And we need to send it to every House and Senate member once we have enough signatures.
This effort would include such actions as:
- draw up a brief list of reasons or charges (with a link to corroborating details of each)
- advertise or mention this petition in as many websites as possible, and we should try to get people like Michael Moore to put a link on his website to the petition.
- CGCS could pin impeachment-oriented links somewhere (i.e. links to other impeachment petitions/proponents/articles/etc).
- encouraging people to write and publish letters to editors, news networks, etc..
- invite elected officials or other important people to live chats on CGCS to discuss the impeachment.
- organize impeachment partys across the nation
THIS is the common ground we've been seeking. THIS is our purpose for being here. THIS is our calling and cause.
I think this effort would require the assistance of the CGCS staff and volunteers. Or maybe a sister- or CGCS-affiliated website would be created with the needed forms/mechanisms to collect all signatures.
So, what do you think? Can we do it? Again, if we do it, we'll need someone from CGCS to take the lead and get it going (even if just to approve it and assign someone to head it up)
Full Version: We can't wait for 3 more years! We need to
Erm, how does paypal work in things like these?
Whose bank account do we use?
Whose bank account do we use?
QUOTE(xyzse @ Oct 11 2005, 01:40 PM)
Erm, how does paypal work in things like these?
Whose bank account do we use?
Whose bank account do we use?
Details to be worked out by the CGCS chief if they proceed with it.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 11 2005, 11:29 AM)
And we need to send it to every House and Senate member once we have enough signatures.
This effort would include such actions as:
- draw up a brief list of reasons or charges (with a link to corroborating details of each)
- advertise or mention this petition in as many websites as possible, and we should try to get people like Michael Moore to put a link on his website to the petition.
- CGCS could pin impeachment-oriented links somewhere (i.e. links to other impeachment petitions/proponents/articles/etc).
- encouraging people to write and publish letters to editors, news networks, etc..
- invite elected officials or other important people to live chats on CGCS to discuss the impeachment.
- organize impeachment partys across the nation
THIS is the common ground we've been seeking. THIS is our purpose for being here. THIS is our calling and cause.
I think this effort would require the assistance of the CGCS staff and volunteers. Or maybe a sister- or CGCS-affiliated website would be created with the needed forms/mechanisms to collect all signatures.
So, what do you think? Can we do it? Again, if we do it, we'll need someone from CGCS to take the lead and get it going (even if just to approve it and assign someone to head it up)
This effort would include such actions as:
- draw up a brief list of reasons or charges (with a link to corroborating details of each)
- advertise or mention this petition in as many websites as possible, and we should try to get people like Michael Moore to put a link on his website to the petition.
- CGCS could pin impeachment-oriented links somewhere (i.e. links to other impeachment petitions/proponents/articles/etc).
- encouraging people to write and publish letters to editors, news networks, etc..
- invite elected officials or other important people to live chats on CGCS to discuss the impeachment.
- organize impeachment partys across the nation
THIS is the common ground we've been seeking. THIS is our purpose for being here. THIS is our calling and cause.
I think this effort would require the assistance of the CGCS staff and volunteers. Or maybe a sister- or CGCS-affiliated website would be created with the needed forms/mechanisms to collect all signatures.
So, what do you think? Can we do it? Again, if we do it, we'll need someone from CGCS to take the lead and get it going (even if just to approve it and assign someone to head it up)
Great idea Sunshine! Count me in- and it's something I bet that we here in CA would be happy to push, along with the Recall Schwartznegger petition. Might even be a good reason for having another convention!
Perhaps I am ignorant of this reality, but I was not aware that you could impeach a president by initiative and referendum.... 
There are some other impeachment movements under way. Perhaps it would be best to pool resources and work with one of these other groups rather than duplicate efforts?
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/petition2.htm
http://www.votenader.org/get_involved/impeach.php
http://www.justiceforbush.com/
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/petition2.htm
http://www.votenader.org/get_involved/impeach.php
http://www.justiceforbush.com/
I do think its fun to debate the impeachable offenses...this would be what you have to first do --- ascertain which offenses rise to that level and directly implicate Bush...
But until the Dems take one or more Houses of Congress or someone comes up with some irrefutable evidence all we can do is hope for that evidence to turn up and spead the word....
I highlighted the three which I think would have the best chance of resulting in impeachment with proof...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/impeacharticles.html
BUSH'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES
Compiled by "Son of a Bush"
1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.
2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons
3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution
4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention
5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.
6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.
8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!
10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.
11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.
12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.
14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.
15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.
But until the Dems take one or more Houses of Congress or someone comes up with some irrefutable evidence all we can do is hope for that evidence to turn up and spead the word....
I highlighted the three which I think would have the best chance of resulting in impeachment with proof...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/impeacharticles.html
BUSH'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES
Compiled by "Son of a Bush"
1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.
2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons
3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution
4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention
5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.
6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.
8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!
10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.
11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.
12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.
14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.
15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.
The good thing about a petition is that it's just an opinion.
As such, we can be "liberal" with the stated charges and assume the House and Senate will make the appropriate legal charges if/when actual proceedings occur.
As such, we can be "liberal" with the stated charges and assume the House and Senate will make the appropriate legal charges if/when actual proceedings occur.
I would be happy to sign such a petition but at this point an impeachment campaign is not where I would put my major time and effort, nor would I like to see it become the major focus of the democratic party. I think getting wide spread consensus on a substantitive program of reform needs to be the major focus for the congressional elections in 2006. I am convinced that the absence of such a program is what cost us the presidential election in2000 and 2004. I think the threat of impeachment embodied in a successful petition campaign could be
helpful leverage for keeping the Bush Administration's worse abuses in check.
