This is a carry over from last week's discussion on the infamous aluminum tubes. I spent the weekend in Tacoma. What a party town.

I personally do not think congress has a case for Impeachment.

(Unless Jason or LisaP want to try there hand at this)

Here's a start.




Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

did you write that? God I hope not.

quote:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

Congress cant impeach on this one because what power he has, came from them in the form of AUMF resolutions. Our laws Trumps UN laws, so you have nothing there either.

quote:

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

That one is getting tiresome. I'm still waiting for a good example. Especially on that rises to the level of Impeachment.

Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.


Good luck getting anything more than the same tired jibber jabber from the lib fringe.
Some of those that James posted are funny.

quote:

Good luck getting anything more than the same tired jibber jabber from the lib fringe.

Yea but there all different. Brent last week has the lie being about the Aluminum Tubes. the Plame thing is near laughable. i was just hopeing to get them to gather in one spot. Maybe I haven't heard all of them before.

quote:

Some of those that James posted are funny.

I seriously hoping he didn't write it. that first one sort of set the tone for the rest.

quote:

I seriously hoping he didn't write it. that first one sort of set the tone for the rest

actually, i think #9,10,14,and 15 hold some merit.

stripping americans of their rights, for ANY reason, is wrong. therefor, i feel bush suspending hapeas corpus under the MCA is an impeachable offence. it doesnt matter what reasons he did it. king george (no relation to current one) in colonial times also did this to the colonists, and was one of the reasons leading to the american revolution

ANY ordering to detain ANYONE who hasnt been accused of a crime is wrong and an impeachable offence. this ties in to what i talked about above

secret arrests and denial to the right of trial by jury is also wrong. this goes against a very fabric of the constitution and is a VERY impeachable offence. its akin to the nazis snatching jews during the night and detaining them.

#15 ties into above.

ftmyersfishrman seems to cover the basics. Bungeling of an incompetent fool doesn't seems to be an impeacheable offense.

The Comptroller General of the U.S. said Bushes financial/tax policies being phased in will bring the U.S. to the point of using its entire national income to pay interest on our debt with nothing left for the military or any other program.

I suppose putting the nations security at risk might be included some way.

When we can't afford the fuel to float an aircraft carrier, that may not be too good.

When N. Korea has a bigger military budget than we do, that may not be too good.

Will be a bad thing when we can no longer afford to maintain a military force...just to pay interest on Bush's expanding loans that are being forced upon us.

I don't think that is an impeacheable offense, but it should be. He was told what his policies would do, and continues doing it anyway. Treason maybe, for destroying our means for self-defense down the road??

He's not only brought the gov't. to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub...the nation is going to be drowned right along with it.

Retired Monk

i agree polycarp. although stupidity and ignorance from our president is bad for america, it is not an impeachable offence. however, when that ignorance tosses away parts of the constitution, then thats a differnt story.

this is from the us constitution:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



now essentially all 3 amendments tie into detaining people without legal council or the charges against them. bush has tried to get around these amendments by claiming:

*we are in times of war (art 5)
*we are in times of public danger (art 5)
*they are not trials by jury, but military tribunals (art 6)

despite those claims, his very creation of military tribunals for non military people goes against the constitution. we might be in a time of war, but it is a war which he started. it is not a time of public danger, no matter how many boogeymen they say are lurking in the shadows. there is more chance of getting hit by lightning then dying in a terrorist attack.

his disregard of these articles of the constitution are impeachable offences. for in order to be impeached, there must be misconduct of office. the president, before taking office, swears this statement:

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the constitution of the united states. anyone who tries to skirt around the constitution is obviously not protecting or defending it. that means they believe their power to be greater than the constitution itself. that is impeachable.


this is where i got my info:
constitution

Yea… coming out of the kiddie pool. Habeas Corpus Big one, very complicated. Now let me tell you why you cant impeach for it.

First the original presidential order was for the Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain NON-CITIZENS in the war on terror.
Here

New and controversy , but hardly unprecedented. It certainly had some flaws that ultimately would get sorted out in Courts.

Second, was the US Citizen captured in Afghanistan and detained as an unlawful combatant. Yaser Esam Hamdi. Or Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Court does it’s job and reaffirms the constitutional rights of Hamdi as a US citizen. Before you get to indigent, that was a beautiful display of the way the court should function.

