Why Bush/Chenney must be impeached

Now, I understand we have had this discussion before. However, a few weeks ago I went to a discussion on the occupation of (war - if you wish) Iraq and its consequences. I've been pondering what one of the speakers (gah! don't ask for a name please, I got dragged to the damn thing and didn't bring a note pad) said; that is, that if charges of impeachment weren't brought against him (and Cheney) that we would surpass the point of an Imperialistic presidency. That after allowing Dubya's arrogances a future President would have a set of precidences (set under Bush?Chenney) that would allow them to deny anything (and know one could challange him for fear of jail), avoid giving up any info to anyone (could ignore the power to turn over documents to any investgatory committee), the abililty to fire and hire (Judicial, Military, and gov. dept. under him - though they pretty much have that now, without showing cause - except in extreme cases) at will and without oversight.

Consider the power Bush (Cheney) has given the Presidency (actually the rubberstamp GOP congress from 2002 - Jan. 2007). For the neo-cons out there - does another FDR sound like a good thing to you? Even if FDR's acts were done more for America's survival and the little guy - versus Bushy's for the wealthy (the upper 0.05%).

So, I went looking for support to this arguement, hoping to find the creaton that got me thinking about it, instead I found things dating back to May 2003. Curious how what goes around, comes around.

A few of the earlier Bush Impeachment calls:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0512-07.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm

Later:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/

IMO, charges must be brought against Bush and Cheney on matters of principle and the future on democracy in America - if not for their obvious breaking of the laws of the nation they agreed (under oath) to uphold. Their responsability for causing the war in Iraq is known by all, only those that "wish" to believe in the concept for it still believe it. Those that have risen above it (and their preference for a political party) realize that BS regardless of whom is feeding it to you is still BS.

[Accepting their party line (or their spin) in my book is the same as confessing to being an idiot and denying being an idiot on the principle that their party is always right - the idiot loop.]

Bush and Cheney must be impeached to preserve the balance of power, or we will have an Imperial Presidency - next election. Queen Hillary - has a nice ring to it, eh?

Pointless.

The next President regardless of political party would pardon them the moment they were made the President. Only time this would not happen is when it is a party vs party conflict.

Clearly, as an outsider, my view counts for little, but as I understand the Constitution, impeachment is a responsibility of Congress rather than the judiciary.

This surely means it is an entirely political power and rather than being tied to some very clear legal rules, impeaching a president - as an act that effectively subverts the will of the people - can only be done by the body that similarly is elected by the people. The decision to do so is therefore a political decision based on the political realities of the day.

As presidents have a pretty monarchial power anyway, the checks and balances of Congress are essential to curbing excesses in that power. If Congress abdicates that responsibility because of party politics or loyalties, I don't think there is much that can be done.

Wiser scholars may well have other precedents, but to this observer, the damage was done by the foolish and entirely partisan use of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The exercise devalued the awesome power that impeachment represents (ie the subversion by politicians of the will of the people). That damage means that politicians across the board are now wary of such proceedings even if more justified.

More importantly, it seems to me that Congress has long thrown away its role to be the check to presidential excess within a responsible partnership of power, in favour of the trough and the gravy train.

Rather than waste time impeaching President Bush (who for all that I disagree with his policies, strikes me as a man that has taken decisions based on his real belief that he is doing the right thing, and it's difficult to blame a chap for that) the effort would be better spent impeaching every Congress until they get the message to do their job.

:2cents:

The sig.

I think I actually prefer them hamstrung, like they are now, to having someone else in the seat. And don't forget, Pelosi is 3rd in line. I have no problem with Congress nipping away at Bush's cronies for the next year and a half, pretty much getting nothing done, with a fresh start in Jan 2009.

Although after they leave office, I'm all for a special investigation team to go through the records and bust as many of the administration as they can get. Not much is going to happen now with the "executive privilege", "4th branch" crap being spewed now. And while they are at it, take out some of Congress for aiding and abetting the abuses.

I think either Don or Dave said it best.
We are going to ride this lame duck out, then elect a new President.

Even with all these 'new powers' granted to the Executive Branch, anyone following this President will try to shy away from anything to 'Bush'. If they even think about touching any more power, than the other party will immediately call them out, label it 'imperialistic' and the President will either take the fury, or step back.

I don't think that Impeachment can go through, for the simple reason that the rules that govern the proceedings require
1. High misdemeanors
2. Treason
3. Bribery

While #3 is lucrative :) the Bush presidency fails to fulfill those requirements and cannot be impeached.
If the Congress wants to define 'High Misdemeanors', good luck.
Otherwise, Bush will sit in office till the day he leaves.