Maybe we'll get lucky and it will succeed.
helpful leverage for keeping the Bush Administration's worse abuses in check.
Maybe we'll get lucky and it will succeed.
I feel frustrated and anxious for this nightmare to be over, too, Sunshine.
I think a petition would be fine but I think the timing will most likely be better in just a few weeks- when Fitzgerald issues his findings. At that point, I do believe we will have more ammunition,
as it would appear that at least Libby and possibly Rove and Cheney are going to take a fall- or at least a hit. At that stage, the evidence of corruption would be clear and such a petition would be more likely to gain widespread support.
However, there is nothing to stop a member from beginning work on such a petition and laying the groundwork for its dissemination. If the end product is reasonably worded, I would like to be the second to sign it- right after you.
As for it being an official CGCS document- I do not pretend to speak for the admins, but previous actions have not been officially endorsed. However, I do not think that prohibits members from voluntarily proceeding as individuals, as long as we do not "hijack" the CGCS name.
Links are allowed.
I think a petition would be fine but I think the timing will most likely be better in just a few weeks- when Fitzgerald issues his findings. At that point, I do believe we will have more ammunition,
as it would appear that at least Libby and possibly Rove and Cheney are going to take a fall- or at least a hit. At that stage, the evidence of corruption would be clear and such a petition would be more likely to gain widespread support.
However, there is nothing to stop a member from beginning work on such a petition and laying the groundwork for its dissemination. If the end product is reasonably worded, I would like to be the second to sign it- right after you.
As for it being an official CGCS document- I do not pretend to speak for the admins, but previous actions have not been officially endorsed. However, I do not think that prohibits members from voluntarily proceeding as individuals, as long as we do not "hijack" the CGCS name.
Links are allowed.
I think if we just had a "do-over" vote, with dubya's current popularity (28% and dropping), we could fix this.
Really, who does initiate an impeachment?
Okay, here's the answer, I think, and without a Senate majority, can it be done?
(Someone better versed in Constitutional law than I am will have to answer this one!)
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.
--U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4
Introduction
On September 11, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr delivered an official report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing his investigation into the conduct of President William Jefferson Clinton. Following review, the committee may begin an impeachment inquiry, which, if carried to ultimate conclusion, may render the sitting President an ordinary citizen, and elevate the Vice-President to the Oval Office. Such action derives from Congress' Constitutional mandate and represents the most powerful check and balance granted to the Legislative Branch. As such, it is also the most difficult to implement, especially against the Presidency. To this date, only two Presidents have faced Articles of Impeachment--Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Richard Nixon in 1974. In Johnson's case, the Senate's vote fell short of the neccessary two-thirds, while Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the Articles.
Since the Presidential impeachment process is rarely used, yet central to current events, this site intends to provide background information and resources for further research.
What is Impeachment?
Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.
The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell
The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
Constitutional Authority
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, impeachment was an established process in English law and government. The Founding Fathers incorporated the process, with modifications, into the fabric of United States government. The Constitution, however, only provides the framework-the basic who's, why's, and how's. The remaining procedural intricacies reside in the internal rules of the House and Senate.
Who?
Article 2, Section 4--"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States. . ."
As noted above, this includes Federal judges. It does not, however, include House Representatives or Senators.
Why?
Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.
In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."
How?
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."
The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"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."
The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate. In Nixon v. US, regarding the impeachment trial of a Federal judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the phrase phrase "sole power to try all impeachments" to a particular case was not justiciable. In other words it held that the proper application of this constitutional language to a specific impeachment proceeding was not a question for the courts. Therefore, the process and procedure for impeachment lie solely within the purview of the legislature. The officer subject to an impeachment proceeding has no appeal to a federal court.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.
Really, who does initiate an impeachment?
Okay, here's the answer, I think, and without a Senate majority, can it be done?
(Someone better versed in Constitutional law than I am will have to answer this one!)
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.
--U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4
Introduction
On September 11, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr delivered an official report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing his investigation into the conduct of President William Jefferson Clinton. Following review, the committee may begin an impeachment inquiry, which, if carried to ultimate conclusion, may render the sitting President an ordinary citizen, and elevate the Vice-President to the Oval Office. Such action derives from Congress' Constitutional mandate and represents the most powerful check and balance granted to the Legislative Branch. As such, it is also the most difficult to implement, especially against the Presidency. To this date, only two Presidents have faced Articles of Impeachment--Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Richard Nixon in 1974. In Johnson's case, the Senate's vote fell short of the neccessary two-thirds, while Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the Articles.
Since the Presidential impeachment process is rarely used, yet central to current events, this site intends to provide background information and resources for further research.
What is Impeachment?
Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.
The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell
The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
Constitutional Authority
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, impeachment was an established process in English law and government. The Founding Fathers incorporated the process, with modifications, into the fabric of United States government. The Constitution, however, only provides the framework-the basic who's, why's, and how's. The remaining procedural intricacies reside in the internal rules of the House and Senate.
Who?
Article 2, Section 4--"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States. . ."
As noted above, this includes Federal judges. It does not, however, include House Representatives or Senators.
Why?
Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law. The test is not satisfied by all crimes. With only two named offenses to provide context for the inclusive phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard remains undefined. The language suggests, however, that criminal action may be required. It is worth noting that the term "misdemeanor" does not correspond to the modern definition of a less serious (sub-felony) statutory or common law criminal offense.
In the case of Andrew Johnson, the House accused the President, among other things, of speaking disrespectfully of Congress "in a loud voice."
How?
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5--"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment."
The power of impeachment translates into the power to indict. The House, through the Judiciary Committee, conducts investigation and gathers evidence. At the proper time, the House assembles the evidence into individual indictments or charges known as Articles of Impeachment. Each article requires a majority vote of the House to pass to the Senate. Once impeached, the officer is on trial.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"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."