Thirdly, and the Rub that makes impeachment against Bush completely impossible
Military Commission Act of 2006

In the wake of Hamdan v. Rumsfield CONGRESS passed a bill that that made it legal to suspend Habeas Corpus for resident Aliens (non citizen) and Foreign Fighters. Thus leaving the provisions of US citizens rights to Habeas Corpus intact. Therefore you may rest easy knowing your rights are not infringe.


But as I said you can’t impeach a president on a issue already settled by both the Courts and Congress. There is no case. Capturing us citizens in a foreign war was a true legal gray area. No crime was committed by Bush.

quote:

Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.

Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?

quote:

Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?

Only that he is not stupid. I am sure under any other circumstances, Clinton would not have sworn in.

Loganthor - two things:

1. You strike me as a reasonable fellow. Certainly you believe Bush's actions rise to an intolerable level of ineptness. Didn't the framers believe impeachment as a public mechanism to remove a president simple negligence?

2. Don't you think there should be hearings to better understand the present's role in the major events (WMD, radical Constitutional interpretations, Valery Plain (sp?), 911, Katrina, etc.)? Are you in favor of investigations to better understand the office of the VP of President's role in these things?

Not a fishing expedition...

Is the executive exempt from accountability (fishing), Ron? Isn't it the obligation of everyone to question authority in a democracy?

George Bush lied to the American people when he said that wiretaps always had to have a warrant. In 2005 it became known that they were using the NSA and FBI (through "Security Letters") in a domestic spying program to illegally obtain information on American citizens.

Here is what one of the most conservative members of Congress said about the domestic spying program:
"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

Bush then summoned the publisher & editor of the New Your Times to the White House, to try and stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

Then there is the dubious over-use of "signing statements", which is basically a way for Bush to ignore or unilaterally change laws put before him.

Loganthor, I have no interest in debating with you and "we" over whether or not Bush should be impeached. I'm not sure that impeaching Bush will make what he's done to screw up things suddenly OK. History, imo, will be the judge and I don't believe history will judge Bush too fondly unless some pretty smooth propagandists control the input. Rather than expend energy pursuing impeachment, I'd like to see congress pursuing other things to try and get the US on track.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Quondam,

quote:

STATEMENT: Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.

REPLY:
Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?
REPLY:
Only that he is not stupid. I am sure under any other circumstances, Clinton would not have sworn in.

Seriously Loganthor you must see the circular argument and non sequitor, "at least Bush hasn't sworn in and lied under oath (like Clinton did)..but Bush refuses to be sworn in, hence he cannot lie "under oath". He can tell lies every which way but loose as long as he isn't sworn in under oath.

Because he's not stupid (and Bill Clinton is?). If you actually believe that Bush is somehow smarter than Clinton, you should seek help. However, it is true that not swearing in under oath is a "smart" move, in an obnoxious devious way; but I don't think I'd credit that tactic to Bush. I think his handlers earn their keep.

LisaP,

I do not recall Clinton swearing in for any other reason then the civil matter in Jones v Clinton. In a situation where I dont believe he had a whole lot of choice.

In this matter. Bush IS smarter then Clinton. For any number of reasons.

Hi Simon,

quote:

1. You strike me as a reasonable fellow. Certainly you believe Bush's actions rise to an intolerable level of ineptness. Didn't the framers believe impeachment as a public mechanism to remove a president simple negligence?

Article II says: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Since most of our laws derive from English common law. Misdemeanors is sort of a catch all. In early English history they did in fact impeach officials negligence. However it has never been tested in the American system. I believe it would be viewed a a political witch hunt. Ultimately setting a precedent that neither party wants. It would cost the Dems the 2008 presidential run for sure.

quote:

2. Don't you think there should be hearings to better understand the present's role in the major events (WMD, radical Constitutional interpretations, Valery Plain (sp?), 911, Katrina, etc.)? Are you in favor of investigations to better understand the office of the VP of President's role in these things

Name me an event that hasn't been scrutized to the n'th degree that you would think rises to the level of Impeachment. I have all those above pretty well covered and I set this thread to discuss them. So any one you think is stronger then the other, bring it forward.

quote:

Is the executive exempt from accountability (fishing), Ron? Isn't it the obligation of everyone to question authority in a democracy?

Sure, everyone can question till their heart contents. But don’t be too surprised when "they" exercise their constitutional protections. They are under the same rules, (ok slightly better) then we all are. They don’t have to tell you anything. Their public hearing are nothing more then a joke. It is all about sound bites and face time in the camera looking tough.

