultants and the political hacks at the DNC rather than their constituents. The primary reason that the Dems took the 2006 election is that the majority of Americans want this war to end. And it will not end unless Congress exercises the one power that they do have remaining, and cuts off the money. They are afraid to do that, because if they do the Republicans will accuse them of not "supporting the troops"- never mind that it was the Republicans who sent them to Iraq with inadequate equipment, manpower, and training; and then sent the wounded to a rat and cockroach infested VA hospital. So yes, I say again to the Dems in Congress what dbermanmd said- "stopp flappppping the lips and ACT"!
     
    #13 larkinmj, Mar 7, 2007
  14. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    Even an attempted impeachment would show the world that US citizens aren't as stupid as they appear. I'm willing to bet more than half of the country's republicans would support such a move. To do nothing is to empower corporate criminals further. ENRON. After what the repubs did to Clinton, they would not have a chance of realistically rallying behind junior. History must show we protested this administration as a nation. Even those who are listed below should be included, not to get rid of them, (since they are already gone) but to slap them down further.

    The Legal Basis For Impeachment
    http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?JSer...ws_iv_ctrl=1061
    Articles of Impeachment

    of

    President George W. Bush

    and

    Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
    Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

    1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

    2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

    3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

    4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

    5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

    6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

    8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

    9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

    10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

    11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

    12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

    13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

    14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

    15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

    16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

    17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

    18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

    19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

    20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
     
    #14 MarinJohn, Mar 7, 2007
  15. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 7 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]401839[/snapback]</div>
    my motives are true and honest. i would love to see the dems actually try to do something instead of flapppping their lips - as far as i am concerned they control both Houses - its all their responsibility at this point - either way - if they act or not - its all them. right now they are just a bunch of wussies.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 7 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]401855[/snapback]</div>

    way too much time on your hands bro
    and too much koolaid
    now try being real
     
    #15 dbermanmd, Mar 7, 2007
  16. dragonfly

    dragonfly New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    2,217
    7
    0
    <deleted double post>
     
    #16 dragonfly, Mar 7, 2007
  17. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    I'd like to see an impeachment. But it ain't gonna happen. The House may be required to act immediately if a state introduces an impeachment motion (I was not aware of this) but all that means is that the House will immediately vote not to impeach.

    The Dems will vote against for the reasons Evan gives, and the Repubs will vote against for the spurious reasons that the d-man gives, and maybe 3 or 4 iconoclastic Reps will vote for, and that'll be an end of it.

    I agree with Mark that there should be a method, in this nuclear age, of rapidly removing a berserk president from office. Sadly, there is not.

    I also agree that Congress could have and should have stopped this war before it began. The fact that Congress did not do so, is a clue to why it will not impeach.
     
    #17 daniel, Mar 7, 2007
  18. MegansPrius

    MegansPrius GoogleMeister, AKA bongokitty

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    2,437
    27
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]401830[/snapback]</div>
    The admin outed a CIA operative working on Iran's WMD. I'm surprised that doesn't annoy you, you who are so concerned about Iran's nukes.

    And your claim of 500 tons of yellowcake is up to your usual levels of accuracy.

    Well, maybe we found yellowcake at Al-Tuwaitha BECAUSE WE MOVED IT THERE. Too bad we then didn't guard it. Sheesh.

    From the CIA https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...hap4.html#sect4
    Iraq’s main plant for yellowcake production prior to 1991 was at Al-Qa’im. The plant was designed, erected, and commissioned by Mechim Company of Belgium during the period 1982 to 1984. Using phosphate ore from the Akashat mine and the Prayon process, the first batch of yellowcake was delivered to the IAEC in December 1985 with approximately 168 tons delivered through 1991.

    Bomb damage in 1991 destroyed the uranium extraction facility at the Al-Qa’im Superphosphate Fertilizer Plant. In 1991, inspectors found that Al-Qa’im had been heavily damaged in the war and the structure was unsafe. Visits to the site in interim years did not reveal any attempt to reestablish the plant to produce yellowcake.

    In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered     16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. These drums were transferred in late June 2003 to the yellowcake storage facility located at Tuwaitha. There is no evidence that this material had been produced after Desert Storm

    It is of course, unfortuate that we didn't see fit to guard this radioactive waste/low enriched uranium and that the barrels were susequently looted...because Iraqis wanted the barrels, and dumped the yellowcake on the ground.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

    All of the uranium mentioned above is documented as having been mined/purchased abroad prior to 1991. Joe Wilson's discrediting of the Niger Uranium memo was entirely accurate.
     
    #18 MegansPrius, Mar 7, 2007
  19. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    18
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 7 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]401826[/snapback]</div>
    Once again, Y'all are trying to minimize a felony crime.

    Darwood, you are wrong on a couple of fronts.

    1) Clinton WAS impeached.
    http://www.ourtimelines.com/zpcimp.html

    2) It wasn't for a blow job. It was for felony Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice.
    Are not those the exact same charges you liberals are so gleeful that Scooter Libby was just convicted of?
    “Well, why yes it was,†you say? :huh:

    One statement Libby didn't make:
    "I, Scooter Libby, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    So, Libby gets convicted and faces 20-something years in jail. Clinton on the other hand got what? Disbarred? A cushy Presidential retirement? Boated book and tour/speech deals?

    Go ahead and make all the statements you want about it only being about a “blow job,†because, I agree! :eek:

    That is what they both did while testifying before the Grand Jury. . . . but then, that all "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" :rolleyes:
     
    #19 Sufferin' Prius Envy, Mar 7, 2007
  20. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    I agree that impeachment is an extremely remote possibility, although there are certainly ample grounds for it. However, regardless of whether or not impeachment proceedings actually are initiated, there are many actions- war profiteering, missing billions of $ in Iraq funds, false intelligence used to justify war, etc., that should be investigated and accounted for.
     
    #20 larkinmj, Mar 7, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3