The trial of the impeached officer is held in the Senate. In Nixon v. US, regarding the impeachment trial of a Federal judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the phrase phrase "sole power to try all impeachments" to a particular case was not justiciable. In other words it held that the proper application of this constitutional language to a specific impeachment proceeding was not a question for the courts. Therefore, the process and procedure for impeachment lie solely within the purview of the legislature. The officer subject to an impeachment proceeding has no appeal to a federal court.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.
OK. Consign this poll to certain death by hiding it in the closet.
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Oct 11 2005, 12:22 PM)
Perhaps I am ignorant of this reality, but I was not aware that you could impeach a president by initiative and referendum....
In my dreamworld, that'd be right up next to sleeping with Angelina Jollie and Heather Lockyear on the same night. 
(And Pie, don't you dare say anything to my wife!)
QUOTE(EvelyninTexas @ Oct 11 2005, 01:13 PM)
I think if we just had a "do-over" vote, with dubya's current popularity (28% and dropping)...
Where'd you read 28%! 
QUOTE(winston smith @ Oct 11 2005, 04:23 PM)
Where'd you read 28%! somewhere on here, today! Let me see if I can find the thread.
Here's the link:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...pic=38900&st=20
(Please, God, let it be true!)
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 11 2005, 05:17 PM)
OK. Consign this poll to certain death by hiding it in the closet.
What closet ?
Sunshine, I applaud your desire to want to take action in this manner. I guess my feeling is that I'd be happy to sign anything re: impeaching W.
But I'd rather spend my hard-earned cash on candidates and ads that will help us take back at least one house of Congress next year.
But I'd rather spend my hard-earned cash on candidates and ads that will help us take back at least one house of Congress next year.
We need to attack on all fronts.
We need to win the House and Senate AND prepare to impeach Bush afterward.
If we win the house and Senate, we CAN NOT let Bush run the country anymore. We MUST impeach him and Cheney. If they are running things when the Bird flu hits, we will all die.
We need to win the House and Senate AND prepare to impeach Bush afterward.
If we win the house and Senate, we CAN NOT let Bush run the country anymore. We MUST impeach him and Cheney. If they are running things when the Bird flu hits, we will all die.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 11 2005, 06:32 PM)
We need to attack on all fronts.
We need to win the House and Senate AND prepare to impeach Bush afterward.
If we win the house and Senate, we CAN NOT let Bush run the country anymore. We MUST impeach him and Cheney. If they are running things when the Bird flu hits, we will all die.
We need to win the House and Senate AND prepare to impeach Bush afterward.
If we win the house and Senate, we CAN NOT let Bush run the country anymore. We MUST impeach him and Cheney. If they are running things when the Bird flu hits, we will all die.
I tend to agree.
Yes, yes, yes! Impeach the Liar in Chief!
I voted NO!...I believe that this kind of turmoil for the country at this time would be counterproductive and dangerous.
I am posting this on behalf of pathfinder69, who says he can not pst for some reason.....
----------------------------------
I was just recently introduced by a Friend to The World Can't Wait initiative and website. It looked like a bona-fide and commendable national effort that was rapidly gaining ground to mobilize the public to oust the Bush Administration, ...but I haven't yet had time to investiage the organization and their initiatives. Today their website went down shortly before I attempted to visit it. I did some reasearch and found that their server has terminated their account (according to the server's support dept); And I found that their domain registrar has seized their domain name and locked it out of recovery, renewal and transfer. I quickly went and secured http://www.theworldcantwait.com and http://www.theworldcantwait.net domain names to try to help them get back online IF I can verify their validity and find contacts for their administrators.
I haven't had any luck locating a CGCS discussion about TWCW.
Can anyone here on the CGCS please direct me to any existing discussions about TWCW organization, AND/OR provide me with contacts for the organization so I can contact them and try to help them get back online IF they are the bona-fide organization they appeared to be.
I can be emailed at reliancenet@hotmail.com
Thank You,
Denny T~
----------------------------------
I was just recently introduced by a Friend to The World Can't Wait initiative and website. It looked like a bona-fide and commendable national effort that was rapidly gaining ground to mobilize the public to oust the Bush Administration, ...but I haven't yet had time to investiage the organization and their initiatives. Today their website went down shortly before I attempted to visit it. I did some reasearch and found that their server has terminated their account (according to the server's support dept); And I found that their domain registrar has seized their domain name and locked it out of recovery, renewal and transfer. I quickly went and secured http://www.theworldcantwait.com and http://www.theworldcantwait.net domain names to try to help them get back online IF I can verify their validity and find contacts for their administrators.
I haven't had any luck locating a CGCS discussion about TWCW.
Can anyone here on the CGCS please direct me to any existing discussions about TWCW organization, AND/OR provide me with contacts for the organization so I can contact them and try to help them get back online IF they are the bona-fide organization they appeared to be.
I can be emailed at reliancenet@hotmail.com
Thank You,
Denny T~
QUOTE(Stephen @ Oct 11 2005, 11:00 PM)
I voted NO!...I believe that this kind of turmoil for the country at this time would be counterproductive and dangerous.
So, basicaly, we should just get rid of the impeachment clause, because if we can't use it now when a corrupt President has CAUSED THIS TURMOIL you speak of, then when will we EVER need to impeach anyone?
And besides, not to impeach Bush is like ont to excise a cancerous tumor. You leave it in, and it will continue to do more damage.
The impeachment will HEAL turmoil, not cause it.
I do believe in the rule of law. Many believe he lied...the trick is to prove it. If it can be proven, then the Congress no matter its political majority, must impeach. To do any less is an affront to all we believe in this country.