I came to that conclusion during the Roberts Confirmation hearing. I looked much like what it would look Like if I asked Einstein to explain to me relativity. Roberts was clearly the smartest one in the room.

quote:

Loganthor, I have no interest in debating with you and "we" over whether or not Bush should be impeached

That is your call Lisa, Clearly the thread title says "Bush Impeachment - Bring Your Arguments". So I do have an interest.

quote:

Rather than expend energy pursuing impeachment, I'd like to see congress pursuing other things to try and get the US on track.

I would wholeheartly concur with that sediment. I don’t necessarily see us as Derailed. Maybe an wrong track going through a bad neighborhood but on the same rail line.

quote:

With etiquette handbooks at the ready, the White House was in a high state of faux pas alert for Queen Elizabeth II's visit yesterday. Still, President Bush lasted only about 14 minutes into the state arrival ceremony before implying that the British monarch is 300 years old

.


Is calling the Queen of England a three hundred year old bag impeachable

Is allowing the tax base on wages to shrink to 45% of the GDP from 50% of GDP impeacheable?

Wages as % of GDP is the lowest since 1947, with income shifted to upper class, lower tax or tax exempt investment earnings.

This means a loss in gov't. revenues of about 100 billion per year just in wage income since Bush took office, and it is increasing annually. % of Domestic Product paid in taxeable wages declines about .6% a year. Bye bye tax base.

Comptroller of the U.S. is off about 15 years on his time-line for financial crises. Well over one trillion dollars in lost revenues over the period. He didn't take this into account.

His current rants about it are backed by the Heritage Foundation in an attempt to dismantle remaining social programs like Social Security.

We'll have to have hyper-inflation to pay off our loans. Stash a few gold coins. Easier to go to the market with a small coin than a wheel barrow full of bank notes like they did in the Weimer Republic. Next Pres. is in deep trouble.

Is this impeacheable?

I advised my relatives to obtain some gold a year after Bush took office. So far, 100% return on their money. When the bubble breaks, they should do very well.

Retired Monk

quote:

Next Pres. is in deep trouble.

Yes, I feel badly for the next President. S/he will have a huge mess on their hands to try and clean up. It won't be easy, and sacrifices will have to be made for which there will be a loud outcry.

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:
Seriously Loganthor you must see the circular argument and non sequitor, "at least Bush hasn't sworn in and lied under oath (like Clinton did)..but Bush refuses to be sworn in, hence he cannot lie "under oath". He can tell lies every which way but loose as long as he isn't sworn in under oath.

Because he's not stupid (and Bill Clinton is?). If you actually believe that Bush is somehow smarter than Clinton, you should seek help. However, it is true that not swearing in under oath is a "smart" move, in an obnoxious devious way; but I don't think I'd credit that tactic to Bush. I think his handlers earn their keep.

Lisa,

you're avoiding the truth as to what the difference is.
Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment. Having a track record of harrassment opened a pandoras box of dirty laundry. Clinton lied to the courts, American public, while on film. It is his legacy. He is a liar.
It is against the law to harrass people and lie under oath.

Bush has a % of liberal voters bent on smearing his credibility.
They try desperately to link Bush to Clinton. Bush has not been dragged into court for illegally harrassing people. He has not lied.
Innuendo and kinda sorta should be doesn't cut it.
There is a mile of difference between the two.

You can dislike Bush for his decisions. You can disagree with policies. You can hate the way he strides across the Whitehouse lawn, but all of the "lying" accusations have not been proven.
If they could, they would.

Great dialog, Loganthor -

You wrote:

>Name me an event that hasn't been scrutized
>to the n'th degree that you would think rises
>to the level of Impeachment.

Far be it for me to beat the dead horse but it would seem that even your defense of avoiding impeachment relies on imperfect information just as much as my own argument. We're sideliners without facts and relying on what we know (or don't know) to guide our argument. Seems futile.

So, I'll go back to the question: isn't there an interest to learn the facts, hold hearings, and prosecute an impeachment proceeding should the facts warrant it?

Maybe you believe like me: the rush to impeachment would be a distraction and an instrument for the Republicans. However, that should not in itself detract the people from investigation and a demand for answers, accountability. Are you pro investigation or pro just dropping the impeachment matter altogether?

