Should Bush face an impeachment investigation? [Archive]

awdougherty

07-09-2003, 09:53 AM

As I wrote in another post, Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about sloppy BJ's in office. If Bush lied about intelligence to bring the US and other countries to war, that seems much much much much worse to me.

If he didn't lie and it was an "honest mistake," is that any better? He doesn't want to wait for the UN inspection teams, he doesn't want to wait for verification of the Nigerian intelligence... sure in a moment of immediate danger you have to go with what you have, but were we at that point? Were we even close?

For my taste, what Bush has done crosses the line of legality. Whether or not he lied is somewhat irrelevant, his irresponsibility with the lives of US troops borders on shameful. Just because we have the power doesn't mean we should use it with all the restraint of a premature ejaculator.

Rywill

07-09-2003, 09:58 AM

FUCK YES.

I wish there were even more ways to indicate emphasis. Wait: :evil:

*Although I am 360 degrees opposite from you on why. I think he should definitely face impeachment for lying to the public about the evidence he had. If I really thought it had been an "honest mistake" I would say no impeachment, probably.

Guido Jones

07-09-2003, 10:03 AM

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?

Nathan Phoenix

07-09-2003, 10:05 AM

Bush lied, people died

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/07/09/top.bush.ap.jpg

Actually the main reason I don't think Bush has any right to be in office is the fact that Gore won the popular vote. I really can't complain though, because I voted for Bush just because Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate.

awdougherty

07-09-2003, 10:09 AM

That's a good picture, never has one president been photographed so often with a fart noise face.

And whatever happened to a declaration of war meaning anything? I think it's a little unnecessary and dangerous the way the current commander in chief rules work.

Troy S Goodfellow

07-09-2003, 10:09 AM

The breakdown in communications appears to be in the Vice President's office, so Cheney should certainly face some serious questions. Considering how forthcoing he has been about the energy task force, I don't expect him to appear before any hostile inquisitor in some time.

The "honest mistake" argument would be fine with me (it's no worse than all these bandwagon Democrats saying they were "misled" or "duped" - it's so reassuring to hear that senators are so easily fooled) if it weren't for the fact that the CIA knew the uranium story was false nine months before the State of the Union address. And there are reports that the investigation of the Niger transfer by the CIA and ambassador Wilson was at the request of the VP's office.

Impeach Cheney.

Troy

Jason McCullough

07-09-2003, 10:14 AM

It's moot; Bush could rape a crowd of children on the front lawn and the GOP would find a way to excuse. Not happening as long as they control the House.

Woolen Horde

07-09-2003, 10:14 AM

And Republicans control both the House and the Senate, so unless public pressure really builds (highly unlikely), they ain't even gonna think about it.

Rywill

07-09-2003, 10:28 AM

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?
I have to stop using that joke. Nobody gets it.

awdougherty

07-09-2003, 10:50 AM

I'm not saying he would actually get impeached, but maybe just the official investigation to get the facts out there, then have the GOP controlled congress shoot it down.

Xaroc

07-09-2003, 11:18 AM

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?
I have to stop using that joke. Nobody gets it.

FWIW I get it.

-- Xaroc

Tyjenks

07-09-2003, 11:26 AM

They are all crooks. They all lie. People's lives are destroyed. I give up. I say we march up there and blow the living shit out of the whole place. I say Gray Davis should be beat to within an inch of his life resuscitated and then start over again.

I do believe the lie was not Bush's to claim. Cheney, the CIA, or someone in the chain sold it as a real bill of goods. Now, Bush Jr. could stand up and take one for the team. Say something like, "While I may or may not have known all of the specifics, it did happen on my watch and should bear the blame." Maybe he would get a little respect back, but I have no faith that it would not happen again with the president, or the next, or the next.

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?
I have to stop using that joke. Nobody gets it.

FWIW I get it.

-- Xaroc

It was funnier when wumpus did it.

Andrew Mayer

07-09-2003, 11:32 AM

At some point they clamor is going to get too loud, and even the partisans will have to do something.

There's still a difference between poll results and federal law. Perhaps not as big as it used to be, but a difference none the less.

Xaroc

07-09-2003, 11:58 AM

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?
I have to stop using that joke. Nobody gets it.

FWIW I get it.

-- Xaroc

It was funnier when wumpus did it.

wumpus screwed up when he did it. Then we started making fun of it but since people don't keep up there is always someone who doesn't get it and has to have it explained killing the effect.

