Impeachment?

[mkemse]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.

read the history yourself, Haldeman, Urhlichmanm, Dean, LIddy Mitchell, ect were his responisablity, they all worked for him, directly if he did not knowwhat they were doing he was wrong for not knowing, if he did know he waswtong for allowingi t, nobody is abovethe law, nobody they broke all the laws, he wired tapped those he did not like ect ect, and no he was not impeached, he left office, he resigned in discrace before they could, and you can not impeach a President after they leave office

again have a great night

[mkemse]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.

If Nixon was not guilty of anything why did he resign?? Most people who are not guilty of a crme will defend themselves in court??

And He resigned in disgrace, by why rsign if he did nothing wrong??

[Ozme52]

Have a great night, no point in aruging a mute issue on Nixon now, he broke more federal laws and placed himself above the law that simple he broke more laws the Carters has ***** and yes that is a very old remark, i realize that

never the less have a GREAT NIGHT

If you're done arguing... BE DONE.

read the history yourself, Haldeman, Urhlichmanm, Dean, LIddy Mitchell, ect were his responisablity, they all worked for him, directly if he did not knowwhat they were doing he was wrong for not knowing, if he did know he waswtong for allowingi t, nobody is abovethe law, nobody they broke all the laws, he wired tapped those he did not like ect ect, and no he was not impeached, he left office, he resigned in discrace before they could, and you can not impeach a President after they leave office

again have a great night

Again, you repeat yourself... and this time making an argument against a point I don't contend... except to repeat, taking responsibility to try to make a corrective action (in his case not protecting the villians) and taking a jail term yourself if you were indeed unaware (still a point we'll never know about,) are two different things.

If Nixon was not guilty of anything why did he resign?? Most people who are not guilty of a crme will defend themselves in court??
And He resigned in disgrace, by why rsign if he did nothing wrong??

His stated intent was to spare the people of the USA and the office of the Presidency itself any further duress and harm. In that, he succeeded.

And once again, I'll state that while he couldn't have hoped to survive the political process of impeachment... maybe he hoped for vindication in the legal arena... and as I said... perhaps he counted on being pardoned.... But as you said, it's all in the past.

[mkemse]

If you're done arguing... BE DONE.



Again, you repeat yourself... and this time making an argument against a point I don't contend... except to repeat, taking responsibility to try to make a corrective action (in his case not protecting the villians) and taking a jail term yourself if you were indeed unaware (still a point we'll never know about,) are two different things.



His stated intent was to spare the people of the USA and the office of the Presidency itself any further duress and harm. In that, he succeeded.

And once again, I'll state that while he couldn't have hoped to survive the political process of impeachment... maybe he hoped for vindication in the legal arena... and as I said... perhaps he counted on being pardoned.... But as you said, it's all in the past.

i do not believe he reigned to save the nation, i firmly believe he residgned to save his skin an no othe reason, saving the nation for more fall out is a cope out by him, h simply did not want to be removed from offcie, if you have a job somewhere it is far easier to quit that job then to be fired or be removed
from it, so he did he removed himself before he could be removed

[Sir_Russell]

well Oz at least when your wrong your consistant about it. We spent plenty on clinton's impeachment for what now with so much more on the line its time to what play nice. I actually thought you had a better grasp of history and responsibility.

[Ozme52]

well Oz at least when your wrong your consistant about it. We spent plenty on clinton's impeachment for what now with so much more on the line its time to what play nice.

Yep. That was a waste of effort too. Clinton's impeachment was totally political.

I actually thought you had a better grasp of history and responsibility.

I don't deny that what Bush and Cheney have done is reprehensible. I HATE what they've done to our international reputation. Instead of us being the guy who watches out for injustice, we're the bully. I don't like it at all.

I'm just not sure that anything they've done could be called illegal and that's the point I'm making. You don't think if they had broken the law the Democratic majority in both houses wouldn't have acted? But regardless of criminality, it still makes good press.

My main point has been that you can't talk about things like reversing the Patriot Act... it was passed by congress, not by Bush/Cheney. He didn't go to war illegally, congress voted for it. Yes, the information was in error. Can anyone prove congress was purposely misled? NO. If you could prove it congress would have impeached immediately... and at the very least, reversed the war vote. You can only "prove" that after-the-fact, it was incredibly and stupidly wrong.

No, and on the contrary, they repeatedly vote to extend and send more troops. They certainly must have information that we don't have access to that implies it was the right thing to do.

I guess I'm trying to narrowly argue the topic. The war (and a host of related activities with regard to the Patriot Act) are way too broad to handle as a single subject. I just don't think an impeachment is going to do us any good... presuming you could even find him/them guilty of anything.

[mkemse]

Yep. That was a waste of effort too. Clinton's impeachment was totally political.




I don't deny that what Bush and Cheney have done is reprehensible. I HATE what they've done to our international reputation. Instead of us being the guy who watches out for injustice, we're the bully. I don't like it at all.