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:

quote:

Next Pres. is in deep trouble.

Yes, I feel badly for the next President. S/he will have a huge mess on their hands to try and clean up. It won't be easy, and sacrifices will have to be made for which there will be a loud outcry.

Actually, the President takes the good with the bad. Nixon had a war to deal with. Ford had the Watergate to clean up. Carter just caused more problems. Reagen had a stagflation that economist never thought could happen. Bush II got a stock market crashing and 9/11 to try and clean up. So besides Clinton no one really had a bed of roses.

quote:

Seems futile.

While my information may be just as imperfect, I am growing tired of the "bush lied" mantra, it is like a continuous drumbeat. When challenge rarely can they produce the "Lie". Being incorrect does not translate to "lie". I think, I have a fairly good grasp of what impeachment is and what it takes to politically start one. Look at Clinton, They had him dead to rights and still lost.

quote:

So, I'll go back to the question: isn't there an interest to learn the facts, hold hearings, and prosecute an impeachment proceeding should the facts warrant it?

Again, I have no problem with learning the facts. I would love to know the exact details of the NSA wiretapping. However, when public show becomes less about the facts and more about scoring political re-election points, it lowers them to used car salesman status. (no offense to used car salesman)

quote:

Maybe you believe like me: the rush to impeachment would be a distraction and an instrument for the Republicans.

Mostly like you. There is no rush to impeachment, first because they have nothing to impeach him on, Starting an Impeachment process now, is simply too late and too close to the 2008 elections. As far as a tool for Repub, Sure. I however would rephrase it as a Dems self destructive maneuver that would be used Ad nausism by the repubs

Slabmaster, Bush smeared his own credibility. Doesn't need any help from liberals.

Retired Monk

quote:

you're avoiding the truth as to what the difference is.

No slab, I'm not. Every time that Bush and/or Cheney has been asked to swear under oath, they've refused. You can't be accused of lying under oath if you never swear in to begin with.

quote:

They try desperately to link Bush to Clinton.

You introduced the Clinton comparison in this thread, not some crazed liberal. Or are you??!!!

Lisa, the fact which you want to ignore is that Bush and Chaney have only been asked to testify before congress in political proceedings. Attempting to assert that Bush lied about WMD, when the previous administration warned about it as did Congress at the time can only be political in it's scope. Clinton was forced to testify in a civil matter. If it hadn't been for the fact of the history of Clinton's sexual predation, I would listen to a suggestion that the civil matter was political as well but that would be foolish.

quote:

but all of the "lying" accusations have not been proven.

Correct, not all of the lying accusation have been proven. However, he did lie about the domestic spying program and warrants. Of course, he wasn't under oath or in front of a grand jury.

quote:

he did lie about the domestic spying program and warrants.

I just started to rehash my NSA Material for your quotes. But a lie in and of itself, especially for a politician, is constitutional protected under the second First amendment. Unless you can hook it to a misdemeanor

Edit *** Cant believe nobady caught that.

My own personal preference, would be to let him finish his term, subpeana him, then try him if evidence shows wrong-doing, corruption, and the like. He would have lots of Rep. political company as innmates should he join them.

Perhaps they could all sort out what they did wrong to get caught and become the new political advisers for the party. The truely motivated ones could also sniff out some Dems who might make use of their newly acquired knowledge.

Retired Monk

Sawdust, I'm not talking about the WMD's in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, lots of folks were lying about that and I couldn't prove that Bush&Co knew or not; we only know that they didn't run it through snopes.com otherwise they would have figured out that Chalibi&Co was a lyin' sack.

Slab, for me it really has nothing to do with whether Bush walks or talks goofy. It has to do with his actions and the record. Prior to getting into politics, he ran companies into the ground, obviously not a great businessman. So what's a rich failure at business gonna do? Go into politics! Why? Because you can fool some of the people all the time or all the people some of the time in politics. That doesn't work so well in the business world as we both know.

As governor of Texas, Bush had more people executed than any other; yet has the audacity to jump on AirForceOne in the middle of the night to come to the aid of a brain dead woman who's husband wanted to end her suffering - because Bush is a "sanctity of life" kind of guy! Hypocrite.