I personally believe that he knew the truth, but I can't convict on belief only. Screaming IMPEACHMENT based on a political bias or hope is futile.
I personally believe that he knew the truth, but I can't convict on belief only. Screaming IMPEACHMENT based on a political bias or hope is futile.
QUOTE(Stephen @ Oct 12 2005, 06:35 AM)
I do believe in the rule of law. Many believe he lied...the trick is to prove it. If it can be proven, then the Congress no matter its political majority, must impeach. To do any less is an affront to all we believe in this country.
I personally believe that he knew the truth, but I can't convict on belief only. Screaming IMPEACHMENT based on a political bias or hope is futile.
I personally believe that he knew the truth, but I can't convict on belief only. Screaming IMPEACHMENT based on a political bias or hope is futile.
Screaming imnpeachment is the first step to getting the Congress to do its job.
If they do its job, the truth will come out. If that happens to suggest Bush lied (which is obvious he did, because he clearly lied about Iraq's nuclear capability), then Bush will have a Senate trial and he will have due process.
Screaminfg impeachment is not a bad thing--especially if it's deserved.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 07:47 AM)
Screaming imnpeachment is the first step to getting the Congress to do its job.
If they do its job, the truth will come out. If that happens to suggest Bush lied (which is obvious he did, because he clearly lied about Iraq's nuclear capability), then Bush will have a Senate trial and he will have due process.
Screaminfg impeachment is not a bad thing--especially if it's deserved.
If they do its job, the truth will come out. If that happens to suggest Bush lied (which is obvious he did, because he clearly lied about Iraq's nuclear capability), then Bush will have a Senate trial and he will have due process.
Screaminfg impeachment is not a bad thing--especially if it's deserved.
Suffice it to say that I'm quite picky about the petitions I sign, and I'll let it go at that.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 08:47 AM)
Screaming imnpeachment is the first step to getting the Congress to do its job.
If they do its job, the truth will come out. If that happens to suggest Bush lied (which is obvious he did, because he clearly lied about Iraq's nuclear capability), then Bush will have a Senate trial and he will have due process.
Screaminfg impeachment is not a bad thing--especially if it's deserved.
If they do its job, the truth will come out. If that happens to suggest Bush lied (which is obvious he did, because he clearly lied about Iraq's nuclear capability), then Bush will have a Senate trial and he will have due process.
Screaminfg impeachment is not a bad thing--especially if it's deserved.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou99.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou00.htm
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 08:17 AM)
So, basicaly, we should just get rid of the impeachment clause, because if we can't use it now when a corrupt President has CAUSED THIS TURMOIL you speak of, then when will we EVER need to impeach anyone?
And besides, not to impeach Bush is like ont to excise a cancerous tumor. You leave it in, and it will continue to do more damage.
The impeachment will HEAL turmoil, not cause it.
And besides, not to impeach Bush is like ont to excise a cancerous tumor. You leave it in, and it will continue to do more damage.
The impeachment will HEAL turmoil, not cause it.
On the turmoil issue: I have seen enough after 5 yrs to now believe that one of the purposes of Bush/Cheney's rolling turmoil is to maintain power and dependency.
I have a gut objection to appeasing people that rule this way
If there is enough to bring articles of impeachment I think the sooner the better.
What I worry about more is that there are too many powerful people making too much money with things as they are to allow an impeachment.
Would it not be a wise idea if someone actually drafted said petition before signing it?
QUOTE(Brookie @ Oct 12 2005, 07:59 AM)
On the turmoil issue: I have seen enough after 5 yrs to now believe that one of the purposes of Bush/Cheney's rolling turmoil is to maintain power and dependency.
I have a gut objection to appeasing people that rule this way
If there is enough to bring articles of impeachment I think the sooner the better.
What I worry about more is that there are too many powerful people making too much money with things as they are to allow an impeachment.
I have a gut objection to appeasing people that rule this way
If there is enough to bring articles of impeachment I think the sooner the better.
What I worry about more is that there are too many powerful people making too much money with things as they are to allow an impeachment.
Point taken Brookie, but I was thinking of thousands of troops embroiled in combat, while the country is being torn by this process. How will this effect morale? Will it further embolden the enemy? I’m not trying to white wash the issue here…just asking questions.
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 06:58 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou99.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou00.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou99.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../docs/sou00.htm
Too bad you have a dbl std vadiver. Otherwise you'd want to impeach Bush too.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 09:48 AM)
Too bad you have a dbl std vadiver. Otherwise you'd want to impeach Bush too.
How do you figure.
I think GWB had bad data provided to him by the same people that provided the bad data to WJC.
Or do you think that in the year 2000, after WJC's State of the Union address SH cleaned up his act and began to comply with the entire US's sanctions?
The double standard would appear to be on your part seeing as though you are so vehamply opposed to political witchhunts.
At least this time you have not claimed I said something I havent, yet.
ps I did not want WJC out of office. The incumbant is very hard to defete and it would have given AlGore and great advantage. I really did not want to have Pres. AlGore.
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 07:56 AM)
How do you figure.
I think GWB had bad data provided to him by the same people that provided the bad data to WJC.
Or do you think that in the year 2000, after WJC's State of the Union address SH cleaned up his act and began to comply with the entire US's sanctions?
The double standard would appear to be on your part seeing as though you are so vehamply opposed to political witchhunts.
At least this time you have not claimed I said something I havent, yet.
I think GWB had bad data provided to him by the same people that provided the bad data to WJC.
Or do you think that in the year 2000, after WJC's State of the Union address SH cleaned up his act and began to comply with the entire US's sanctions?
