Guest echtrae Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Much of US favors Bush impeachment The final sentence sums up everything though. But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Agaib Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough of a case for an impeachment trial. Most of the obviously illegal activities are covered up well enough, while the rest are enough of a gray area for him to weasel out. Actually, there probably isn't much of a legal gray area, mostly just a human perceived one. Bush certainly has done a few things that aren't powers granted to him by the constitution. I'm not sure if the constitution allows for the impeachment of the president based off of generally being a damaging leader. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough of a case for an impeachment trial. Most of the obviously illegal activities are covered up well enough, while the rest are enough of a gray area for him to weasel out. Actually, there probably isn't much of a legal gray area, mostly just a human perceived one. Bush certainly has done a few things that aren't powers granted to him by the constitution. I'm not sure if the constitution allows for the impeachment of the president based off of generally being a damaging leader.Oh well... Actually, he had a major security leak that went ALL THE WAY UP to the VICE PRESIDENT and what did he do? Go after the NOT!Vice President. I believe that falls under impeachment. It means he can't be trusted with classified information, or to take proper action against those who leak such information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Agaib Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Yea but the problem is can they PROVE it. Everyone knows that Karl Rove was deeply involved in the leak as well as the vice president. Unfortunately, with no one talking, there isn't enough basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EveKnight75 Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I'm with Agaib on this one. It would be too complicated to impeach Bush. As it is, straightforward impeachment cases are complicated and take a lot of time to process. The elections are coming up soon as it is. We've suffered him for 7 years. We can suffer him for one more year. After that, we don't have to deal with him as president ever again (except in the history books). What we'll have to deal with is trying to put an end to the wars, hostility within the nation, and repairing our reputation in concern to the rest of the world. Perhaps we as Americans should learn from this and work extra hard not to make the same mistake again. When I say that, I mean the nation collectively, not us as individuals. I know for a fact that everyone on this board has sound sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest echtrae Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Actually, Bush has been kind enough to help set himself up for a contempt of congress charge already by refusing to provide documentation related to the attorney firings. A contempt of congress charge is an impeachable offense. Additionally, there is already a motion for the impeachment of Cheney. H. Res. 333: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors You're not likely to ever see any of this in the mainstream news though. One would have thought all of this would have been big news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonhart29 Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Have you ever stopped to wonder why it is that sometimes the news seems a little biased when it comes to the stories that should be told and aren't? All news stations get their funding from advertisement and the public. If one of their biggest investors were to say "I don't want to see this made public" the chances are it won't be. Impeachment proceedings are BIG news no matter what - but Bush and Cheney have their fingers in a lot of pots - and so do their supporters. Clinton did too - but I believe he lost quite a bit of his supporters along the way. I honestly don't see any kind of proceedings taking place against Bush while he's in office - too much money would be lost. And that's what it seems to boil down to - money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quamp Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 You're not likely to ever see any of this in the mainstream news though. One would have thought all of this would have been big news. That's because the media is intentionally keeping it out of the spotlight. They want to be allowed to become bigger, and Monkey boy is ever-so-willing to kow-tow to their needs. The White House declined to comment on the poll, Gee, I wonder why? Part of the reason it's not likely to happen because those who have lots of money are the ones who put Monkey boy in there, and he's giving them all they want. The other part is that the anti-Bush movement has a lot of support, but it's all fragmented; they all need to get together and organize the movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest echtrae Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Quamp, you're right. What is needed is someone, or something, to rally around. Then there might be an actual movement. I just hope it happens before it is too late, but I suspect that it will take society going over the edge of sanity before the people will unite and decide that the time has come for things to be straightened out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotanAnubis Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 After that, we don't have to deal with him as president ever again (except in the history books). What we'll have to deal with is trying to put an end to the wars, hostility within the nation, and repairing our reputation in concern to the rest of the world. Considering you've got presidential hopefuls looking to score points by advocating "double Guantanamo" and other ridiculousness, I'd say Bush's presidency is going to echo into the future for quite some time yet. And not in a good way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Agaib Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Well I don't think that they have a very good chance. In fact, if one of them got elected I would probably tear My hair out in disgust like when Bush got reelected. I don't care what anybody says to make fun of John Kerry. He was a whole fucking lot better than Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonhart29 Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Okay - I've been following the candidates and once again this will be an election of the lesser of two evils once again. I wasn't joking when I said leaving the country was looking better and better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adara Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Okay - I've been following the candidates and once again this will be an election of the lesser of two evils once again. I wasn't joking when I said leaving the country was looking better and better. Unfortunately Leon, it's not that much better up here. 'cept there's whole parties screwing the population over. Again, the lesser of the two evils...we really need to stop doing this to ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Samurai Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Though my vote did nothing to assist this particular Congress, I am deeply disappointed with the Democrats and the lack of real initiative that many of them have shown. Instead of trying to 'send a message' by wasting time on bills that they know are going to be repealed with no possibility of being overturned, why do they not go for the kill? Even if there is a lack of evidence, attacking the Presidency directly with hearings -- as happened to Mr. Clinton -- would keep it bogged down and tied up sufficiently to help limit the amount of damage it can do in its Final Days . True, the election is not far, and the field of candidates leaves a fair bit to be desired, but I can't help but feel that this Congress should be doing something now to help stem the damage this group of supercriminals is inflicting on the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest echtrae Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Big Sam, you won't be seeing anything like that from Democrats because the Democratic party leadership has no interest in rocking the boat for the current administration. They've even stated as much. At this point, the only real choice is to find a third option. No more choosing the lesser of two evils, but to find an actual candidate that will stand for the people. Anybody seen anyone that looks like they will be an actual candidate for the people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonhart29 Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 No actually I haven't. I've been looking for a good candidate but have not found one. Politics really doesn't lend itself to "for the people" any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest echtrae Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 This Ron Paul guy seems to be generating quite a bit of attention. Just none of it seems to be with the mainstream media. I'm thinking that I need to take a closer at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.