His Iraq war policy has been a disaster from the get go, he's managed to saddle this country with more debt than 10 presidents put together, the gap between the richest and the poorest is growing and the middle class is shrinking. He's cut subsidies to poor Americans, while increasing subsidies to rich corporations. He had a golden moment after 9-11 when all the world was with us, to fight the real terrorists, and he blew it. In the process, he alienated potential allies left and right. He's filled high level federal positions with either inept cronies or "fox guarding the hen house" types. He had another golden moment in the summer of 2005 when a one grief stricken mother showed up in his driveway. Rather than asking her up onto the front porch for a cup of lemonade and offering consolence, for which he might have been admired, he hid out like a chickensh!t. Our Guard troops, which protect and serve the states, have been decimated and their equipment plundered; it will take 5 years to build them back up to where they were. The Army isn't doing so great either, not to mention what our veterans have had to deal with.

That's the short list.

Seriously, it's not about how Bush walks. If he were doing a great job his swagger would be endearing.

It's not even just about Bush himself. He could not have done it without a lot of help along the way, including a Republican controlled congress and an ignorant populace who've been more than willing to be manipulated, to trade *imagined* security for reason and liberty.

quote:

But a lie in and of itself, especially for a politician, is constitutional protected under the second amendment.

Did he or did he not lie to the American people when he said way back that he was getting warrants for everything?

Did or did not the court rule that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "in contravention of [FISA or Title III]?

Simple yes or no answers.

quote:

the fact which you want to ignore is that Bush and Chaney have only been asked to testify before congress in political proceedings.

Sawdust, I'm not ignoring that fact. The fact is, even under these political proceedings, which mind you happened under a Republican controlled congress, neither Bush nor Cheney would swear in under oath. Others did, or have been made to do so, but not those two.

quote:

Did he or did he not lie to the American people when he said way back that he was getting warrants for everything?

Simple yes or no answer.

I'm looking for the qoute, if you have it, it certainly would go faster.

About the NSA thing. The whole thing makes me chuckle. We still have no idea if it was domestic surveillance or foreign surveillance. Which will really burn the Lie comment if I can find it. Domestic he needs a warrant, Foreign intelligence he doesn’t. I basically the exact same case as enemy combatants.

quote:

Did or did not the court rule that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "in contravention of [FISA or Title III]?

Yes it "currently" has and is on appeal. =Not exact a clear win. Government never showed up for the hearing.

Stay the Course.

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

During an October 22, 2006 interview on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”

Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’

Loganthor, which is it?
Lie
Confusion
First Ammendment Right

quote:

Government never showed up for the hearing.

Convenient. They also announced just recently that they will discontinue the program and seek warrants for everything from here on out. Very convenient.

Found it-
Now give me a minute to play with it.

quote:

In 2004 President Bush said (italics are mine),
”...there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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.”

quote:

Press conference, April 13, 2004 “[T]here was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.”

Lie,
Confusion, or
1st Amendment right ?

Good for you Loganthor. Now don't forget to double check to see if in fact court orders (warrants) were indeed sought in all cases. While you're at it, check into whether they were sought in domestic spying programs too. (hint: FBI "security letters" are not warrants).

quote:

Convenient. They also announced just recently that they will discontinue the program and seek warrants for everything from here on out. Very convenient.

I think they still intend to fight it, I sure they felt a district court was not the time and place for a Top Secret National securty debate

quote:

Good for you Loganthor. Now don't forget to double check to see if in fact court orders (warrants) were indeed sought in all cases. While you're at it, check into whether they were sought in domestic spying programs too. (hint: FBI "security letters" are not warrants).

Are you planning on doing anything else except ask questions? I'm humping in four different directions. I dont do my best humping when my focus is split.

These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill. (President Bush 06/20/05)

These detainees are dangerous enemy combatants . . . They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces. (Scott McClellan 06/21/05)

The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They're terrorists. They're bomb makers. They're facilitators of terror. They're members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban....We've let go those that we've deemed not to be a continuing threat. But the 520-some that are there now are serious, deadly threats to the United States. (Vice President Cheney 06/23/05)

These are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker. (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 06/27/05)

FACTS:
Defense Department Data-

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
# Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
FACTS-
National Journal Review -
1. A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).
2. Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.
3. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.
4. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.
5. Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.
6. Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps. Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan.
7. The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.
8. At least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants. One perplexed attorney, whose client does not want public attention, learned that the man was no longer considered an enemy combatant only by reading a footnote in a Justice Department motion asking a federal judge to put a slew of habeas corpus cases on hold. The attorney doesn't know why the man is still in Cuba.