Sorry for the side track back to your regularly scheduled thread.

I would be all for a Bush impeachment but as others have mentioned it probably won't happen.

-- Xaroc

TimElhajj

07-09-2003, 12:12 PM

Major Malphunktion

07-09-2003, 12:28 PM

Well, the defeatist attitude - oh it won't happen...blah blah' is EXACTLY what they want to hear. Write your congressman, write your local paper, call your local TV, post on the ABC/NBC/CBS newsgroups, send emails of articles to your friends, and your elected leaders....Make a stink. There are alot of people pissed off about this. Get Active! It's not hard...doesn't take that much time and feels good. Go to a Bush stump and heckle him. I did it to Bush Sr. his wife and the poddle. I did not get kicked out, and even got some claps. When I mean heckle...I mean blurt out the hard questions you want answered. Of course if you want to moon him on the way out..it is still mostly a free country.
We have been fed that it doesn't matter who is in office for so long, we have become numb to criminal acts by our elected-or in this case placed-officials. Question Authority...it is our right for answers and accountability of our elected officals.
You don't see the Right(the wrong), who at this point are far better organized rolling over when things don't go thier way. They are about to throw a governor out of office. Blatantly and openenly a campagn run by a republican who will then run for the office. It is a coup by following the law. Maybe some Dems should start trying this in other states...like MA. for one.
In Tx. the GOP are attempting to redistrict so more GOP's make it to national office. It isn't for the good of thier people, but for the good of thier party. Is this right? Again Dems should do this in other states...
It is all well and good for us to bitch in the corners of cyberspace about the injustices of the system...but there are ways to apply pressure for change. Don't be afraid of the loud and proud minority that will call you Saddam lovers or unpatriotic. That is bullshit. The current regime in this country is about as unpatriotic as it gets...they hide behind nationalism while taking whatever they can get thier hands on. time to stomp these bastards.
I already wrote my congressmen, and the Boston Globe for thier weak editorial about 'untruths'. Untruths...don't you mean LIES? Screw this trying to lessen to blow stuff..they lied. Imagine walking into your house and getting cought cheating...it was just an untruth dear...uh yeah. Balls in sling...bullet in head.
Time for the left to grow some balls and stick it to the opposition. I want Justice! And I want my country back.
Liberal is not a dirty word, if it was why is it Liberty and Juctice for all and not Conservatism and well, the rest doesn't work with that does it?

Anyone else in 04.

Woolen Horde

07-09-2003, 12:46 PM

In Tx. the GOP are attempting to redistrict so more GOP's make it to national office. It isn't for the good of thier people, but for the good of thier party. Is this right? Again Dems should do this in other states...

Dems *do* this in the states they control. They aren't innocent victims in this either. Both parties try to screw the other whenever they can. Iowa has a system that pretty much the rest of the states should adopt: it's a balanced redistricting commission, 2 dems, 2 repubs, and the tie-breaking vote belongs to about as neutral a third party as you can find. It's hard to screw each other over in that situation.

Frankly, I'm a moderate Dem, and I'm just in despair, because Shrub has a really good chance of locking up Republican domination for the next decade or two. Odds are he will be re-elected, and once his second term is over, they'll turn to Jeb in Florida to take over the White House.

The Democratic Party is just nowhere near as disciplined and organized as the Republican Party, and that's the Republican's edge. If Karl Rove says jump, they all ask how high and do their damndest to outjump each other. Try doing that with Democrats, and they bicker and complain to no end. You've got the environmentalists, the liberal elite, the welfare faction, the teachers, the lawyers, the pro-choicers, the really left wing of the party, the moderates, the african americans, etc all sniping at each other.

The difference being that the Republicans endured 8 years of Clinton and learned from it. They've organized into a pretty damn formidable political and media machine. Their party elders decided early on that Bush Jr would be their candidate in 2000, and they did everything in their power to make it so (John McCain was the only anamoly in that process).

4 years of Bush, and all the Democrats can do bicker endlessly and look hopeless. To have a chance, they cannot go Far Left in this election. Mondale and McGovern lead their liberal campaigns to the worst defeats in American history. You have to be a centrist. You have to be able to win the South. And you have to be able to say that you're going to be tough on terror and actually have people believe you.