Who's Chenney?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Who's Chenney?

---

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Wiser scholars may well have other precedents, but to this observer, the damage was done by the foolish and entirely partisan use of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The exercise devalued the awesome power that impeachment represents (ie the subversion by politicians of the will of the people). That damage means that politicians across the board are now wary of such proceedings even if more justified.

---

Thats nothing compared to the impeachment of Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

---

Ever play Unreal Tournament or Counter-strike? Every time I hear about that I can't help but think of this sound clip. Bonus link to the rest of the UT sounds. :grin:

Also itchy, your sig is entirely appropriate for this conversation.

Honestly, I'm still pissed at all the Dems that we voted in just for the sake of change and sending a message, and the huge striding leaps they've made moving forward to fixing a lot of the problems with our government. /dripping sarcasm

:balloon2:

Ive already written both of my Senators and congressman pleading with them to support the recent Censure measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Ive already written both of my Senators and congressman pleading with them to support the recent Censure measures.

---

It's no wonder the Democrats came out with this censure notion. It allows them to pander to their fringe by passing a meaningless resolution, while not actually doing anything binding. That seems to be their hallmark of late. :thumbsdown:

meaningless? the historical record must be set. That the American people are not in favor of these madmen in office. For their numerous crimes against this country and others, as well as their disregard for the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Ever play Unreal Tournament or Counter-strike? Every time I hear about that I can't help but think of this sound clip. Bonus link to the rest of the UT sounds. :grin:

Also itchy, your sig is entirely appropriate for this conversation.

Honestly, I'm still pissed at all the Dems that we voted in just for the sake of change and sending a message, and the huge striding leaps they've made moving forward to fixing a lot of the problems with our government. /dripping sarcasm

:balloon2:

---

:grin: You're going to have to wait it out for the long haul(what less than a year?) It seems like a waste of time to impeach them at this point. Maybe a year or two ago, but at this point it seems well pointless.

High Crimes and misdemeanors require intent.

I have seen no effective evidence of an intent that rises to the impeachable.

Questions of competence are not grounds for impeachment -- though pressure on the incompetent to resign may be brought to bear.



However, in terms of political capital, there is much to be lost in an attempt to impeach and convict Bush and little for the Democrats to gain thereby. It will not, therefore, happen -- though they may throw any number of sops to their base to placate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

:grin: You're going to have to wait it out for the long haul(what less than a year?) It seems like a waste of time to impeach them at this point. Maybe a year or two ago, but at this point it seems well pointless.

---

They can still do a lot of damage in that year or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_y-plh274

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Dick "Shotgun" Chenney is the Vice President who went Quayle hunting and shot the wrong guy in the face.

---

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

IMO, charges must be brought against Bush and Chenney on matters of principle and the future on democracy in America - if not for their obvious breaking of the laws of the nation they agreed (under oath) to uphold.

---

Your examples of early calls for impeachment are truly pathetic. Under those definitions, anyone fighting a war should be hung.

Your idea that Bush should be impeached on principle? What a crock.

The law demands and requires that one of the following has occurred:

1. High misdemeanors
2. Treason
3. Bribery

If you and your fellow lefties insist on an impeachment without that basis, you are spitting upon the law you claim to uphold, and you are worse than you claim Bush is.

Crazed Rabbit

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

---

I also wonder who these fellows are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

---

Who, exactly?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Who, exactly?

Crazed Rabbit

---

POTUS Andrew Johnson, 1866.

It was not one of the first 9 articles of impeachment voted, but was added shortly thereafter in article 10. Source.

The impeachment of Johnson was an attempt by Stanton to remain in power -- it nearly succeeded.

Quote:

---

POTUS Andrew Johnson, 1866

---

That's one president, not 'Presidents'. One could argue that Johnson was not impeached for insulting the Senate or any other crime, but because of his the Republicans back then didn't like his leniency during reconstruction.

Also, I was speaking of the whole shebang - actually getting removed from office. I suppose Johnson got impeached, but no President has been impeached and removed from office, which is what the dems want, I gather.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

---

True, "high crimes and misdemeanors" had known connotations in English Common Law, but were not absolute measures.

This is why I place such importance of "intent."

I have seen little to show that there was an attempt by either Bush or Cheney to purposefully mislead either for personal gain or for aggrandizement of their offices. There are any number of instances where their decision-making, situational evaluations, and/or competence in execution can be questioned, but this is evidence of bad management/leadership not an impeachable offense.