Good lord Woman - Do you remember?

quote:

Loganthor, I have no interest in debating with you

Change your mind?

WONDERLAND:
The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people," Bush has said. "[O]bviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis -- and I mean limited basis -- try to find out the intention of the enemy." "It is very limited in nature," Scott McClellan claimed
VS.
THE REAL WORLD:
Revelations support a previous New York Times report that found the "volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged." NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently told ABC News "the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions."

MILLION = NOT SO LIMITED

Lie
Confusion
1st Amendment Right?

OK.... deep breath.

"Stay the course" Political bumper sticker. Maybe Georege made George nervous or George's position is Evolving. Technically ... we still are staying the course for the momment

quote:

Press conference, April 13, 2004 “[T]here was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.”

Lie,
Confusion, or
1st Amendment right ?

I dont know, Who within the government envisions terrorist hijacking planes and flying them in to buildings at 300 miles an hour and did they in fact share that with Bush himself?

No, I didn't change my mind. I think it's my way of avoiding work. I've got to go. We're selling our house and property so I've got lots to do. Did I tell you that I really, really don't like to paint?!!

You have fun researching. Just don't let the inability to recognize a lie when you see one get in the way, just 'cause it wasn't under oath don't make it any less a lie. For your purposes though, we don't impeach sitting Presidents for lying; so the point is moot. Breaking laws are another thing. The question is did Bush break the law by ordering spying without warrants?

The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this. In fact, Gonzales admitted that he was told by "certain members of Congress" that "that would be difficult if not impossible.”

So they did it anyway. Then the court found it unconstitutional. On appeal, they didn't show up. In January of this year, Gonzales announced they were dropping the program.

The last time something like that happened was when Nixon had his boys spying and B&E on his Democratic political opponents.

quote:

MILLION = NOT SO LIMITED

.3% of the population not adjusted for illegals and foreign terrorist minus 6 from New Jersey.

Sorry... bad math.. Ron Corrected me

Yeah, and my bad spelling. It actually reads "millions" not million, but what the heck, I guess you guys don't care since it's not a majority?

OK, last one today, I promise:

The White House provided Congress with a cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug plan of $400 billion even though it knew at that time the costs of were $551 billion - more than 25% higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare's top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration increased its costs estimates to $524 billion. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration."

In May, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that the Bush administration violated federal law by ordering Mr. Foster to withhold information from Congress. The report stressed that “the right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable.” (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh- Knight Ridder Los Angeles Times 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, Progress Report 03.15.04, Pear – New York Times 05.04.04)

Lie,
Confusion,
1st Amendment Right, or
Not enough old folks suffering to worry about?

quote:

OK, last one today, I promise:

Please continue, I haven't had this much exercise in a long time. My fingers are cramping.

quote:

In May, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that the Bush administration violated federal law

I suppose if you talk to the justice department, They would say the Congressional Research Service is wrong.

seperation of powers issue. UET.. PreZ has the right to regulate the information under his authority from undue Congressional influence.

Well actually, Bush did lie under oath. He swore to uphold the Constitution...then broke it. His lie is by action, not necessarily word.

It's usually the actions of a criminal that get a man thrown into prison, not so much that he claimed "I'm innocent!" (lies) at his trial.

Does his oath of office expire as soon as he has said it? Or can he be held accountable for breaking his oath? Lying by action.

Retired Monk

quote:

hint: FBI "security letters" are not warrants

Just finished that. I find nothing wrong, nor impeachable in their useage. Again congress hasn't got a leg to stand on. the largest overhaul of the NSL's was done with the patriot act. Therefore it is Congressional and not Executive.

Here

You are correct.... lying is far to open-ended a topic for a politition. I rerally do not have that kind of time in my life. I am only interested in lies pretaining to crimes that warrent impeachment.

quote:

The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this. In fact, Gonzales admitted that he was told by "certain members of Congress" that "that would be difficult if not impossible.”

Are you playing with qoutes?

