McKinney Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush

[Guest echtrae]

A glimmer of hope in an otherwise dark time.

Unfortunately, the article shoots down any actual hope of this bill going anywhere.

The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.

Make sure to note the bit there about Nancy Pelosi. So despite being voted in by the people to end things, she has no interest in allowing anyone to bring about an end. Or am I reading too much into this?

McKinney Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush

[quamp]

Well, it's about damn time.

Bush's crimes against decency are too long to list.

I'd write my congressman and ask him to support it, but unfortunately, Pete Sessions is Bush's crony, and he's too busy fighting ethics charges of his own...

[Guest Big Samurai]

As pleasant and life-affirming as the impeachment of the Usurper would be, the trial would paralyze the executive branch of the government, and that would be most unwelcome in the middle of a war that needs to be resolved. Look what happened to Clinton; did he accomplish much of anything during his last two years? Bush deserves to be impeached, yes, but he's done so much damage that I'm really starting to think that it'd be better, on the whole, to start repairing what he's done, rather than focus on punishing him.

[Iggy_lovechild]

Am I the only one who thinks it's freaking hilarious (in a depressing sort of way) that they couldn't wait to impeach Clinton for getting his dick sucked and other inappropriete behaviour (but all of it too personal to affect the American people, imho), but when Bush is destroying this country.... Everyone is so goddamned wishy-washy, it seems and the people who cared to try to stop him evenually gave up in disgust.

*sighs*

Ah America, land of the apathetic.

[Guest Adara]

Honestly, I didn't think Clinton deserved to be impeached. I honestly thought it was a rather personal matter. I don't really see how one's sexual activities are really the government's business.

As far as Bush, well, we only have ourselves to blame. (Those who voted for him despite the crap he did the year before.) We as the American public got ourselves into this, we sure as hell will have to deal with it and learn from the mistakes we've committed.

I don't think Iraq had anything to do with oil. I think Iraq had everything to do with damage control. Dear Daddy tried to go in after Saddam, and well, screwed up, so here comes sonny boy to finish the deed.

Bush based his second term election pitch strickly on fear, and we fell for it. To go through an impeachment process now would not only make the situation worse, but we probably as a nation would look ridiculous to the world.

As it is, most countries think Americans are stupid and greedy. I think to get out of this mess, we'll have to really unite as a nation and make our wishes clear. Yes, it sounds damn near impossible. But the alternative is to be passive as the majority of the nation has been.

There is one benefit to all this mess. Those losing sons, daughters, fathers and mothers will be FAR more attentive whenever the government is thinking about using force. Alas, sometimes enlightenment comes at a hefty price. I just hope it wasn't in vain.

[Guest echtrae]

Here is some more information on the McKinney impeachment papers. The article includes an actual link to the "articles of impeachment".

Articles of Impeachment Filed Against Bush, In Congress

This section right here, speaks volumes of those who are in office.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is "off the table" and that it is "a waste of time ... making them lameducks is good enough for me." Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution as would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi's statement saying, "I am in total agreement with her on this issue ... impeachment is off the table." Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter.

[EveKnight75]

I've always been against Bush, and if I had been old enough to vote back then, I definitely would have voted against him. As it is, it was a sad day indeed when Bush got re-elected. I remember that one of my cousin's friends voted for Bush the second time around even though he claimed to hate the guy. When asked why he did what he did, his answer was "let the fucktard clean up his own mess". At least the answer made some sense to me. Bush hasn't done anything to clean up his mess. I'd expect as much, but I don't think Kerry would have done a much better job because things were just too fucked up.

Bringing up an impeachment for Bush now is just ludicrous. If it were introduced after his ineptitude became painfully apparent for the very first time, it would have served a purpose. It takes forever to introduce the option of impeachment, and it'd take forever to go through with it if it were approved. By the time the impeachment would be wrapped up, we'd already know who the next running candidates are. Bush has two more years to go, so we might as well suck it in and stick it out (that made a weird mental image). After that, we really don't need to worry about him anymore because he won't be allowed to run again.

I somewhat agree with nikola. Bush's influence on Americans is comparable to Hitler's influence on the Germans. Germany's a great nation full of wonderful people, but it was just too hard to not be pulled in by Hitler's manipulations of their fear. Once they started to see the errors of his ways, they became a wiser nation for it. WWII was one of the most terrible periods in history, but where would we be now without it? The Holocaust played a large part in significantly decreasing anti-Semitism because of the unspeakable treatment of Jews. Once America emerges from this period in history under Bush, its people shall be wiser, and the whole fiasco will also play a major part in fighting negative stereotypes about Muslim "terrorists".