The double standard would appear to be on your part seeing as though you are so vehamply opposed to political witchhunts.
At least this time you have not claimed I said something I havent, yet.
Listen to the Diane Rehm's interview with Scott Ritter from 10/11. In my opinion, he's one of the credible authorities on Iraq. There was and still is willful deception on the part of this administration.
QUOTE(Eddiejoe @ Oct 12 2005, 10:04 AM)
Listen to the Diane Rehm's interview with Scott Ritter from 10/11. In my opinion, he's one of the credible authorities on Iraq. There was and still is willful deception on the part of this administration.
Then what we were beeing told on 12/16/1998, and the 1999, and 2000 State of the Union were just a bunch of lies as well?
QUOTE(Stephen @ Oct 12 2005, 07:02 AM)
Would it not be a wise idea if someone actually drafted said petition before signing it?
Why should we draft yet another petition anyway when there are at least 4 other groups circulating impeqachment petitions? See my earler post. Wouldn't it be better to work with one of these other groups rather than duplicate efforts?
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 07:56 AM)
How do you figure.
I think GWB had bad data provided to him by the same people that provided the bad data to WJC.
Or do you think that in the year 2000, after WJC's State of the Union address SH cleaned up his act and began to comply with the entire US's sanctions?
The double standard would appear to be on your part seeing as though you are so vehamply opposed to political witchhunts.
At least this time you have not claimed I said something I havent, yet.
ps I did not want WJC out of office. The incumbant is very hard to defete and it would have given AlGore and great advantage. I really did not want to have Pres. AlGore.
I think GWB had bad data provided to him by the same people that provided the bad data to WJC.
Or do you think that in the year 2000, after WJC's State of the Union address SH cleaned up his act and began to comply with the entire US's sanctions?
The double standard would appear to be on your part seeing as though you are so vehamply opposed to political witchhunts.
At least this time you have not claimed I said something I havent, yet.
ps I did not want WJC out of office. The incumbant is very hard to defete and it would have given AlGore and great advantage. I really did not want to have Pres. AlGore.
Please don't be dishonest and try to inject Clinton into this. IRRELEVANT
Bush lied about Iraq''s aluminum tubes and niger yellow cake. He knew those stories were false when he went to Congress and made his State of the Union. I knew the aluminum tube story was false when he did that because I had read stories about that before Bush went on air and lied.
Bush even referenced false and forged British intel reports, and was clever enough in this one case to use semantics to be able to have plausible deniability that he even believed in those reports. BS!
There is also evidence that Cheney hyped the intel the CIA gave him on the NIEs. CIA agents have appearred on CNN and other shows saying they were dumbfounded when they saw Cheney and others on TV the day after the CIA had given them NIE's and Cheney was saying the exact oppositie than what was in the NIE. The data presented byu the CIA to Bush was in many cases 100% opposite than what Bush/Cheney was telling COngress and the USA.
Bush and Cheney also have repeatedly decieved the country about whether Saddam was involved in 911. Of course, you Bush apologists will deny it, though it is true. It is unAmerican IMHO to lie about who attacks you.
So, given the above, and given that Tom Ridge has said that some terror alerts were politically motivated, which is another lie and abuse of power, I am sure you would welcome Bush and Cheney to be investigated so they have a chance to clear their name--unless, of course, you don't think the findings will be as you prefer, in which case you will oppose any investigation and subsequent impeachment even if warranted by a independant and fair prosecutor or investigator.
QUOTE(Eddiejoe @ Oct 12 2005, 08:10 AM)
Why should we draft yet another petition anyway when there are at least 4 other groups circulating impeqachment petitions? See my earler post. Wouldn't it be better to work with one of these other groups rather than duplicate efforts?
First, it is impossible to sign a petition that hasn't yet been drafted, so I don''t know what Stephen is talking about.
Second, the more petitions that are created, the moore voices will be heard. And the more voices are heard, the greater the possibility the petitions will be taken seriously.
That said, this thread is now moot. The CGCS owners have nixed the idea without regard to the desires of the few remaining people who visit here.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 09:16 AM)
First, it is impossible to sign a petition that hasn't yet been drafted, so I don''t know what Stephen is talking about.
Second, the more petitions that are created, the moore voices will be heard. And the more voices are heard, the greater the possibility the petitions will be taken seriously.
That said, this thread is now moot. The CGCS owners have nixed the idea without regard to the desires of the few remaining people who visit here.
Second, the more petitions that are created, the moore voices will be heard. And the more voices are heard, the greater the possibility the petitions will be taken seriously.
That said, this thread is now moot. The CGCS owners have nixed the idea without regard to the desires of the few remaining people who visit here.
We can't wait for 3 more years! We need to, create a CGCS impeachment petition NOW!
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 08:10 AM)
Then what we were beeing told on 12/16/1998, and the 1999, and 2000 State of the Union were just a bunch of lies as well?
Ritter addresses Clinton in the interview. I'd suggest you listen to it. I plan on reading his book to get a more complete picture.
Bush made the decision to actually go to war with Iraq based on lies and willfully decieved the country in order to do it.
Bush DELIBERATELY "massaged" (i.e lied about) intelligence information, in some instances against the advice of the intelligence community.
Clinton isn't the one who invaded Iraq. It was Bush.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 10:14 AM)
Please don't be dishonest and try to inject Clinton into this. IRRELEVANT
Bush lied about Iraq''s aluminum tubes and niger yellow cake. He knew those stories were false when he went to Congress and made his State of the Union. I knew the aluminum tube story was false when he did that because I had read stories about that before Bush went on air and lied.
Bush even referenced false and forged British intel reports, and was clever enough in this one case to use semantics to be able to have plausible deniability that he even believed in those reports. BS!