Because the rest of that qoute is-

quote:

"without jeopardizing the existence of the program."

quote:

his written Responses to Questions from Senator Specter in which Specter specifically asked why the administration had not sought to amend FISA to accommodate the NSA program,[117] Gonzales wrote:

"[W]e were advised by members of Congress that it would be difficult, if not impossible to pass such legislation without revealing the nature of the program and the nature of certain intelligence capabilities. That disclosure would likely have harmed our national security, and that was an unacceptable risk we were not prepared to take."

quote:

I suppose if you talk to the justice department, They would say the Congressional Research Service is wrong.

seperation of powers issue. UET.. PreZ has the right to regulate the information under his authority from undue Congressional influence.

OH gimme a break, that one had nothing to do with justice dept or congress, it was about pushing the Medicare prescription drug program just prior to the election, and prettying up the numbers. UET is a theory, a new one at that. It is not the law. Revisionist.

Loganthor -

So we're not too far apart on this one. If I'm reading you right, you're open to impeachment should concrete facts come to light that warrant the dismissal of the President.

As patriots, we must admire and respect due process. Myself, I wasn't disappointed when Clinton was impeached - it was the process that mattered and it introduced a level of moral attonement and accountability that utterly destroyed the Clinton legacy. A man whose name could have been as synominous (sp) with Democrat as Rosevelt, or Reagan is to Republican. It was a real shame, but it was the process that mattered.

I'm all for the process, and I would believe that our elected representatives are capable of doing the business of the state and running formal investigations in parallel. So that's my take on impeachment: let it play out. But don't sacrifice process for convenience or for the perception of futility; don't demand the process based entirely on conjecture and assumption. Allow the process to work.

quote:

I find nothing wrong, nor impeachable in their useage. Again congress hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Again, not congress' call, and certainly not your call. This is up to the courts, and it's working it's way through the courts. The issue is constitutionality, and Congress nor the Patriot Act, can go against the Constitution. But of course, your hero thinks it is nothing but toilet paper, and you see nothing wrong with that either. As you pointed out, it is stuck in the courts because the WH is not showing up for the case.

Has he broken any laws? I'm not sure. That's up to others to investigate and prove.

Has he lied repeatedly? MOST CERTAINLY!

quote:

So we're not too far apart on this one. If I'm reading you right, you're open to impeachment should concrete facts come to light that warrant the dismissal of the President.

Yes.

quote:

I would believe that our elected representatives are capable of doing the business of the state and running formal investigations in parallel.

I dont know about that... I doubt they are even capable anymore of separating politics from investigation. Politics isn't exactly synonymous with truth.

quote:

Allow the process to work.

I would if I thought there was a process going forward. But this site is a tiny microcosms of what is going out "there". All rhetoric No substance. They had a great opportunity to discuss Presidential Signing statements on a constitutional basis. Any true investigation quickly gave way to showmanship of the big tent. An utter joke to watch unfold. Now the president has free reign on the issue of signing statements.

quote:

They had a great opportunity to discuss Presidential Signing statements on a constitutional basis. Any true investigation quickly gave way to showmanship of the big tent. An utter joke to watch unfold.

Maybe that was one of the many reasons the Republicans were routed last election? They had a majority when the signing statement issue came up.

So Loganthor, from the heart, what do you think about the prolific use of signing statements? And would you be OK with Hilary Clinton using/abusing them should she get elected?

Simon, don't be too much for process. The AEDPA Act, provides that if someone goes through the court process and all proper procedures are in place, they may be executed even though indisputable evidence (such as dna testing) later proves innocence.

There is no further recourse to the courts if procedures have been followed.

The process is more important than guilt or innocence. Persons known to be innocent may be executed.

This is how the Supreme Court has upheld the act.

Retired Monk

quote:

So Loganthor, from the heart, what do you think about the prolific use of signing statements?

I have no problems with it. I think they are nothing more then glorified post it notes designed merely to inform presidential intent. They do not have force of law, They do not allow bush to skirt congressional laws. Most of the signing statements are designed with the future in mind. they say to congress and the judicial that in small certain circumstances of Executive privilege this congressional laws unconstitutional and will be challenged at a later date or ever. The note is later used in legislative record on what the prior executive interpretation of the law. Doesn’t absolve or shield the executive from any judicial recourse. Upon reading a signing statement they/congress can amend the bill or pass another that corrects the constitutional concern. Classic separation of power. In that regard, Congress holds the majority on the power. Bush is just telling congress they suck at writing laws. Which he can do.

quote:

Maybe that was one of the many reasons the Republicans were routed last election? They had a majority when the signing statement issue came up

Maybe, but it was Leahy who brought the issue to the publics knowledge. technically signing statement started a long time ago and has been used by most modern presidents to some degree. The next person down the rung of the most signing statements was Clinton. I BET... that whoever takes over office next year will exceed Bush.

quote:

I BET... that whoever takes over office next year will exceed Bush.