Please note: Not only has history judged the attempted impeachment of Johnson to be more or less a purely political fight and poorly grounded in the Constitution, but the other attempt at impeachment was nearly as blatantly political and assinine. When they failed to vote to impeach Clinton on the obstruction of justice article, the effort should have ended. Perjury over a private matter should have called for no more than censure (and perhaps resignation depending on one's personal sense of honor).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I still don't recall a Vice President named Dick Chenney.

---

Ah, you're doing the spelling thing. Cheney, not Chenney. No matter how you spell it, he's still Dick.

Once again, blah blah blah, Politics. There is no way an impeachment measure would ever pass. Unless the president openly commits treason or murder, he isn't going anywhere no matter how much you hate him. You might as well hold your breath.

The democrats would never start impeachment due to the facts:

A) It would never pass, they don't have enough support
B) The Republicans would seek revenge. No more playing nice between the two parties.

Another classic rant, as eloquently detailed in the Orgah Summations.

There are no reasons for impeachment. G.W. Bush didn’t have consensual sex with a adult woman, he just lied to sent his own soldiers to died for his own vanity and interests of the Military Industry Complex… These are honourable goals… Making money on others blood is not so bad… To play on honourable patriotic feeling of your citizens to lead them in an un-useful war is common and accepted by all countries…

“The Republicans would seek revenge":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Nice bit of humour:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

The intent to allow Executive privilege was to allow the President to converse freely with his advisors on national security issues and international affairs - and the likes. It was not intended to allow a Prez to hide everything he and his subordinates were doing (especially those things associated with congressional oversight committees) - invoking national security for everything - or to cover-up their misdeeds.

When every memo from every Cabinet member of a Presidentcy is labelled "classified", when a VP classifes all his inter-office memos (even those issued to release information), when the President envelopes his entire staff and cabinet to be included under a veil of "executive privilege" - then he has in fact broken the law.

Bush is attempting to extend Executive privilege into perpetuity:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/20050715.htm
This pertains to withholding documents from the LBJ's era concerning Vietnam (circa 1967); but the purpose is much more sinister in that if allowed it would set the precident to keep embarrassing documents from the Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43 from ever reaching the eyes of the public.

The Republicans were against executive privilege, before they were for it - that is, when Clinton was Prez:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._i_was_for_it/
When it is seen in a political light, the GOPists oppose executive privilege - same-o-same-o when for it. Seems hypocritical, but what the hey - DC politics as usual. I suppose.

Then there is the Nixon arguement for it, and concessions to Congress:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/72.htm

Then we have the ACLU's view point, which neo-cons will see as a liberal attack on freedom (what an oxymoronic that train of thought is):
"ACLU: Bush thumbing his nose at the constitution"
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/a...humbsNose.html

Then we have the recent contempt of congress involving Harriet Miers (former canidate to the Supreme Court - gah) - and others. Now here i do believe that the Republican plan for retribution is more sensible than the Dems - since the Dems relys on the (un)Justice Department of Gonzales to allow it to for forward.

Regardless, the Bushys have pushed past the envelope concerning Executive privilege - they've even surpassed Nixon in their subverting the law for their own purpose and to conceal any wrong doings.
To allow the Bushys to continue unimpeeded will permit all future Presidents to use Bush43's antics to justify the empowerment any inaction by Congress has given him. If it goes unchallanged now - it becomes a defacto law.

Regardless of the future actions brought against the next presidentcy to curtail it - the precident will be set. Believing it is to late, or not in our best interest to impeach a President for subverting and breaking the law (Constitution) is irrational. For, had the GOPist congresses of 2002 - 2006 been doing their job to uphold the laws and oversee the presidentcy - none of this would be necessary. But, they didn't - and now it is necessary for someone to uphold the law and impeach those responsable for subverting it.

Contempt for the law and arrogance of power, must not be rewarded with silence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Ah, you're doing the spelling thing. Cheney, not Chenney. No matter how you spell it, he's still Dick.

---

Sorry, I just thought that if someone was going to have a thread with an incoherent rant about nonimpeachable offences, not only that, but asking Congress to waste more money on more silly "investigations", spelling the name of the accused should be more accurate. I'd hate for Dick Chenney, manure farmer in West Bumtitty, New Mexico get a summons to meet with a Congressional hearing, even though about the same amount of importance and evidence would be involved if they did it against the VP. Yawn...

uh, "silly"? you define flagrant violation of US law as silly?