There is also evidence that Cheney hyped the intel the CIA gave him on the NIEs. CIA agents have appearred on CNN and other shows saying they were dumbfounded when they saw Cheney and others on TV the day after the CIA had given them NIE's and Cheney was saying the exact oppositie than what was in the NIE. The data presented byu the CIA to Bush was in many cases 100% opposite than what Bush/Cheney was telling COngress and the USA.
Bush and Cheney also have repeatedly decieved the country about whether Saddam was involved in 911. Of course, you Bush apologists will deny it, though it is true. It is unAmerican IMHO to lie about who attacks you.
So, given the above, and given that Tom Ridge has said that some terror alerts were politically motivated, which is another lie and abuse of power, I am sure you would welcome Bush and Cheney to be investigated so they have a chance to clear their name--unless, of course, you don't think the findings will be as you prefer, in which case you will oppose any investigation and subsequent impeachment even if warranted by a independant and fair prosecutor or investigator.
Bush lied about Iraq''s aluminum tubes and niger yellow cake. He knew those stories were false when he went to Congress and made his State of the Union. I knew the aluminum tube story was false when he did that because I had read stories about that before Bush went on air and lied.
Bush even referenced false and forged British intel reports, and was clever enough in this one case to use semantics to be able to have plausible deniability that he even believed in those reports. BS!
There is also evidence that Cheney hyped the intel the CIA gave him on the NIEs. CIA agents have appearred on CNN and other shows saying they were dumbfounded when they saw Cheney and others on TV the day after the CIA had given them NIE's and Cheney was saying the exact oppositie than what was in the NIE. The data presented byu the CIA to Bush was in many cases 100% opposite than what Bush/Cheney was telling COngress and the USA.
Bush and Cheney also have repeatedly decieved the country about whether Saddam was involved in 911. Of course, you Bush apologists will deny it, though it is true. It is unAmerican IMHO to lie about who attacks you.
So, given the above, and given that Tom Ridge has said that some terror alerts were politically motivated, which is another lie and abuse of power, I am sure you would welcome Bush and Cheney to be investigated so they have a chance to clear their name--unless, of course, you don't think the findings will be as you prefer, in which case you will oppose any investigation and subsequent impeachment even if warranted by a independant and fair prosecutor or investigator.
WJC is irrelevant eh? So we listen to him talk about Iraq's nuke and WMD capabilities directly in 1999 (after Scott Ridder left Iraq) and then reference the danger Iraq posses in 2000. Then since GWB takes office we are supposed to tottally forget that.
How do you figure that is irrelevent? Because now, that we have boots on the ground, something RC wanted, we now know they are not there? It seems to me that had we not invaded Iraq (which I was opposed to, but think we need to stay there now) we never would have this information.
All administration use information to the best of their abilities. One of the best interviews I have heard during this whole ordeal was with one of JC's advisors. The reporter was trying to get this person to say GWB lied. To his credit, and my surprise, he would not say that GWB lied. He said all adminstrations use the evidence that best supports what they want to do.
Further evidence of your blatent double standeard, we re-elected GWB after all of this had been reported.
Go ahead and waste time drafting the impeachment articles. Do you think the current house is going to vote favorably to the articles? Do you think the current senate is going to vote favorably to the articles? So now lets assume they do? Who do you see as the next POTUS?
I guess you really liked what went on during the late 90s you want to continue to see it happen.
Do you not think it is about time that the country end being so bitterly divided politically so that we can actually get something done?
QUOTE(Stephen @ Oct 12 2005, 08:20 AM)
We can't wait for 3 more years! We need to, create a CGCS impeachment petition NOW!
I've already signed some of the other peitions. That's enough for me.
QUOTE(Eddiejoe @ Oct 12 2005, 10:29 AM)
Ritter addresses Clinton in the interview. I'd suggest you listen to it. I plan on reading his book to get a more complete picture.
Bush made the decision to actually go to war with Iraq based on lies and willfully decieved the country in order to do it.
Bush DELIBERATELY "massaged" (i.e lied about) intelligence information, in some instances against the advice of the intelligence community.
Clinton isn't the one who invaded Iraq. It was Bush.
Bush made the decision to actually go to war with Iraq based on lies and willfully decieved the country in order to do it.
Bush DELIBERATELY "massaged" (i.e lied about) intelligence information, in some instances against the advice of the intelligence community.
Clinton isn't the one who invaded Iraq. It was Bush.
Do you have a transcript of a general timeframe where ritter addresses Clinting in the interview.
DR has one of those voices that makes my ears bleed. There is no way I could listen to the entire 47 min interview.
I would make the agrument that WJC went to war with Iraq as well when he bombed within their boarders.
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 08:31 AM)
WJC is irrelevant eh? So we listen to him talk about Iraq's nuke and WMD capabilities directly in 1999 (after Scott Ridder left Iraq) and then reference the danger Iraq posses in 2000. Then since GWB takes office we are supposed to tottally forget that.
How do you figure that is irrelevent? Because now, that we have boots on the ground, something RC wanted, we now know they are not there? It seems to me that had we not invaded Iraq (which I was opposed to, but think we need to stay there now) we never would have this information.
All administration use information to the best of their abilities. One of the best interviews I have heard during this whole ordeal was with one of JC's advisors. The reporter was trying to get this person to say GWB lied. To his credit, and my surprise, he would not say that GWB lied. He said all adminstrations use the evidence that best supports what they want to do.
Further evidence of your blatent double standeard, we re-elected GWB after all of this had been reported.
Go ahead and waste time drafting the impeachment articles. Do you think the current house is going to vote favorably to the articles? Do you think the current senate is going to vote favorably to the articles? So now lets assume they do? Who do you see as the next POTUS?