Loganthor, do you think that it will make a difference if it has different parties in control of Congress and the WH?

quote:

Loganthor, do you think that it will make a difference if it has different parties in control of Congress and the WH?

Not in the slightest

quote:

I think they are nothing more then glorified post it notes designed merely to inform presidential intent. They do not have force of law, They do not allow bush to skirt congressional laws. [,,,]
Maybe, but it was Leahy who brought the issue to the publics knowledge. technically signing statement started a long time ago and has been used by most modern presidents to some degree. The next person down the rung of the most signing statements was Clinton.

It was Specter, R, who was addressing the issue, it didn't go anywhere because the 109th congress ended. Fact is, Bush has used signing statements more than all presidents ever put together, almost 1,000 of them. Clinton may have used them, what 130 times? in 8 years, in the manner you've suggested. Prior to Reagan, they were rarely used. Bush is "using" them in a different manner, imo, an buse of the privilege; although sometimes I'm sure it;s clarifying the understanding of the legislation. Bush has been using them almost like a line item veto works, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the court. He uses them to ignore parts of legislation that he doesn't want, so they do allow him to skirt congressional legislation.

RE: You bet that whoever takes over office nest year will exceed Bush, -Bush has set a dangerous precedence. The ability to wield signing statements in an abusive manner should be nipped in the bud now, before the next guy gets into office. Just because someone did it, and someone else did it, does not make it a good way to go. As mama used to ask when someone used the "but he did it first" excuse: "if little Johnny jumped off the Golden Gate bridge, would you?"

quote:

Bush has used signing statements more than all presidents ever put together, almost 1,000 of them.

So??? So he writes more, big deal.

quote:

Bush is "using" them in a different manner, imo, an buse of the privilege

There is no privalage extended in the use of signing statemnts. There has been no recorded instant where Bush has fullfilled a signing statement. For for the moment, they are merely rhetorical pieces of paper.

Take the famous McCain Torture bill signing statement:

quote:

The Executive Branch shall construe the torture ban in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the controversial unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.

Is the torture bill in any way affected by this signing statement? Is the Torture bill in any way amended in it language or it force of law? The answer to those questions is NO. All he has said is that in certain circumstances, the Commander-in-Chief has certain constitutional powers that are not bound by this law. This is true. You can’t deny that our system is set up with forms of Check and Balances and recognized there is a separation of power. So in essence, McCain’s bill covers everyone except in instances of executive privilege. In those instances, judicial get's to sort it out. The beauty of our system.

quote:

He uses them to ignore parts of legislation that he doesn't want, so they do allow him to skirt congressional legislation.

I defy you to find a instance where he does this. As shown with the most controverisal of his Signing statement. He does actually do anything.

quote:

"if little Johnny jumped off the Golden Gate bridge, would you?"

If hooked to a bungee cord, Damn right I would. That would be SWWEEETTTT.

I said this repeated in the UET thread. Congress is its own worst enemy. They continue to pack more and more and more garbage into ever increasing omnibus bills that need to be passed. The only option is veto the entire bill. Bills are purposely written vague and unclear and draw on the later interpretation for clarity. Why would not the nation’s top cop get his chance to clarify his interpretation of the law? He IS the one responsible for executing those laws.

quote:

It was Specter, R, who was addressing the issue, it didn't go anywhere because the 109th congress ended.

Wasn't it kind of funny how Spector couldn't even get his own bill (Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006) out of his own committee in the 6 months before the end of session.

I love congress

Actually not so funny. I think part of the reason was there was too many Republican's brown nosing Bush&Co that they were afraid to look objectively, and/or they (both parties) were constantly sticking their finger into the air to see which way the wind was blowing. Now that they're realizing that a majority of the American people aren't happy with Bush's performance, and aren't happy with the Iraq occupation, they are changing their stances.

quote:

Actually not so funny.

The golden rule of politic's.

"get re-eleceted" everything else is secondary.

quote:

There has been no recorded instant where Bush has fullfilled a signing statement.

Why don't you see if you can make some sense of that somewhat odd grammatical construction? I'd dearly love to know what you think that means.