Jason McCullough

07-09-2003, 01:19 PM

Wool, redistricting again because political control of the legislature changed is an entirely new thing. It's a huge leap in slimy redistricting.

quatoria

07-09-2003, 01:28 PM

And, as mentioned repeatedly, it's being driven by pressure from the national Republican leadership, most probably as a test for doing it elsewhere.

Major Malphunktion

07-09-2003, 01:33 PM

I think it was more than 8 years of Clinton. I think they started reevaluating how to really manipulate the system and using the media as a power after Watergate. Eat lunch and play tennis with the CEO's of ABC/CBS and NBC enough and they will be your buddies:)

quatoria

07-09-2003, 01:49 PM

Don't forget the fact that CBS/NBC/ABC/ETC are no longer independant companies in the business of television. They are small subsidiaries of much larger corporate entities who have no qualms about using the media arm to promote messages that profit them.

Tyjenks

07-09-2003, 01:53 PM

Major Malphunktion

07-09-2003, 02:16 PM

Ty- not at all. But the Dems did not loose a president to reporting. The GOP got a taste of the power of the press firsthand.
I'm a former frontliner in TV.(Camera,editor,director,producer...but never ever 'talent') I have a grudging respect for this administation on how well they play the media. Throw out a bone , watch everyone run like rats to be the 'first' to air/print...then a few days or hours later they say..well, that really wasn't it after all...then the media Then does what has been operating procedure for years...they think they the media has screwed up , run a little retraction or a page two article. The Admin gets the BOOOM message they wanted out there...the truth gets the sidebar. It is fricking brilliant. But, I think the media as a whole has cought on. Now they will still do the running like rats, but the retractions are starting to become main headline stories. It is a hard thing as a reporter to not believe an 'offical'. But once you have doubt in thier credibility, well, they are going to question everything they say.
The imbedded reporter thing was a stroke of genius too. Keep them with the troops, hours upon hours of jeeps crossing a desert in crappy MPEG I video...look! you are THERE! No real reporting going on whatsoever. No Why. That is the question that seems to be forgotten by journalists these days. Who what when Where...that stuff is easy. Why. Watch a White house press converence. Ari will never answer the Why questions. Same with Rummie. they know. Give them the easy Soundbite...he did this here at this time. Well why? Why did 9/11 happen? Why is there a lie in the State of the Union? Why won't Cheney talk about his Energy commision? why did we back out of the Ballistic Missle Treaty? why do we hate the French now? Why is unemployment almost 7%? Why are we holding 1000's of guys in CUBA , away from the press and public, where who knows what is going on there and not giving them fair trials? Why did the Dreamcast die? Oh wait...the GOP had nothing to do with the last one...

Jason McCullough

07-09-2003, 02:18 PM

....or DID THEY?

Tyjenks

07-09-2003, 02:33 PM

OK Solomon..just making sure. :) I believe they all would sell their mothers for extra votes and power, but thats just me.

Unfortunately, the democrats have, rather than learning as the Republicans seem to have expertly done, been whining. They shoulda been scheming and planning and maybe even coming up with a solution of two for the country's woes. Nope, they have been bitching and moaning about what the Republicans have or have not done. A lot of wasted energy that should have been spent coming up with fixes to campaign on and implement when they get back in power.

I am both eager for and dread the 2004 election. Eager for a change, but the choices we will have in the primaries and presidential election leave me feeling quite ill.

cyborg

07-09-2003, 02:34 PM

Dreamcasts must have been tools of terrorists - training the yoof of America to turn against the US. Those clever arabs!

Daniel Morris

07-09-2003, 02:58 PM

Tyjenks

07-09-2003, 03:06 PM

If a ticket along the lines of Kerry/Clark (two veterans and two guys who are knowledgeable on military matters) can get out there and start talking some plain sense on national security, then Bush can be beaten in 2004.

I am probably fretting to early, but my adolescent blind love of democrats has turned to a sour and bitter cynicism. I try to look to the other side of the fence for direction and if I stare to long my eyes start to bleed. Where is the party of reduced government and restrained spending? Where is a party that supports measured and intelligent reform? There ain't one and that's what I want.

On a side note of irritation: Where are the fucking Congressional Term Limits!!!?!?!

Daniel Morris

07-09-2003, 03:14 PM

As my best friend likes to say, there are now only two political parties -- the Corporate Party that supports abortion, and the Corporate Party that doesn't support abortion.

