To Impeach, or not to Impeach, That is the Question?

Hope you and the Budster are doing well. : )

reading and rating....

More asinine comments from lex looser.........................

I am all for impeachment. In fact, I have a bumper sticker (though it's not on my car) that says, "Will someone just give him a blowjob already so we can impeach him?" hehehe. Granted, it's never gonna happen. Thank goodness he can't be elected again....

I don't think that impeachment will help any body because the vice pres. isn't any better. Next year is elections I would wait.

I am not a fan of Bush however, their is no clear cut case for impeachment. This talk of impeachment is just that, talk. It will never bear fruit no matter how much you wish it.

Ron -

Is this article written by the same Ray McGovern that stood with his back turned to the altar, in church, for a year, to protest women being considered for the clergy?
Is it the same guy who chaired a "people's court" attempting to "indict" Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for war crimes?

I see your article also trots out that old Conspiracy mainstay, John Dean, from Watergate fame. This guy is so dirty that his name does not lend credence to anything he says.

Looks like another Left-leaning article, with no balance at all. Typical.

Impeachment is imperative, not something we just want, folks. If you leave the unitary executive model unassailable, it's there for the next megalomaniac, and he might just want you to call him fuhrer.

Bret,
I don't care who or what the guy has done before, he makes perfect sense on this issue, and I've vetted the facts contained here. If you have an argument about the facts as presented here, make them. That's what I thought, you can't.

Lex Loser, move on idiot. You can't argue the facts so you insult.

Impeachment you say!! those fascist criminals (bush,cheney etc)should be happy with anything short of hanging!!!! In fact why not give them a fair trial like their friend Saddam had,then the same result.
This country will be a lot safer without them in power......

It really isn't about Bush or Cheney at this point, it's the Unitary executive model that is the real danger. Leaving that intact is the most dangerous thing we could do for the future of this country. Impeach, Sign onto the petition and write your rep in congress to support Dennis's bill to impeach. Conyers is looking for three more cosponsors and he says he will act on it, that is very close, folks, it isn't pie in the sky.

I say let those "peaches" fly!

Impeach Bush? On what grounds? For going to war in Iraq - No Congress voted for that. For the Patriot Act? - No Congress voted for that. For what? Impeaching a sitting President is a serious matter and not easily done. That article claims Bush engaged in electronic eavesdroping ets. Got news THAT TOO WAS VOTED ON BY CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED ON THE QUESTION. btw the "evesdropping is and was done on INTERNATIONAL calls by certian individuals not everyone and not domestically. Of course the media reports differ.

I think Conyers and company are still ticked off that Clinton was brought up on impeachment for lieing about having sex with Monica. Far as I am concerned that impeachment should have been approved. Not for lieing which he did, Not for having a sexual relationship with Monica. He should have been hung up by his gonads for doing it IN THE OVAL OFFICE. He desecrated the office of the head of government as well as the presidency. It showed NO respect for the office he held.

If Clinton could not be impeached what makes anyone think Bush can be impeached.

Colonel George W.,
"Impeach Bush? On what grounds? For going to war in Iraq - No Congress voted for that. For the Patriot Act? - No Congress voted for that. For what? Impeaching a sitting President is a serious matter and not easily done. That article claims Bush engaged in electronic eavesdroping ets. Got news THAT TOO WAS VOTED ON BY CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED ON THE QUESTION."

No, it most certainly was not. Bush has tried to claim it was authorized by the permission to use force against Iraq, but it was not, and most legal scholars say he's in big trouble on that one. Laughable, is the most common comment.


btw the "evesdropping is and was done on INTERNATIONAL calls by certian individuals not everyone and not domestically. Of course the media reports differ.


No one knows what it was done on, or who it was done on. They have drawn a veil around it citing national security, but according to some telco sources, it was much more ambitious than that, and we know it was much more seriuos than that , because the whole top echelon of his own Justice Department threatened to resign before they would ok it, and he then had some changes made. When your own people threaten to quit over your NSA spying program, I doubt the use was as eclectic as you think, my friend.

"I think Conyers and company are still ticked off that Clinton was brought up on impeachment for lieing about having sex with Monica. Far as I am concerned that impeachment should have been approved. Not for lieing which he did, Not for having a sexual relationship with Monica. He should have been hung up by his gonads for doing it IN THE OVAL OFFICE. He desecrated the office of the head of government as well as the presidency. It showed NO respect for the office he held."

I don't think anyone's mad about Clinton being impeached, since he was aquitted, and showed the world how ridiculous the Republicans were doing it. I would bet he wasn't the only one that used the oval office for a bit of sex play, either. Power is an aphrodisiac, this much we know. Hell, Nixon probably had Pat doggy style over the desk, for craps sake, don't be so naive. Other people get laid, and we can't help it if it's a foreign concept to Neocons.

"If Clinton could not be impeached what makes anyone think Bush can be impeached."

Do you know history at all? Clinton WAS impeached, he was exonerated, is all. I doubt if Bush will be able to duplicate that performance.

Ron Now I know - you believe every thing the media says. If you are going to impeach you need more than media hype. JMO but I think we should throw ALL the Bas======= out and elect a whole new Congress and Administration. They are all controlled and work for corporations who support them. This country needs a new direction and getting rid of a President woln't do it. That would only be a start.

