Mark this down and remember it because I'm probably the first Republican to say it. George W. Bush will be impeached. No, I didn't forget the "will not". This November WHEN Democrats take back some power in Congress, and they will, George Bush will be impeached. Because of one simple word. Payback. They're still pissed about Bill Clinton's impeachment and they want revenge. How will this impending impeachment help and hurt the parties? I'm not sure. It will hurt Republicans, that's obvious but it may end up helping them at the same time and hurting the Democrats. It all depends on whether the American public will see that action for the sour grapes it'll be. Will said impeachment lead to Bush being removed from office? Most likely not. They, the Democrats, will just want to flex their newly found muscle but I don't think they could get enough votes to oust W.
Filed under Politics
Categories:
George W. Bush,
Republicans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
You are assuming that the elections were today. By November the GOP will have "saved face" (ie lied enough and played dirty pool enough) to win enough seats to maintain a majority in the House.
What you call lying and dirty pool I call politics. Don't pretend that Republicans are the only ones who do it.
Nope..aint gonna happen.
Dems are going to LOSE seats in House and Senate.
You heard my prediction.
I don't think so. Republicans have become too cocky with the power they've had for the past decade. Just like the walls of Jericho, it's crumbling down. I don't like saying it, but I have to.
I don't think it will happen but if it does it will be political suicide for the democrats.
Especially when moderate democrats like Joe Lieberman denounce his own party and he says that “at a time of war I support my president although we differ on issues.”
Impeachment will satisfy the whacked-left but that's about it. Moderate America will not fall for it.
Yeah, I think you're probably right about the impeachment. One thing we've seen is the pettiness of Democrats. It's really not about America; it's about their own power and egos. Thus, I can definitely foresee an unwarranted impeachment coming up. Good grief. I just can't wait to get out of California. All the nutjobs out here will go mad with bizarre euphoria if Bush is impeached.
It's payback you say?
Nothing to do with the fact that he started a war on false pretenses, blatantly lied about what he was doing, circumvented proper protocol and breached human rights, ammended approximately 500 bills so that way they "wouldn't apply" to the administration... and so on and so forth?
It's all about Clinton you say?
But Za; All those things you just mentioned are FALSE. Prove one. I double Dog Dare ya.
BTW: The Prez cannot Amend Bills..thats congress(Committees) which do that. The Prez just signs Bills. FYI.
Easy.
We have all the pre-war intelligence documents - and they prove that the CIA knew there were no WMDs, and had not been any since 1991.
Secondly, without UN support, Bush has breached both the Nuremburg Treaty and the UN Charter, and could theoretically be held up on war crimes.
Thirdly, Bush himself has admitted that the NSA spying program did not go through the FISA court as the law demands.
Fourthly, WHILE he was doing this, he specifically told the public:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
-George W. Bush, in Buffalo, NY, on April 20, 2004, at 9:49 a.m.
Now please explain to me how that is NOT a lie given that at this time he was performing the illegal wiretapping?
Fifthly, yes, the President "just signs" bills, but he can also add a bill-signing statement, which amends the bill.
So I've got you on ALL of them, plus war crimes on the side. The only way you can dismiss them John, is if you decide to be the architect of your own little universe.
"We have all the pre-war intelligence documents - and they prove that the CIA knew there were no WMDs, and had not been any since 1991."-- Bull. We ALL have seen documents to the contrary.
"Secondly, without UN support, Bush has breached both the Nuremburg Treaty and the UN Charter, and could theoretically be held up on war crimes."-- More Bull. We AL know about upholding the resoultions of 1993 and the UN support.
"Thirdly, Bush himself has admitted that the NSA spying program did not go through the FISA court as the law demands."--
Bull. Even the LEADING Jurist on that FISA court publically has said that HE reviewed the situation and Bush DID NOT have to go through FISA because it did not involve both parties being US citizens. He was in his constitutional RIGHT to do those wiretaps. FISA only deals with US citizens.
Fourthly; If you want to start with the personal insults because you cannot argue your wacked out points; then please do so somewhere else. I'am tired of it.
ANYBODY Else agree with Za's "Proof"?
Just because someone does not agree with your OPINIONS; does not mean they live in their own little world. When you get out of SCHOOL and start WORKING for a change; maybe you will be able to see what is real and what is not.
Bull. We ALL have seen documents to the contrary.
You mean like how it's only a few that have any such suggestion - and the CIA says that they're probably fakes given that almost all of them have from 1991 onwards, Saddam's top council stating how much they wished they still had their WMD programs?
More Bull. We AL know about upholding the resoultions of 1993 and the UN support.
That's not even a response.
Bull. Even the LEADING Jurist on that FISA court publically has said that HE reviewed the situation and Bush DID NOT have to go through FISA because it did not involve both parties being US citizens. He was in his constitutional RIGHT to do those wiretaps. FISA only deals with US citizens.
Actually false. The US High Court has ruled against the suggestion that Bush had the authority to do that.
I should also bring up the point that the Bush Administration couldn't justify to Congress the idea of wiretapping NON-US citizens - in fact, they stated that it was unconstitutional and were against it. So if they have concerns about doing the same to people outside the US, then they CERTAINLY should have concerns about doing it to people INSIDE the US.
Oh, and we all know that having a job makes us experts on the political process and current events.
It's interesting to note that you brought nothing against the signatory statements assertion too.
Ahh, forgot to mention - opinions mean jack when it comes to LEGALITIES, which are something your opinions ignore.
The legalities are only fuzzy on blatantly lying to the public out of court (and he has CIA officers accusing him of doing such, so once again, you're wrong), so the pre-war fabrications and the lying about getting warrants (see the quote I gave) are hazy, but still reasonable grounds to impeach on.
The constitution binds him to all treaties the US is signed to - so he is a war criminal.
The consitution REQUIRES a warrant before any US citizen (and the Bush administration, as I just said, has even extended this to non-US citizens) has his privacy breached.
None of this is "negotiable" by an individual's opinion. It's US law. Bite the bullet John.
"Laws are artificial constructs, often based on outdated values."
Sound familiar?
Za; You sure can find lots of news and articles and sketchy rumors disguised as facts. Things that America has never seen nor heard on ANY newspaper or news show in America. Just Opinion pages and shows. Like the fisa issue. Did you know that FISA judge is all over TV stating he reviewed the case and found no wrongdoing? I wonder why all the info you seem to possess is not here where it supposedly happens? Very Odd that thing.
That it does - but I said "often" not "always".
If you wish to use it in the current situation, then you are arguing that your rights are outdated and should be removed.
Gee...And I thought I was arguing that the news you are in touch with is not news but rumor and speculation.
I was replying to Chris, not you. Your post hadn't come up when I posted.
The High Court has already dismissed the constitutional authority argument. This is fact not rumour. Go take a look (or perhaps you just wish to remain ignorant because it's not currently on the news?).
And his argument:
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,"
Is invalid. He never made a FISA application in the first place for that clause of the FISA law to come into effect, and he had significant time to apply.
Actually, now that I think about it. I would have thought the whole "I said 'often' not 'always'" bit might have been a give away that I wasn't talking to you.
But then again... you ARE the person who takes a minority group (Wahabists) of a minority group (Arab Muslims) and attempts to say it's "mainstream".
Post a Comment