Dirt

07-09-2003, 03:46 PM

"You guys are overthinking this. The mid-term elections were a drubbing for the Democratic Party for one reason alone: national security. People do not trust today's Dems to handle business. I'm firmly convinced that at least 20 percent of Bush's 60 percent approval rating is only there because fence-sitting moderates trust the GOP on defense."

This coming from a party who controls a White House that didn't even know whether or not (or really bother to check) intelligence information was accurate. Be afraid.

Jason McCullough

07-09-2003, 04:02 PM

I think it was more than 8 years of Clinton. I think they started reevaluating how to really manipulate the system and using the media as a power

You guys are overthinking this. The mid-term elections were a drubbing for the Democratic Party for one reason alone: national security. People do not trust today's Dems to handle business. I'm firmly convinced that at least 20 percent of Bush's 60 percent approval rating is only there because fence-sitting moderates trust the GOP on defense.

If a ticket along the lines of Kerry/Clark (two veterans and two guys who are knowledgeable on military matters) can get out there and start talking some plain sense on national security, then Bush can be beaten in 2004.

Oh, give me a break.

As nonpartisan analyst Charlie Cook has pointed out, "A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5.

Here (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.teixeira.html). 1994 the 2002 election wasn't.

Woolen Horde

07-09-2003, 04:33 PM

Bush will have about $150 million in the war chest for the main campaign, plus he's guaranteed an automatic ticket to the nomination with no opposition. So he doesn't have to spend squat until he gets a Democratic opponent.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be exhausted and low on funds from just winning the nomination. Especially if the Dean insurgency picks up momentum. I don't think it's going to be Dean, but I think that if Dean becomes big enough, fighting him off is going to take a whole ton of energy and resources for whichever unlucky bastard wins the nomination. They'll turn around and face Bush and Rove and that $150-$200 million re-election campaign.

Things that could derail Bush II.

1. The economy, though a lot could change between now and November 2004.

2. Iraq. Especially if the body bags keep flowing home like they've been doing.

However, for the Democrats to capitalize, they have to present a credible alternative, which they really haven't.

I just don't think the WMD thing will stick. For one, (unlike the Brits) most Americans don't seem to care, so long as we got Saddam out of power. And if it should somehow threaten to stick, they'll find a ceremonial lamb, like Cheney, to fall on his sword and take the blame for manipulating the intelligence.

The big wild card in this is Al Queda. If they pull another WTC-scale attack successfully, I just don't know how the cards would fall.

Tyjenks

07-09-2003, 06:18 PM

As my best friend likes to say, there are now only two political parties -- the Corporate Party that supports abortion, and the Corporate Party that doesn't support abortion.

Oooh, I think, with your friend's permission of course, I would like to steal that and spread it throughout the Southeast. I would say we could put it on a bumper sticker and make a mint since that is where all the good religious and political debate is done :roll: , but I am not sure many would appreciate it.

Major Malphunktion

07-10-2003, 05:30 AM

I think to win 2004 a few things the Dems have to do:
Get the left parties behind them for this election- the Greens exc. I heard rumors that the Greens were going to not run a presidental candidate and step in line behind whatever Dem is the party nomination. For my $$ I want Kerry. I have met the guy a few times in my life, once as a youngster at a Vets Against Vietnam rally (in 72), and a few times as the 'press'. Color me impressed. Most politicians I've met make me want to choke on my own bile, but the rare few, and Kerry is one of them, that I'm ok with making the big decisions. This might be unpopular but Ted K. was another. I expected some bumbling boob, but I was surprised at how levelheaded and willing to speak to anyone and everyone that came up to him.
Force debates. Not one or two in Sept. I want ten debates. Bring bush into the open, in front of the people and the press and he will singlehandedly loose the election on his own.
Vote. Esp. in Fla.
Take over the airwaves. The Dems have to make news everyday. Go on talk shows, Ophra exc. The big O has already made a stand against this Pres. I'm sure she would love to stick it to them. And you know whatever she says her followers will do.
I do think the 'yellowcake' scratch that the Uranium is the tip of the iceburg, and the chink in the armor. I am shocked that the Dems haven't FREAKED OUT on this, but they all must be writing thier speeches for the sunday talk shows.

Tyjenks

07-10-2003, 06:31 AM

I think to win 2004 a few things the Dems have to do:
Get the left parties behind them for this election- the Greens exc. I heard rumors that the Greens were going to not run a presidental candidate and step in line behind whatever Dem is the party nomination.