Seems some are more concerned with the correctness of spelling or letters, than the letter of the law. Read up on Nixon if you remain entrenched that the Bushys have done nothing illegal. Then answe, if they haven't, why not answer the questions (under oath), turn over the emails and documents requested by Congress? I mean, what do they have to loose by complying with the law?
Again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

The intent to allow Executive privilege was to allow the President to converse freely with his advisors on national security issues and international affairs - and the likes. It was not intended to allow a Prez to hide everything he and his subordinates were doing (especially those things associated with congressional oversight committees) - invoking national security for everything - or to cover-up their misdeeds.

When every memo from every Cabinet member of a Presidentcy is labelled "classified", when a VP classifes all his inter-office memos (even those issued to release information), when the President envelopes his entire staff and cabinet to be included under a veil of "executive privilege" - then he has in fact broken the law.

Bush is attempting to extend Executive privilege into perpetuity:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/20050715.htm
This pertains to withholding documents from the LBJ's era concerning Vietnam (circa 1967); but the purpose is much more sinister in that if allowed it would set the precident to keep embarrassing documents from the Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43 from ever reaching the eyes of the public.

The Republicans were against executive privilege, before they were for it - that is, when Clinton was Prez:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._i_was_for_it/
When it is seen in a political light, the GOPists oppose executive privilege - same-o-same-o when for it. Seems hypocritical, but what the hey - DC politics as usual. I suppose.

Then there is the Nixon arguement for it, and concessions to Congress:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/72.htm

Then we have the ACLU's view point, which neo-cons will see as a liberal attack on freedom (what an oxymoronic that train of thought is):
"ACLU: Bush thumbing his nose at the constitution"
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/a...humbsNose.html

Then we have the recent contempt of congress involving Harriet Miers (former canidate to the Supreme Court - gah, probably misspelt her name too) - and others. Now here I do believe that the Republican plan for retribution or getting to the truth is more sensible than the Dems - since the Dems relys on the (un)Justice Department of Gonzales to allow it to go forward.

Regardless, the Bushys have pushed past the envelope concerning Executive privilege - they've even surpassed Nixon in their subverting the law for their own purpose and to conceal any wrong doings.

To allow the Bushys to continue unimpeeded will permit all future Presidents to use Bush43's antics to justify the empowerment any inaction by Congress has given him. If it goes unchallanged now - it becomes a defacto law that a future Prez could tie up any change to in the same way Bush43 has.

Regardless of the future actions brought against the next presidentcy to curtail it - the precident will be set. Believing it is to late, or not in our best interest to impeach a President for subverting and breaking the law (Constitution) is irrational. For, had the GOPist congresses of 2002 - 2006 been doing their job to uphold the laws and oversee the presidentcy - none of this would be necessary. But, they didn't - and now it is necessary for someone to uphold the law and impeach those responsable for subverting it.

Contempt for the law and arrogance of power, must not be rewarded with silence.

---

Note: The internet hates me.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

uh, "silly"? you define flagrant violation of US law as silly?

---

I would define trying to impeach Bush silly. Regardless if the man is guilty or not, it is never going to happen.

Why do you think it couldnt happen? A number of towns (and growing) have already impeached him. More and more Republican senators are turning against him as a result of the illegal and mismanaged war, and his mindless backing of a criminal Attorney General is leaving him more isolated than ever.

Bush haters, you only have 1 more year to wait before Bush is gone, so stop repeatedly asking for something which clearly is not coming emminently.

Lorenzo, and others, there are reasons for the need to impeach Bush/Cheney - that is what this thread was meant to be about. Hating Bush/Cheney has less to do with this than their having broken the laws they took oaths to protect and have blatantly flaunted their willingness to do so in the face of all Americans. As I said, had the GOPist congress that willfully turned their collective ass in the air to be pummelled by the Bushys done their job of protecting their constituents none of the present investigations would be necessary - but they didn't and it is.