I personally couldn't care less if they impeach Bush. Want a reason? Check out the NAFTA highway and the meeting between "Leaders" of Canada, Mexico, and the US in Waco Texas. read about in my article on that subject.

You'd have had to dig pretty deep in the MSM to find out about much of this stuff, it is no longer liberal, it is corporate, and they only report what they find advantageous. Your point on throwing them all out is well taken, but it won't change unless we run the lobbyists out first. I am aware of the NAFTA Highway Colonel, and oppose it too, but it looks like they aren't asking us, just like so many things they've done.

Ron You are SO right. Wish I could get my hands on the minutes of that meeting in Waco and find a news person with the guts to publish. Would be Pulitzer material.

Damn...Lex Luthor made me so mad I had to go tell him off with an e mail. Not a bad thing, I feel a lot better already. I noticed a couple of things in his recent articles bin that I think I will go check out. I think they are the generic, icons for instructions.

IMPEACHMENT is a political not criminal action. it does not even require a unanimous jury to convict. Good sense and politics both require that some reason be given for impeaching a President. But the reason does not have to be anything more than he won't do what Congress tells him to do. The President administers the law and government. He commands the armed forces only to do the will of Congress.

I believe that George Bush has exceeded his authority by vetoing the withdrawal timetable. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war. Therefore they and they alone have the power to declare an end to war.

Hey, I signed the "Impeach Cheney First" petition... everyone?

Jean -

I saw these nutjobs outside my office, lurking again. I signed it "Ted Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts"...........I'm sure they'll count it.

Ron -

"No, it most certainly was not. Bush has tried to claim it was authorized by the permission to use force against Iraq, but it was not, and most legal scholars say he's in big trouble on that one. Laughable, is the most common comment."

You might want to go read up on HJR 114, the Iraq Authorization bill that passed overwhelmingly in 2003. It gives Mr. Bush all the authorization he needed to invade Iraq.
Don't you recall all those impassioned speeches FOR invasion, by Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, etc., etc., etc.? I do.

I was talking about wiretapping outside FISA confines, not invading Iraq, dolt.

Ron -

When someone refutes something you believe deeply in, you don't react well, do you? LOL

As for wiretapping outside FISA - I guess that's one for the courts to decide. In the 6th Circuit court last week, the ACLU couldn't prove that anyone here in the US was hurt by it. My guess is that they won't be able to prove that, and neither will you, no matter how hard you dig.

Well, I suppose you can always hope for the Daily Kos to do another cut & paste, but I'm sure that will work out about as well as Dan "RatherGate" did.....lol.

Bret, you didn't refute anything. This is what is insufferable about you, you don't even know when you've made a complete ass out of yourself, but hey, don't let me intrude on your party. That' is not what the sixth circuit court found, they found that the two parties that sued couldn't prove they were wiretapped.

Ron -

The decision vacates a ruling in the case made last August by a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit, who ruled that the administration's program to monitor private communications violated the Bill of Rights and a 1970s federal law.

Well, at least that loopy judge in Detroit's ruling was vacated.........at least one silly ruling was put down.

"it declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case -- including academics, lawyers and journalists -- did not have the standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065165

And here's what I said above :

"As for wiretapping outside FISA - I guess that's one for the courts to decide. In the 6th Circuit court last week, the ACLU couldn't prove that anyone here in the US was hurt by it."

Look at what I said, then compare it to what you said.......not that different, is it?
Do you just argue with me because you can't help yourself? lol

Your idiocy is, you took it from the ACLU to everyone in the usa, not a rational jump, at all, and made it sound like it was found to be legal, when all the court said was that these particular plaintiffs have no standing. In the case of anyone being prosecuted with information obtained under this program, they would have a standing, and would be able to claim what the "loopy judge" said, which, by the way, is supported by most legal scholars in this country. Bush has to know this, which means he probably has totally different objectives than stated for this program, illegal ones, since any info obtained would probably not be usable in court. I argue with you constantly because you're a moron, and wrong, almost all of the time.

Ron -

I am amused that the Left's Hero organization, the ACLU, was spanked down on this case, and this case alone. They had no standing - everyone knew that going in - and yet they pressed ahead. In other words : frivolous lawsuit.

Ron, in your case, you just can't seem to understand that there are at least half (maybe more) of the people out here in the real world who are against you and your beliefs. I know that's hard for you to hear on a blog (where most folks are liberal or downright Left Wing), but its true. Most folks are like your Kansas neighbors...........they keep it to themselves until election time.

Bret,
Not surprisingly, you are still in lala land. In polls taken recently over half of the public wants Cheney and Bush impeached. Not one poll reflects your beliefs. What you can't come to terms with is that you are done, your band of thieves and heroes have shot their wad, and come up lacking on the public's eyes. My Kansas Neighbors threw out Jim Ryan, a rubber stamp bushie, and elected Nancy Boyda, a Democrat, in the last election, by the way, so do't tell me what my neighbors believe, and when Roberts and Brownback come up for election again, I have faith in the fact that they will be sent packing as well. Maybe not for another Democrat, I don't know, but Roberts has all the blood of the Bush Administration on his hands, and people know that. Brownback, well, he better run for president, because his fundie ways are in the open here now. You can only lie to people so long before they see through you, and you boys are transparent, these days.