Impeachment hearings?

I'd impeach Bush for being a moron. I believe incompetence is grounds for impeachment, and he is an incompetent moron.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 24 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]337398[/snapback]</div>

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as so far as it does not embarrass you, or make you look bad?

See, it's never Clintons fault. It turns out the guy asking the question forgot the "as so far as it does not embarrass you or make you look bad" part.

Then... When Clinton said Yes... The guy should have then asked him.... "What do you mean by the word 'Yes'?" Again, the incompetent court didn't dig into this.


Bush will only be right about all this war on terrorism stuff in the history books. In January 2009 when he checks out of office and the next guy takes over and reverses course and America takes some kind of big wack to the chops as a result, then everything Bush did comes into focus and was right. Until then, it's every idiot for him/herself as to whether this is right or wrong to do.

As far as your impeachment theories, no one has ever been impeached on the grounds they disagreed with an idiot. Which is all that Bush is accused of for disagreeing with those who are using the impeachment word.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 24 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]337407[/snapback]</div>

I guess it remains to be seen how Bush will be judged in history -- I'm old enough that I well may be gone before enough time passes for an objective perspective. However, just as I don't believe the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean that the current administration has been tremendously more effective at protecting us than prior administrations, I don't believe that an attack on the next idiot's watch (be he democrat or republican) necessarily means that he wasn't doing just as well. Lord help us if that's the only way we can find out if we're doing the right things.

Well I guess idiocy may be in the eye of the beholder -- OTOH my vote is with those who say that I've heard nothing alleged that would rise to the standard of an impeachable offense for Bush. With apologies to Daniel, plain old incompetence just isn't grounds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 24 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]337377[/snapback]</div>

Intentionally misleading us into war - your facts please. Both houses voted in the affirmative to go to war with i believe 17 different articles of war not only related to the potential of Iraq posessing or developing WMD's. Senior members of both parties had access to the same intelligence Bush was given. And even if you are correct - is that a high crime or misdemeanor since he was given permission by both houses to go to war.

War Crimes - name them please. Again, given the permission to go to war all things related to the prosecution of the war are now in the DoD's hands - no. Are you saying bush told the military to go after and kill innocent civilians. Are you referring to the interogation of captured combatants? Is that Bush's crime if after all the guidelines for interogation are determined not by him?

What Violation of his Oath to uphold the Consitution did he violate and would that rise to being a high crime or misdemeanor?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 24 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]337441[/snapback]</div>

Maybe we aren't hearing them right. Maybe they want to impeach the entire house, senate and president.. Shoot, hit the supreme court while you're in town just to make it a clean sweep of the government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 24 2006, 01:36 PM) [snapback]337406[/snapback]</div>

Cute.

Lets speak of moronic presidents:

clinton - lied under oath, lied about something as stupid as having an extramarital affair

carter - to many to list - just moronic, idiotic, a complete fool. would you impeach someone after they leave office for continued stupidity - the "agreed to framework" with noko, Chavez election certification,....

nixon - got him

kennedy - bay of pigs

could go on, but there is not a president around who did not do something stupid during their term in office -

 

Actually, I do hold Clinton at fault for this. He should have said, "None of your God D### business! You've allready wasted 43 million of our taxpayers hard earned dollars chasing boogeymen. Now get back and do you're grosley overpaid jobs!" I wonder if in hindsight, Clinton wouldn't agree?

 

Bill Clinton was an idiot for lying to a Grand Jury, regardless of whether the issue was as mundane as a BJ in the Oval Office.

But then the Republicans showed extremely unfortunate decision-making in attempting to impeach a President because he lied about getting a BJ in the Oval Office. It was obvious to so many people at the time that the Republicans were doing this because they were just pissed off that Clinton was a really popular President and, like school yard bullies, just wanted to get back at him by socking him in the nose (or some other appendage ). I just couldn't believe what was going on at the time. How could people seriously be spending my taxes to do this kind of stuff??

Why did he lie? Because that's what people tend to do when they are caught cheating on their spouses! There you go, it's just that simple. What makes the situation worse is that it should have become clear by then (at least it was to me) that Bill and Hillary have an understanding in their marriage, and they are the only one's that count. If it matters to her then let her deal with it. If he lied about whether he was funneling arms to some rebels in a South American country using drug money...why then I'd be more inclined to throw the bum out.