What Nixon did was (and remains) undefensable and criminal - but, in comparrison to the Bush/Cheney trampling of our laws he was almost a saint. I mean, we know the GOPist have their "enemy lists" (one for all Americans that oppose them, and another that includes all registered democrats) - I can barely wait to see the phone records of the Bush/Cheney illegal wiretap campaign (likely to make Watergate look like kids stuff - which it was). See, the difference between Nixon and Bush is that Nixon had to suffer through Congressional oversight committees - Bush had SIX years of total GOPist control of all three branches of government - and man did the Bushys abuse that power. Only now, with a Democratic congress, did the Bushys, playground change - suddenly they have to share their once private sandbox, and they ain't happy about it. But, since they (Bushys) still control 2/3rds of the balances (Executive and Judicial) they still believe they are above the law. They feel comfortable that they can delay all the investigations and oversights past the day they leave office and will, therefore, escape punishment for their crimes. Hell, Bush43 believes he'll be hailed as a Trumanesque Prez - in say 100 years (I doubt he'll be remembered for anything but trying to breaking the law beyond repair).

So, don't think of this as just another Bushy bashing thread so much as a why Bush needs to be impeached one. If no one holds their illegal activities to account, then all must accept the similar actions of future presidents as being acceptable as well. Or, is what is good for a GOPist Prez not the same for a Dems one?

Take the time to read atleast the Nixon and ACLU links posted. Other wise, please, ignore the thread with your partisan banter or idea that we only have 18 months before the nightmare is over. When in fact what will have been left in place is a legacy that will be a defacto justification for bending or ignoring all laws that donot conform to the purpose of those "above the law" (Bushs).
:wall: :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Why do you think it couldnt happen? A number of towns (and growing) have already impeached him. More and more Republican senators are turning against him as a result of the illegal and mismanaged war, and his mindless backing of a criminal Attorney General is leaving him more isolated than ever.

---

There are plenty of Senators/Reps in Congress that hate Bush with a passion. I'm sure if they believed it was feasible, we would have seen an impeachment vote long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Actually, the recquirements for impeachment were left purposely vague by the founders. Presidents have been impeached before for things like "insulting the Senate" for example.

---

There has only been two attempts at impeachment in the United States of a sitting president. There has been censors done before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In writing Article II, Section 4, George Mason had favored impeachment for "maladministration," i.e., incompetence, but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue. [1] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

Actual impeachments of only the following seventeen federal officers have taken place:

Two presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both acquitted.
One cabinet officer, acquitted after he had resigned.
One senator (William Blount, see below)
Thirteen federal judges, including Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, seven of whom were convicted (after his conviction, former judge Alcee Hastings was elected as a member of the House of Representatives).[2]
The 1799 impeachment of Tennessee Senator William Blount stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. Because, in a separate action unrelated to the impeachment procedure, the Senate had already expelled Blount, the lack of jurisdiction may have been either because Blount was no longer a Senator, or because Senators are not "civil officers" of the U. S. who are subject to impeachment. At any rate, no other member of Congress has ever been impeached, although the Constitution does give authority to either house to expel members, which each has done on occasion, effectively removing the individual from functioning as a representative or senator.

In addition, Richard Nixon decided to resign in the face of the near certainty of both his impeachment, which had already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee, and the apparent likelihood of his conviction by the Senate.

But even with such rarity in impeachment proceedings, both historians and contemporary opponents of certain trials have voiced arguments that some impeachments were relatively frivolous and politically motivated.

---

I really expect better historial comment from a self claimed student of history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Lorenzo, and others, there are reasons for the need to impeach Bush/Cheney - that is what this thread was meant to be about. Hating Bush/Cheney has less to do with this than their having broken the laws they took oaths to protect and have blatantly flaunted their willingness to do so in the face of all Americans. As I said, had the GOPist congress that willfully turned their collective ass in the air to be pummelled by the Bushys done their job of protecting their constituents none of the present investigations would be necessary - but they didn't and it is.

---

The problem Kafir is that in order to impeach the President and Vice President the members of congress must face their own crimes and issues that could result in their own impeachment or removal from office for many of the same type of abuses of power that the President could be quilty of. When one attempts to impeach a sitting president because he has attempt to gather more power then the constitution might allow, means that Congress must come to face the fact that they themselves allowed it to happen because of their own desire to remain in office.

To impeach the President is something that many congressman on both sides of the isle can not allow to happen because the fallout of such an attempt will remove many of them from office as well. WIth many of them getting well deserved prison sentences.

I do agree with Redleg. An Impeachment procedure in this case implies a condemnation for the people who left him free to do it, in approving/not questioning what the President asked them to do.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I do agree with Redleg. An Impeachment procedure in this case implies a condemnation for the people who left him free to do it, in approving/not questioning what the President asked them to do.:inquisitive:

---

Shouldn't they be condemned?

Unfortunately nothing is going to happen because none of the people in power really care enough to take any risks to punish him, and most of them don't have the balls anyway....