I hope you are wrong. I do not want potential third party contenders knuckling under in favor of the party they lean more heavily toward. Whether they take votes from the Democrats or not, they represent people in this country who do not want the same ol' shit. A three or four party system may not be a viable alternative for our government right now, but something needs to change and someone has to at least make the effort. I am sick, sick, sick of coloring in the "lesser of two evils" bubbles when I get my ballot.

Major Malphunktion

07-10-2003, 07:27 AM

Ty- I hear you . BUT I think things have slipped so far in the past couple of years, that the progressive left are willing to 'take one for the team' in this case.
I wish there was a more powerful 3rd/4th party. One on the lesft and one on the right. It would make things more interesting. The problem is, when it comes to progressive left...well, there are not all that many rich enviromentalist/social progressives out there to fund a serious campaign.
i do think it is a shame that they are not invited to debates. It would make for a much more interesting discussion.

antlers

07-10-2003, 07:43 AM

With our first-past-the-milepost election system, it is impossible to have a viable third party (someone has done the math). If you think the Democrats aren't progressive enough, you have to work within the party to change. The Christian right took over the Republican party and bent it to their wishes; their is no reason that progressives can't do the same with the Democrats.

Robert Sharp

07-10-2003, 09:50 AM

360 degrees? So you're in total agreement with him?
I have to stop using that joke. Nobody gets it.

I think it's the 'although' that messes it up. It makes it sound like you must mean it to be 180.

Woolen Horde

07-10-2003, 11:38 AM

Force debates. Not one or two in Sept. I want ten debates. Bring bush into the open, in front of the people and the press and he will singlehandedly loose the election on his own.

Yeah, but big memo to the Democratic candidate in the debate: Don't come off like Gore did in the first debate. Jeezus, I'm a Democrat and I was friggin' appalled and embarassed the way he kept clearing his throat as a way to interreupt Bush. He was like the smart kid in class who not only raises his hand every time the teacher asks a question, but he's got to grunt and try to touch the ceiling, and practically stand out of his chair, and scream "Pick me teacher, pick me! I'm ever so smart."

And we all know how much we hated that smart kid in the chair, even if we were him.

SNL ripped Gore big time for that, and his aides then took a videotape of the skit to hammer to Gore to CALM THE FUCK DOWN, YOU'RE SCARING VOTERS.

That may have cost him the election, because I remember a lot of "reaction" stories from the debate, and a lot of folks thought Gore was just unbelievably rude.

Jason McCullough

07-10-2003, 11:56 AM

It cracks me up all the flack Gore caught for acting like a stuffed shirt; Bush, by contrast, didn't take much for stammering and generally appearing to know absolutely nothing.

Major Malphunktion

07-10-2003, 11:59 AM

If Gore did SNL before the election , and did it as well as he did a few months ago, he would have won.

Rywill

07-10-2003, 12:00 PM

Tyjenks

07-10-2003, 12:14 PM

I think there was a lot of criticism on both sides. I definitely remember Bush catching a lot of "lightweight" and "baby" criticism. It was one of the closest elections ever--I really don't think the press favored one over the other.

Don't you mean the closest "Selection"(tm) !!!! :wink:

They both got grief for their own goofy little performance quirks as I remember. Gore's seemed a bit more irritaing to me.

Jason McCullough

07-10-2003, 01:14 PM

XPav

07-10-2003, 02:13 PM

I saw Chris Matthews on the Daily Show the other day.

He kept doing this really bizarre laugh in between making fun of John Kerry for having some bizzare confusion as to what his ancestry was.

Rywill

07-10-2003, 06:10 PM

I think there was a split between newspapers and everything else. Talk radio, magazines, and television were obsessed with Gore's supposed lying and wardrobe, while the newspapers run a bunch of stories about how Bush's budget violated laws of mathematics.
That could be--I mostly rely on newspapers and CNN.com. I saw negative articles about both guys, though.

Here's my new favorite thing: the way Bush seems to latch on to some catchphrase his handlers came up with. Lately it's "revisionst history" (or "rewriting history," when he can't remember the word "revisionist"). He uses it like every time someone asks him about the justification for war. My personal favorite: "I've seen a lot of these people who like to rewrite history. Revisionist historians, I like to call them." Hint to GWB: just because you've never heard a term before your handlers fed it to you doesn't mean you should take credit for inventing it.