Unless you Democrats have some kind of actual smoking gun that would show that Bush II intentionally lied to the public (in order to invade Iraq or justify torturing prisoners, for example) then you just don't have much to hang an impeachment hat on. Bush may be a dimwit, but I don't see the "high crimes and misdemeanors" yet. If the Dems win both houses next week, they would be best advised to start trying to fix things with real solutions, not just pull a "Republican".

Vince

 

There should be order:

1. Impeachment
2. Senate Trial
3. Transfer to Syria for some 'tough questioning'
4. War crimes trial
5. Public square in Baghdad for public punishment

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 24 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]337407[/snapback]</div>

Let me put it in big letters:

YES, CLINTON WAS WRONG. WAS IT WORTH A NATION-WIDE SHUTDOWN FOR THE BEST PART OF A YEAR? NO. HAS BUSH LIED OVER AND OVER? ABSOLUTELY. DO WE NEED A HISTORY BOOK TO PROVE THIS? NO. IS BUSH IN THE PROCESS OF REVERSING COURSE RIGHT NOW? READ HIS LIPS!

His latest lie: "I was never for "Stay the course."" Is all logic just suspended for this guy? Dream on.


Guys are dying for this today. Your proposed history books will be little comfort for their parents.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 24 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]337579[/snapback]</div>

People are dying.

The Americans dying are strong young men and women who have made an intentional choice to participate, have been well-trained, and have lots of military equipment (even if often less than optimal).

Most of the Iraqis dying are civilians, who have never chosen to be a part of this, who have done nothing to hurt anyone, who are no threat to anyone, who have no sort of training or protection, and have nowhere to go to get away from it.

Do I "support the troops"? No, I do not. I do want to bring them safely home. I do not want them hurt or killed. But I do not support them while they continue to choose to obey the illegal orders of a madman.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 24 2006, 06:42 AM) [snapback]337274[/snapback]</div>

Agreed!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 24 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]337641[/snapback]</div>

Not entirely true. Pat Tillman, a famous casualty, joined with the intent of fighting in Afghanistan, the hideout of those who attacked us. He told his brother, who joined with him, that they could get sent to Iraq instead with nothing to say about it and he would go if he was so ordered. I'd estimate a large majority of those there didn't join the military to fight in Iraq. The National Guard and Reserve troops are almost by definition in this class.

Soldiers go where they are ordered. It's real easy to be idealistic on the outside with nothing to lose, but soldiers don't have this liberty. We, the citizens of America, took that away from them when they enlisted. You might wish that they stood up all together and declared the war illegal and against humanity, becoming conscientious objectors, but it doesn't work that way. You declaring something illegal is spitting into the wind. This is a nation of laws and nothing I have seen declares this war illegal. Bush has not been certified a madman so this is another less than useful suggestion. We don't get to do this for ourselves in America.

And you must know by now I hold Bush in the lowest esteem.

They're our soldiers and their equipment is substantially short of optimal. They are dying because of this shortage. Feeling sorry for them doesn't help much in a fire-fight. How much do you really care for them? Enough to do something positive to see that they have protection?

As for the Iraqis, you are right. It's their country and they want us out, much like we wanted the British to leave a few years back. I don't think your description of their angelic status is accurate either. No threat to anyone? Would you at least admit they are ornery? They're doing a lot of damage being the simple home-folk you describe. Mostly they are fighting each other in a 1,400 year old war, with American-supplied weapons. We get in the way a lot, suffering casualties. When does a civilian become a soldier? Is a uniform an absolute requirement?

So, what to do about it? Pretend that everybody aspiring to possible leadership is, by definition, hopelessly corrupt and not worth supporting? Use our precious votes for some unelectable pure-as-snow candidate who promises, cross-his-heart, that HE wouldn't turn bad if elected? (I just checked my local ballot and the overwhelming majority of Green candidates out here describe themselves as "financial advisers" and "bankers." What makes this crew so inspire me they'll opt for a better life? Is it all about money with them too?)

Should we let life go on as it is and complain about it? Or is there something above despair and hopelessness that humans can actually pull off? Or should we continue to spit into the wind?

 

People join the military knowing that their principal job will be to kill people. I have some sympathy with those who were tricked into it with promises that as National Guard they would not actually have to fight. But one of the things I learned when I was involved in nonviolent civil disobedience is that you always have a choice. Your options may be to kill or go to jail, but American soldiers have that option.

