The Case for Impeachment
- Thread starter Bob26003
- Start date
- Status
Hi, Bob26003.. what do you think??? you ask the question but haven't give your answer as well... I know Hillary Clinton some time ago gave a speech about this and others felt this way.. however, again, he was "elected" maybe forgot some ballot boxes again to be picked up plus the military votes overseas.. that came in..
I agree with what Hillary stated. and I do have my opinions on this.. This is a loaded question.. When I see the people from Sweden rioting, when he came to visit their country.. there is great concern... as I believe if he did something wrong or said something wrong.. then it was extreme for some of the Swedish people to feel that way.. That is bad.. and other countries..
You know the "Dixie Chicks?" They took a stand and stated that they were ashamed to be from Texas.. Yeah.. I thought it was a problem with their music group.. I think it was in London, they made this statement.. then they had problems getting bookings, and doing concerts, etc.. but I admire them for taking a stand and saying how they felt.. now they are back doing concerts.. however, what about our freedom of speech, in this case..?? They couldn't sale out their concerts like before because of this statement... I admire them for taking a stand and that is what we all need to do.. when something isn't right.. take a stand... and not give in or waiver, no matter what the cost..they lost a lot.. but now are back.. and I believe they finally did their first real concert not to long ago....
He seems to always be on vacation at Camp David or at ranch.. When things have happpened.. yeah.. like Saturday night live at the beginning as they usually do a monologue about Bush.. so definitely true.. and very funny.. Why bother staying at the White House?
This is a heated debate, I don't really don't want to go there right now.. What do you think and why?
I think bring our men and women home from Iraq!!!
Going nowhere with this..
Gitana
I agree with what Hillary stated. and I do have my opinions on this.. This is a loaded question.. When I see the people from Sweden rioting, when he came to visit their country.. there is great concern... as I believe if he did something wrong or said something wrong.. then it was extreme for some of the Swedish people to feel that way.. That is bad.. and other countries..
You know the "Dixie Chicks?" They took a stand and stated that they were ashamed to be from Texas.. Yeah.. I thought it was a problem with their music group.. I think it was in London, they made this statement.. then they had problems getting bookings, and doing concerts, etc.. but I admire them for taking a stand and saying how they felt.. now they are back doing concerts.. however, what about our freedom of speech, in this case..?? They couldn't sale out their concerts like before because of this statement... I admire them for taking a stand and that is what we all need to do.. when something isn't right.. take a stand... and not give in or waiver, no matter what the cost..they lost a lot.. but now are back.. and I believe they finally did their first real concert not to long ago....
He seems to always be on vacation at Camp David or at ranch.. When things have happpened.. yeah.. like Saturday night live at the beginning as they usually do a monologue about Bush.. so definitely true.. and very funny.. Why bother staying at the White House?
This is a heated debate, I don't really don't want to go there right now.. What do you think and why?
I think bring our men and women home from Iraq!!!
Going nowhere with this..
Gitana
Last edited by a moderator:
P
I think Bush should be impeached, ...really impeached and removed from office. Not like the "virtual" impeachment that was meted out against former
President Clinton.
I think that he should also be brought up on war crimes charges.
I am not referring to the inadvertant death of Iraqi civilians. Like it or not, modern weapons such as bombs and rockets still kill indiscriminately. They are designed to destroy everything within a kill radius; "Smart weapon" or not, they are incapable of distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent. They kill in the same way whether they are used in a just war, or an unjust war.
Deliberately attacking civilian and non-military targets is an altogether different issue. In fact there are have already been several instances of US soldiers "going nuts" and indulging in bloodlust ( although the guilt for these murders lay squarely upon the soldiers, and not Bush. )
I believe Bush's guilt lay in the fact he has deliberately mis-led America in order to indulge in a personal vendetta. Although, in light of 911, fighting terrorism is a legitimate mission and America should pursue its enemies wherever they are found, Bush had already decided that he was going after Iraq, terrorist connection or not.
Therefore he is guilty in squandering the lives of American soldiers in order to settle a grudge and to satisfy the urgings of his fellow neo-con advisors.
Soldiers die in every war but to carelessly throw their young lives away without compelling reasons constitutes murder, or at least the worst case of criminally negligent homicide America has ever seen.
President Clinton.
I think that he should also be brought up on war crimes charges.
I am not referring to the inadvertant death of Iraqi civilians. Like it or not, modern weapons such as bombs and rockets still kill indiscriminately. They are designed to destroy everything within a kill radius; "Smart weapon" or not, they are incapable of distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent. They kill in the same way whether they are used in a just war, or an unjust war.
Deliberately attacking civilian and non-military targets is an altogether different issue. In fact there are have already been several instances of US soldiers "going nuts" and indulging in bloodlust ( although the guilt for these murders lay squarely upon the soldiers, and not Bush. )
I believe Bush's guilt lay in the fact he has deliberately mis-led America in order to indulge in a personal vendetta. Although, in light of 911, fighting terrorism is a legitimate mission and America should pursue its enemies wherever they are found, Bush had already decided that he was going after Iraq, terrorist connection or not.
Therefore he is guilty in squandering the lives of American soldiers in order to settle a grudge and to satisfy the urgings of his fellow neo-con advisors.
Soldiers die in every war but to carelessly throw their young lives away without compelling reasons constitutes murder, or at least the worst case of criminally negligent homicide America has ever seen.
Last edited:
R
P
I did a little additional research as to what costitutes grounds for impeachment
as it is applied to the executive branch of the federal government. I'm not needlessly splitting hairs as there are different rules governing whether the charges are brought againt others political entities, such as members of the judiciary, whether the jurisdiction is state or federal, etc.
As it applies to the President of the United States: treason, bribery or
other high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason and bribery are offenses
that are easily defined; the US Constitution ( strangely ? ) does not define what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
Prevailing opinion is that only Congress may determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. In 1970, then congressman Gerald Ford stated:
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history."
If a majority of members of the House decide that President Bush:duh: has commited acts that rise to their arbitrary definition of high crimes, etc, all they need do is draft articles of impeachment and begin gathering evidence. If all impeachment articles are passed by the House, then the President is impeached.
The case is then tried in the Senate. If a 2/3'rds majority vote to convict then the President is history ( no pun intended )
:clap: :clap: :clap:
as it is applied to the executive branch of the federal government. I'm not needlessly splitting hairs as there are different rules governing whether the charges are brought againt others political entities, such as members of the judiciary, whether the jurisdiction is state or federal, etc.
As it applies to the President of the United States: treason, bribery or
other high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason and bribery are offenses
that are easily defined; the US Constitution ( strangely ? ) does not define what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.
Prevailing opinion is that only Congress may determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. In 1970, then congressman Gerald Ford stated:
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history."
If a majority of members of the House decide that President Bush:duh: has commited acts that rise to their arbitrary definition of high crimes, etc, all they need do is draft articles of impeachment and begin gathering evidence. If all impeachment articles are passed by the House, then the President is impeached.
The case is then tried in the Senate. If a 2/3'rds majority vote to convict then the President is history ( no pun intended )
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Last edited:
- Status