I just hope that the rest of the country votes more wisely next time, and that the extreme-rightist Texans who can consider forgiving the Dixie Chicks will watch Shut Up and Sing. Fortunately, I will be legally old enough to vote in the presidential elections for the very first time when the next one rolls around.

[Guest Adara]

I somewhat agree with nikola. Bush's influence on Americans is comparable to Hitler's influence on the Germans. Germany's a great nation full of wonderful people, but it was just too hard to not be pulled in by Hitler's manipulations of their fear. Once they started to see the errors of his ways, they became a wiser nation for it. WWII was one of the most terrible periods in history, but where would we be now without it? The Holocaust played a large part in significantly decreasing anti-Semitism because of the unspeakable treatment of Jews. Once America emerges from this period in history under Bush, its people shall be wiser, and the whole fiasco will also play a major part in fighting negative stereotypes about Muslim "terrorists".

I just hope that the rest of the country votes more wisely next time, and that the extreme-rightist Texans who can consider forgiving the Dixie Chicks will watch Shut Up and Sing. Fortunately, I will be legally old enough to vote in the presidential elections for the very first time when the next one rolls around.

We can only hope that the American public decides to think twice before they vote for ANYONE in ANY position because of this. I mean, if we through this again during my liftime, lol, I'm going to snap! I'll be one of those disgruntled citizens!

[Guest echtrae]

Considering the amount of proven and suspected vote fraud that has occurred around the last four elections, I don't believe he was ever actually gotten the position by being voted in by the people (I personally know of seven people that admit to having voted for him, everybody else denies it). The "upset" that occurred in the last election was inevitable. Vote fraud is only effective when it is believable that the cheating person won the election, i.e. keep announcing in the polls that the race is close, even when it isn't. The next step after that would be to cheat by transferring or blocking a percentage of undesireable votes, which would be facilitated with the introduction of electronic voting machines that don't produce a paper trail. This scheme works perfectly, until the populace votes in one direction in an overwhelming manner. So, when this last election that took place, it was the populace finally speaking, but a lot of the politicians are still going to ignore us.

Just ran across this and thought I would add it into the mix.

Impeachment rallies held coast to coast

Edited December 10, 2006 by echtrae

[foeofthelance]

Meh, just like the Clinton Impeachment, the Bush Impeachment wouldn't amount to anything more then a political act. it wouldn't be half as effective, as the American public has already sided with the Democratic party on this one. They would not have been able to pull Clinton out of office, and they wouldn't be able to oust Bush. It amounts to a big 'Shame on you!' for both presidencies.

As for Pelosi, I think she's right. Why go through with all the trouble of a political spectacle (which does have a chance of back firing. The Dems need to be seen as workers, not politicians if they want to keep power from slipping to third party groups in the next batch of elections) she wants her Congress to try to accomplish some of the things on the Democrat agenda. Which may/may not be a good thing.

As for Bush. Hmm, and meh. I admit it, I'm (possibley) the closest thing the Board has to a conservative. Registered Republican, and though the test say moderate (which is partly true) mostly for conservative reasons. ((Side note. Conservative. Not right wing. I think personal responsibilty and hands off government are a good thing, and that so called social action should be kept in check)). As for Bush. I give him 6/10. Discount the Iraq war and he didn't do too bad. Count in the Iraq war, and well, bleh. His biggest problem is he's an optimistic fool. He tried to do good, but got in over his head. It didn't help that those who were in the best positions to help him turned out to be a bunch of cronyistic, unethical self serving bastards who were more interested in personal benefit then their jobs. The media hasn't helped, as everyone has decided their opinions are worth more, and can earn better ratings, then actually finding out what the truth of the matter is. Granted, there were things he could have done differently. Iraq, for example. Sound principle, bad reasoning and worse tactics. Wars are fought with tanks and bombs, not mercy. That's not me being a warhawk or anything, that's just the truth of the matter. Some of the natural disasters got botched, others not so much. How much of that was his fault and how much was simple government inefficiency, I don't know, and won't pretend to know. I do think comparing him to Hitler is just off putting. The guy hasn't done anything remotely similiar to any of the sociopathic dictators that he's been compared to, and doing so trivializes the actions of those he's being compared to. Hence Godwin's law.

Ok, my rant is done for now. I will go away and post elsewhere on the forum for a while.