I'm just not sure that anything they've done could be called illegal and that's the point I'm making. You don't think if they had broken the law the Democratic majority in both houses wouldn't have acted? But regardless of criminality, it still makes good press.

My main point has been that you can't talk about things like reversing the Patriot Act... it was passed by congress, not by Bush/Cheney. He didn't go to war illegally, congress voted for it. Yes, the information was in error. Can anyone prove congress was purposely misled? NO. If you could prove it congress would have impeached immediately... and at the very least, reversed the war vote. You can only "prove" that after-the-fact, it was incredibly and stupidly wrong.

Yes but at thetime of the Patriot Act and Approving FUnds for Iraq everyone knows he had a blank check withthe Republican Controlled Congress, it was always rubber stamped to his satifaction, when the Repbulicans controlled both houses Bush got ANYTHING he wanted regardless of cost, when he asked forbills to be passedthere where controversal at best if not illegal, HIS Repblican Congress gave him what hewanted, Since the Democrats took oover his rubberstamd is gon,e and even Nancy Peolis and Harrd Reid said of his 3.5 i believei t was Trillion Dollar budget for next year, both said it will not even be looked at minus a few things it willnot be voted on, In Novemeber of 2006 the American People Mandated a Change in Washington puttig the Democrats in charge,m the only problem now is that the Democrats in the House even with a Controlling interst do not havea big enough majority (1 vote) to over ride Bushes veto's
Thing will change in November afterthe ekection, I will not take side on that, but unless something miraclous happens in then ext 10 months after 8 years of Bush, I do not believe the American Electoratewill give ANY Republican another 4 years in the White House, granted who ever goes there may not be much better then Bush, but nobody in the world could be worse them him

No, and on the contrary, they repeatedly vote to extend and send more troops. They certainly must have information that we don't have access to that implies it was the right thing to do.

I guess I'm trying to narrowly argue the topic. The war (and a host of related activities with regard to the Patriot Act) are way too broad to handle as a single subject. I just don't think an impeachment is going to do us any good... presuming you could even find him/them guilty of anything.

Among other things, the U.S. Declaration of Independence is a lengthy bill of particulars against the "abuses and usurpations" of King George III. If the revolutionary founders had had their own government, Jefferson would have used his writing skills to frame an impeachment bill. Among the "abuses" T.J. cited was the King's refusal to "Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." If the colonists were riled enough over taxes on stamps and tea to shake the world with revolution, what will their inheritors do with the "usurpations" of our present Chief Executive? As Jefferson wrote, "Let facts be submitted to a candid world":

1. He lied us into war in Iraq. According to the U.S. media-ignored British "Downing Street Memo," he "fixed" intelligence around a pre-determined policy of preemptive war. Results: 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; about 1800 U.S. soldiers dead in two wars, 100s of thousands wounded and traumatized.

2. Under his watch, the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack on its soil. He opposed an official investigation, then stalled for months on testifying before a hand-picked committee. Finally testified behind closed doors.

3. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2000.

4. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2004.

5. He has approved (and his Attorney General Gonzales has re-defined) torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, while simultaneously opposing the International Criminal Court established to check such abuses. According to Amnesty International, the United States has established a Soviet-style "gulag" of torture around the world.

6. He failed to support the Kyoto Protocols, reducing greenhouse gases, but worked to open up Alaska's ANWR to drilling-despoiling an eco-system and increasing greenhouse gases.

7. He chose Halliburton toady Dick Cheney to be his running mate-twice.

8. He has attempted to pack the courts with ideologue-judges intent on overthrowing Roe v. Wade, and institutionalizing the police-state abuses of Patriot Acts I and II.

9.His "No Child Left Behind" education policies have replaced learning with testing and allowed military recruiters access to our schools, cajoling our children with military options before their minds have had a chance to open, question and challenge.

10.He is attempting to dismantle the Social Security system that has ensured "peace and freedom" for tens of millions of working Americans for seven decades ("peace" of mind and "freedom" from economic crises)-- rights hard-won by Labor and Progressives in decades-long struggles.

11. He has allied himself with Right-wing ideologues to curtail or abolish stem-cell research vital to the conquest of debilitating and fatal diseases.

12. He has failed to develop a coherent energy policy-except to prosecute wars for other peoples' resources. He fails to acknowledge the reality and impending disasters of Global Warming.

13. He has continued the Globalization project of his predecessors: outsourcing jobs, hollowing our middle class.

14. He has undermined the legitimate protective protocols of the C.I.A., politicizing the agency, awarding positions on the basis of ideological orthodoxy rather than merit and astute analysis.

15. He has subjugated his Administration to Neocon ideologues like Richard Perle, William Kristol and Douglas Feith; men who have endorsed the "settlement," expansionist and Wall-them-in policies of Ariel Sharon, sowing the seeds of anti-Arab racism, war and destruction in the Middle East for generations to come.