Remember that the U.S. told the Germans after WW II that following orders is no excuse. Everything the Nazis did was legal, under German law, at the time. But we said, and rightly so, that their actions were so horrible, that they should have known that those actions were criminal, even though they were legal.

As for the civilian casualities, I am not refering to the tiny minority of Iraqis who are fighters. I am refering to the great majority who are not. It is true that the region has a long and vicious history. But that history has always been made by the minority. And most of the civilian victims are entirely innocent.

I have no illusions that the Green Party is composed of saints. But I take the long view that without a viable alternative there is no hope. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that you believe there is more difference between the Republican and Democratic parties than I do. Not that it matters all that much. You are more likely to be struck by lightning on your way to the polls than for your vote to turn the election. Still, I vote. But I vote my conscience. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Everyone tells us to vote, and then half the country excoriates us for voting for the wrong candidate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 24 2006, 05:34 PM) [snapback]337712[/snapback]</div>

No, you are wrong. Entirely and profoundly. People don't join the military knowing that their principal job is to kill people. In all my time in the service I never met such a sociopath. People join the military for a number of reasons but I'd guess the most noble is to protect their country from aggression. Such real evil exists and is a living threat. Pretend that it isn't and you had better be proficient in learning foreign languages. German would have been the choice 60 years ago. Killing people is the last resort and, in my seven years, I never came close nor felt I had wasted my time because I hadn't. And I carried nuclear weapons on my aircraft.

You have a proctologist's view of the world. What is going on in Iraq is not the equal of Nazi Germany. There are degrees of evil, Daniel. You seem to always favor moral equivalence. Exterminating a race is not the same as killing those who shoot at you. We aren't bombing Iraq from the air. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out why: we don't kill civilians indiscriminately. If you think NO civilians killed is the only acceptable answer in a war, you are very naïve. It has always been so. If you think most of the civilians you so worry about are innocent, consider the stream of mothers of suicide bombers. These little old ladies, to a woman almost, exclaim how proud they are of their sons' "sacrifice." People live in a world of their choosing.

We tried and executed the genocidal murderers in Japan and Germany, not the privates in the ranks. In Iraq I favor the arrest and conviction of soldiers who abuse their power. But, to coin a phrase, war is hell. In time of war, not killing when so ordered invites summary execution. There is a real world out there. I invite you to find it and try to make it better, not offer useless platitudes. I have no confidence that your precious Greens would not succumb to temptation any more than the evil Dems and Reps. There is probability and possibility in this world. Much is possible, little is probable. It is possible that the removal of Bush by a Democrat will bring this horror to an end. It isn't probable that a Green will do it. The time for designing the house beautiful is not when it is afire. First things first. Your "long view" is a tree without hope of fruit. It ignores the hard work in favor of the daydream while you sit back and feel noble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 25 2006, 12:26 AM) [snapback]337854[/snapback]</div>

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was your own wife and child who were killed as the soldiers acted under the paradigm that civilian casualties are "unavoidable," and "justifiable," in the pursuit of the bad guys?

I do not know what your religion is, but the leaders of our country profess a religion which states that the killing of people is not acceptable, and that the extravagant lifestyle this war was intended to protect is itself evil.

I guess I'm just a bleeding heart, but I do not believe that this (failed) attempt to gain control of Iraq's oil is worth the blood of tens or hundreds of thousands of children.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2006, 10:16 AM) [snapback]337941[/snapback]</div>

Yes you are. And I will stop there.

And where were you when Saddam was filling mass graves with hundred of thousands of bodies of innocent Iraqi men, women and children? And where were you when he gassed over 100,000 Kurds - using WMD's? And where were you when he invaded Kuwait and slaughted innocent men, women, children and babies in incubators in Kuwait?

And where would you have been if you were German in the 1930's? And I could go on and on ....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 24 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]337462[/snapback]</div>

Lets!

Bush I -- Had Iraq beaten, elected not to finish the job.

Reagan -- Armed Al Queda with stinger missiles. Gave them millions and millions, and CIA training to boot. Because they were *our* islamic fundamentalists.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 25 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]337952[/snapback]</div>

I know the first time I heard about Saddam killing Kurds was when I was wondering why Bush I didn't have the coalition forces rolling into Baghdad. Didn't Bush I encourage revolts in Iraq, and then *DO NOTHING TO HELP*. Don't you wonder about that as well?