Why Bush/Chenney must be impeached

[Devastatin Dave]

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...

[Zaknafien]

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

[KafirChobee]

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:

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.

[Ice]

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.

[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.

[Lorenzo_H]

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.

[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.

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).

[Ice]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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

[Redleg]

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.

[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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

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....