16. In spite of his rhetoric about freedom and democracy, he has allied himself with dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt and elsewhere. He has increased the flow of arms to these states and others, fomenting instability, turmoil and war.

17. He chose Rumsfeld as DoD Secretary twice, in spite of Rumsfeld's obvious failure to adequately plan for the post-Saddam era in Iraq, inducing massive "collateral damage," the looting of ancient treasures, and infrastructure destruction in a country we were legally and morally bound to rehabilitate.

18. He endorses the weaponization of space, "Rods from Gods," and other exotic, Star-Wars technologies to establish a twenty-first century American global empire that is doomed to create an arms race with China and other opposing coalitions, sowing discord and wasting the resources of the world.

19. He has presided over the most egregious media consolidation in the nation's history. While we have had "yellow journalism" and other media abuses throughout our two centuries of Republic/Empire, we have never suffered the consolidation of power that we have today. He has presided over the emasculation and cowering of PBS, while his disinformation troops have peddled fraudulent stories and comments to "reporters" like Judith Miller, Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert-"Gannon," poisoning the well of information, adding to the general confusion and Goebbelsization of our news.

20. He lied about, misled, or misunderstood the astronomical costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He continues to do so, diverting tax money for education, health care, the EPA, transportation and social infrastructure into war-making and destruction.

21. He has continued and enlarged the depraved Clinton policy of using depleted uranium on the battlefield; a policy bound to cause massive suffering and death to Americans and others for generations to come.

22. He has alienated our traditional allies and more than a billion Muslims around the world. He has ransacked the good will extended to the nation after the 9/11 attacks, leading a crusade of vengeance and reprisal, most often against innocents, judging without sufficient evidence, arrogating to himself a crooked, self-righteous Texas sheriff's power to execute without justice.

23. Under his watch, millions more Americans have been added to the ranks of the uninsured while health-care costs have exploded. His answer to these and other pressing social problems appears to be faith-based charities-in other words, preaching to the choir while stealing from the pews.

24. Under his watch, the North Koreans have, apparently, developed eight nuclear weapons and Israel has continued to increase and refine its arsenal-now estimated as high as five hundred.

25. He has murdered the English language.

sorry but these are the only 25 i could come up with

[ThisYouWillDo]

25. He has murdered the English language.

Now that's really funny!

[mkemse]

Now that's really funny!

as well as 4.300+ Soldiers

[Ozme52]

mkemse

WTF!! I didn't write some of the shit you quoted as me!

It's one thing to be too lazy to edit and spellcheck your own shit... and another to make it look like I'm saying things you believe.

--------------------------------------------------------

And you can't impeach someone because you dislike their policies, their choice of advisors, or because he turned out to be stupid. You're just griping, not making a legitimate argument for impeachment.

[wmrs2]

mkemse

WTF!! I didn't write some of the shit you quoted as me!

It's one thing to be too lazy to edit and spellcheck your own shit... and another to make it look like I'm saying things you believe.

--------------------------------------------------------

And you can't impeach someone because you dislike their policies, their choice of advisors, or because he turned out to be stupid. You're just griping, not making a legitimate argument for impeachment.

Ozme, please stay in these threads. Your voice of reasoning is refreshing. I have been reading the political threads to determine how much common sense and logical thinking is put into the threads. Motivation from most of the threads doesn't come from either. Most of the respondents are still reacting to the political ass kicking G. W. gave them in 2000 and then again in 2004.

What the disgruntled Democrats don't understand is that most Democrats really put the nation's well being ahead of their political party, as it should be with both parties. For 4 years after Bush won the 2000 election the disgruntled Democrats accused, ranted about chads, Supreme Court Judges, recounts, etc. They thought there own were listening. I guess maybe they were. If all the Democrats voted for the party, there was no way the Republicans could have won. In the end, Democrats love their country and will do what is best. That's why Bush was re-elected in 2004.

I have a feeling that Obama will be the next President. If he is, it will be because the people believe Obama will protect our country and keep us safe.If for any reason he fails to show the qualities needed to protect the country from our enemies, they will not elect him.

The sins of Bill Clinton were many and obvious. We Americans kept him because we felt he would protect us. Bill Clinton could not have won re-election without the many Republicans voting for him.

Even to a man in the Congress did the Democratic House defended Bill, although the blue dress was eventually found. With all this Hillary said it was all a right wing conspiracy. But, we all knew what all was going on. At least President Bush has never used past history against Bill Clinton or Hillary for that matter.

The point is, you cannot reason with these disgruntled ones. Even their own party does not consider their opinions as helpful just now Their arguments only fire up the Republicans and that's why Obama and Hillary are careful what they say.

[mkemse]

remember impeach only means indictment is does not mean removal from office, once indicted they still have to stand trial in congress
just a geberal remark not stand on the subject itself