I guess you really liked what went on during the late 90s you want to continue to see it happen.
Do you not think it is about time that the country end being so bitterly divided politically so that we can actually get something done?
How do you figure that is irrelevent? Because now, that we have boots on the ground, something RC wanted, we now know they are not there? It seems to me that had we not invaded Iraq (which I was opposed to, but think we need to stay there now) we never would have this information.
All administration use information to the best of their abilities. One of the best interviews I have heard during this whole ordeal was with one of JC's advisors. The reporter was trying to get this person to say GWB lied. To his credit, and my surprise, he would not say that GWB lied. He said all adminstrations use the evidence that best supports what they want to do.
Further evidence of your blatent double standeard, we re-elected GWB after all of this had been reported.
Go ahead and waste time drafting the impeachment articles. Do you think the current house is going to vote favorably to the articles? Do you think the current senate is going to vote favorably to the articles? So now lets assume they do? Who do you see as the next POTUS?
I guess you really liked what went on during the late 90s you want to continue to see it happen.
Do you not think it is about time that the country end being so bitterly divided politically so that we can actually get something done?
Whether Clinton was an idiot, or lied, or was decieved by the CIA himself is 100% irrelevant to whether Bush lied in order to invade Iraq.
I hope you don't have children. I'd hate to think you teach them it's OK to do something bad just because you think someone else has already done it.
So, if you think Bush's good name is being smeared, how about agreeing to an investigation by objective professionals to bring the facts to the light of day?
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 08:36 AM)
I would make the agrument that WJC went to war with Iraq as well when he bombed within their boarders.
I agree with that to some degree. But he did not invade Iraq and spend $300 billion and he did not kill 2000 US troops in the process. And he most certainly did not lie about who attacked us on 911.
QUOTE(Sunshine @ Oct 12 2005, 10:46 AM)
Whether Clinton was an idiot, or lied, or was decieved by the CIA himself is 100% irrelevant to whether Bush lied in order to invade Iraq.
I hope you don't have children. I'd hate to think you teach them it's OK to do something bad just because you think someone else has already done it.
So, if you think Bush's good name is being smeared, how about agreeing to an investigation by objective professionals to bring the facts to the light of day?
I hope you don't have children. I'd hate to think you teach them it's OK to do something bad just because you think someone else has already done it.
So, if you think Bush's good name is being smeared, how about agreeing to an investigation by objective professionals to bring the facts to the light of day?
Do you think we might have had faulty intel reports that both GWB and WJC were using to conclude that Iraq had WMD/Nuke capabilites?
How/when did we find out that the intel was incorrect?
Who would you suggest be the objective professionals to lead the investigation?
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 08:36 AM)
Do you have a transcript of a general timeframe where ritter addresses Clinting in the interview.
DR has one of those voices that makes my ears bleed. There is no way I could listen to the entire 47 min interview.
I would make the agrument that WJC went to war with Iraq as well when he bombed within their boarders.
DR has one of those voices that makes my ears bleed. There is no way I could listen to the entire 47 min interview.
I would make the agrument that WJC went to war with Iraq as well when he bombed within their boarders.
Sorry, I don't recall the exact time frame. Ritter mentioned enough about Clinton to further generate my interest in reading the book. It seems like Clinton went along with the will of many in Congress about Iraq instead of taking a firm stand of his own, which I find disappointing. Congresspeople complained to Clinton when he wanted to try diplomatic options and cooperative efforts with other nations that they had spent a lot of energy telling their constituents that Hussein evil like Hitler and they didn't want to have to back track on that.
For the record, at the time, I disagreed with Clinton about Iraq. Had he lied to congress to get a war resolution and lied to the UN to try to get a war resolution, then invaded as Bush did. I would have had no problem impeaching him either.
I voted that I would sign a petition, but not put my time or money into right now. (Although on second thought I might give a little to the right sort of folks.) I would sign a petition to support the process, to get Congress interested in it.
I am not sure that Bush should be impeached, but if he was fudamentally dishonest about the intelligence indicating the socalled Iraqi threat then I think that there could be a real case. This would be much more serious than lying in court about a tryst that had the most tangential relation to a sexual harassment case that supposedly made testimony concerning that tyrst relevant, or dismissing someone from the Cabinet in contravention of a bogus law passed by Congress (I am thinking about Andrew Johnson here), or even using government personnel to illegally spy on and covertly manipulate your political opponents. People have died and are dying in this war, lying about the reasons for starting would be pretty serious. Now I know that all Presidents have massaged the facts to make their case, the question is just how much Bush did so in this case.
I would sign the petition to elevate this issue, if in the end there isn't much here then this thing can always be dropped.
But for this thing to get going a lot of very damaging stuff would have to come out. For that to happen the MSM would actually have to take some risks and do some serious investigating, one of the investigations undergoing now (say the Plame case) would have to take a big new turn, or the Democrats would have take over at least one house and start their own investigations. I would wager that the most likely way impeachment would start would be the last. With Congressional investigations the MSM would be more likely to jump in, and if there is stuff to find it is more likely to be found. If major stuff is revealed, then principled Republicans are more likely to support impeachment, which would be essential to actually obtaining a conviction in the Senate. (This was the dynamic in the process of impeaching Nixon, which of course was cut short by his resignation when he saw that he could avoid it.)
I am not sure that Bush should be impeached, but if he was fudamentally dishonest about the intelligence indicating the socalled Iraqi threat then I think that there could be a real case. This would be much more serious than lying in court about a tryst that had the most tangential relation to a sexual harassment case that supposedly made testimony concerning that tyrst relevant, or dismissing someone from the Cabinet in contravention of a bogus law passed by Congress (I am thinking about Andrew Johnson here), or even using government personnel to illegally spy on and covertly manipulate your political opponents. People have died and are dying in this war, lying about the reasons for starting would be pretty serious. Now I know that all Presidents have massaged the facts to make their case, the question is just how much Bush did so in this case.
I would sign the petition to elevate this issue, if in the end there isn't much here then this thing can always be dropped.
But for this thing to get going a lot of very damaging stuff would have to come out. For that to happen the MSM would actually have to take some risks and do some serious investigating, one of the investigations undergoing now (say the Plame case) would have to take a big new turn, or the Democrats would have take over at least one house and start their own investigations. I would wager that the most likely way impeachment would start would be the last. With Congressional investigations the MSM would be more likely to jump in, and if there is stuff to find it is more likely to be found. If major stuff is revealed, then principled Republicans are more likely to support impeachment, which would be essential to actually obtaining a conviction in the Senate. (This was the dynamic in the process of impeaching Nixon, which of course was cut short by his resignation when he saw that he could avoid it.)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Oct 12 2005, 09:53 AM)
I voted that I would sign a petition, but not put my time or money into right now. (Although on second thought I might give a little to the right sort of folks.) I would sign a petition to support the process, to get Congress interested in it.
I am not sure that Bush should be impeached, but if he was fudamentally dishonest about the intelligence indicating the socalled Iraqi threat then I think that there could be a real case. This would be much more serious than lying in court about a tryst that had the most tangential relation to a sexual harassment case that supposedly made testimony concerning that tyrst relevant, or dismissing someone from the Cabinet in contravention of a bogus law passed by Congress (I am thinking about Andrew Johnson here), or even using government personnel to illegally spy and covertly manipulate your political opponents. People have died and are dying in this war, lying about the reasons for starting would be pretty serious. Now I know that all Presidents have massaged the facts to make their case, the question is just how much Bush did so in this case.
I would sign the petition to elevate this issue, if in the end there isn't much here then this thing can always be dropped.
But for this thing to get going a lot of very damaging stuff would have to come out. For that to happen the MSM would actually have to take some risks and do some serious investigating, one of the investigations undergoing now (say the Plame case) would have to take a big new turn, or the Democrats would have take over at least one house and start their own investigations. I would wager that the most likely way impeachment would start would be the last. With Congressional investigations the MSM would be more likely to jump in, and if there is stuff to find it is more likely to be found. If major stuff is revealed, then principled Republicans are more likely to support impeachment, which would be essential to actually obtaining a conviction in the Senate. (This was the dynamic in the process of impeaching Nixon, which of course was cut short by his resignation when he saw that he could avoid it.)
I am not sure that Bush should be impeached, but if he was fudamentally dishonest about the intelligence indicating the socalled Iraqi threat then I think that there could be a real case. This would be much more serious than lying in court about a tryst that had the most tangential relation to a sexual harassment case that supposedly made testimony concerning that tyrst relevant, or dismissing someone from the Cabinet in contravention of a bogus law passed by Congress (I am thinking about Andrew Johnson here), or even using government personnel to illegally spy and covertly manipulate your political opponents. People have died and are dying in this war, lying about the reasons for starting would be pretty serious. Now I know that all Presidents have massaged the facts to make their case, the question is just how much Bush did so in this case.
I would sign the petition to elevate this issue, if in the end there isn't much here then this thing can always be dropped.
But for this thing to get going a lot of very damaging stuff would have to come out. For that to happen the MSM would actually have to take some risks and do some serious investigating, one of the investigations undergoing now (say the Plame case) would have to take a big new turn, or the Democrats would have take over at least one house and start their own investigations. I would wager that the most likely way impeachment would start would be the last. With Congressional investigations the MSM would be more likely to jump in, and if there is stuff to find it is more likely to be found. If major stuff is revealed, then principled Republicans are more likely to support impeachment, which would be essential to actually obtaining a conviction in the Senate. (This was the dynamic in the process of impeaching Nixon, which of course was cut short by his resignation when he saw that he could avoid it.)
Now this is the logic I can relate.
QUOTE(vadiver @ Oct 12 2005, 08:51 AM)
Do you think we might have had faulty intel reports that both GWB and WJC were using to conclude that Iraq had WMD/Nuke capabilites?
How/when did we find out that the intel was incorrect?
Who would you suggest be the objective professionals to lead the investigation?
How/when did we find out that the intel was incorrect?
Who would you suggest be the objective professionals to lead the investigation?
There may have been faulty intel for both Presidents.
But it has been reported ad nauseum that the CIA considered it's own intel to be sketchy and unreliable and that the White House KNEW THIS.
Clinton knew this also, but decided to be cautious and keep pressure on Iraq with the current noflyzones instead of invading--which is the proper thing to do when intel is inactionable.
But despite that, BUsh went FURTHER than CLinton. He took known skethcy intel and represented it to the public and COngress as factual and actionable. AND he also clearly lied about certain things as I discussed.
I think the House and/or Senate should appoint respected non-controversial retired Senators and Representatives (like Sam Nunn and others) to make a short and formal investigation, and have them make recommendation in their final report as to whether or not to appoint an independant Investigator whose job it would then be to provide a report to Congress with specific recommendations and testimony and facts.
QUOTE(Stephen @ Oct 12 2005, 08:58 AM)
Now this is the logic I can relate.
That's not much different from what I believe (except of course, I do believe Bush should be impeached because there is already abundant SMOKE that he lied about a great number of thinsg--including about who attacked the USA on 911, which IMHO is impeachable by itself because as CIC, you can not mislead the country about who the enemy is).
Signing an impeachment does not mean you want due process thrown out the window. No, the impeachment petition I would sign would not call for such an action.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.