berrywoman Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Dems split as impeachment whispers get louder Some see anti-Bush movement as distracting from key issues, boosting GOP By Michael Powell The Washington Post Updated: 4:06 a.m. ET March 25, 2006 HOLYOKE, Mass. - To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush. Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture. Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon. "Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me." Anger years in the making It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making. "The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo Bay detainees. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to urge Congress to impeach Bush, as have state Democratic parties, including those of New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. A Zogby International poll showed that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed President Bill Clinton should be impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. And Harper's Magazine this month ran a cover piece titled "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush." "If the president says 'We made mistakes,' fine, let's move on," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.). "But if he lied to get America into a war, I can't imagine anything more impeachable." No unity among Democrats Democrats remain far from unified. Prominent party leaders -- and a large majority of those in Congress -- distance themselves from the effort. They say the very word is a distraction, that talk of impeachment and censure reflect the polarization of politics. Activists spend too many hours dialing Democratic politicians and angrily demanding impeachment votes, they say. In California, poet Kevin Hearle, an impeachment supporter, is challenging liberal Rep. Tom Lantos -- who opposes impeachment -- in the Democratic primary in June. "Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution. "Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq." The GOP establishment has welcomed the threat. It has been a rough patch for the party -- Bush's approval ratings in polls are lower than for any president in recent history. With midterm elections in the offing, Republican leaders view impeachment as kerosene poured on the bonfires of their party base. "The Democrats' plan for 2006?" Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote in a fundraising e-mail Thursday. "Take the House and Senate and impeach the president. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?" Iraq at the center of the storm The argument for an impeachment inquiry -- which draws support from prominent constitutional scholars such as Harvard's Laurence H. Tribe and former Reagan deputy attorney general Bruce Fein -- centers on Bush's conduct before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is argued that Bush and his officials conspired to manufacture evidence of weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to approve the invasion. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill told CBS News's "60 Minutes" that "from the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go . . . it was all about finding a way to do it." And a senior British intelligence official wrote in what is now known as the "Downing Street memo" that Bush officials were intent on fixing "the intelligence and the facts . . . around the policy." Critics point to Bush's approval of harsh interrogations of prisoners captured Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics that human rights groups such as Amnesty International say amount to torture. Bush also authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and e-mails, subjecting possibly thousands of Americans each year to eavesdropping since 2001. "Bush is saying 'I'm the president' and, on a range of issues -- from war to torture to illegal surveillance -- 'I can do as I like,' " said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "This administration needs to be slapped down and held accountable for actions that could change the shape of our democracy." Tribe wrote Conyers, dismissing Bush's defense of warrantless surveillance as "poppycock." It constituted, Tribe concluded, "as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied." But posed against this bill of aggrievement are legal and practical realities. Not all scholars, even of a liberal bent, agree that Bush has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Bush's legal advice may be wrong, they say, but still reside within the bounds of reason. "The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad," said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith." Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view. Here in Massachusetts and Vermont, though, in the back roads and on the streets of Holyoke and Springfield, the discontent with Bush is palpable. These are states that, per capita, have sent disproportionate numbers of soldiers to Iraq. Many in these middle- and working-class towns are not pleased that so many friends and cousins are coming back wounded or dead. "He picks and chooses his information and can't admit it's erroneous, and he annoys me," said Colleen Kucinski, walking Aleks, 5, and Gregory, 2, home. Would she support impeachment? Kucinski wags her head "yes" before the question is finished. "Without a doubt. This is far more serious than Clinton and Monica. This is about life and death. We're fighting a war on his say-so and it was all wrong." © 2006 The Washington Post Company © 2006 MSNBC.com URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12003304/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Hatter Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Somehow, I don't think he'll be impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 thats the sad part.. but at least is finally being spoken about out loud.... I think it needs to be spoken about publically... and this new immigration bill isn't helping his approval rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 *bump* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 they have no reason to impeach him, so he wont be impeached...simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 uh.. hmm I can think of a few little things such as lying to the American public, false pretense for war, leading us into more of a deficit than we have ever been in this nations history... uh, killing innocent people and soldiers, negligence of his own admistrations handling on Katrina and Rita.... shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 never lied to the american public...so people who want to impeach him have no case. if you impeach bush for katrina you'd have to impeach half the goverment, dems too...seeing as how the blame is shared with democrats and republicans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 :lol: he never lied!!! Thats rich... lol why did we go to war in the first place?? Answer me that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 wmd's, war on terror, free iraqi's, save lives, spread democracy...the fact there were no wmd's doesnt mean he lied, he was simpy giving america the info the cia and many other countries gave him...he didnt know the truth when he said it, lie2 Audio pronunciation of "lied" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l) n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. by definition he did not lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If he didn;t know the truth... then why did he say it ? That's what's so ridiculous about our government, the leaders are cluceless as to what is going on, but are quick to present any info they recieve from the people who work behind them. So what you though they had WMDs. They didn't. So what info you acted on was false. an assumption. Look what insufficient information has led us to now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyssa Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 bush should be impeached just for being an idiot :laugh3: one fingered victory salute fool me once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 1) they've already admitted they had false intelligence.. claiming there were WMD when in fact... there weren't any in Iraq. 2)saying that "we're going to get the people responsible for 9/11" as a cause for war..... uh huh.. lie right there, if your saying the real reason was WMD. 3)Osma Bin Laden-nuff said on that one. 4)Hellooooooooooooo you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world.... do you think you're administration would be a bit more responsible with the information they give the Commander in Chief?!! --thats no excuse.... he's the President- he should be the one responsible for this nation.. period. But oh no.......... some bloke decides to cheat on his wife in the Oval Office.. lets impeach him lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 .the fact there were no wmd's doesnt mean he lied, he was simpy giving america the info the cia and many other countries gave him...he didnt know the truth when he said it, l. Actually that is one of the 3 major misconceptions that surveyed Americans had of this "war on terror" 1. That WMDs were found. 2. That any other countries were in support of our attack. 3. and that Hussein was linked to Al Quaeda. All are false. NONE of those were ever proven truths. This has created the American mindset of what we thought was going on, as opposed to what really is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 Actually that is one of the 3 major misconceptions that surveyed Americans had of this "war on terror" 1. That WMDs were found. 2. That any other countries were in support of our attack. 3. and that Hussein was linked to Al Quaeda. All are false. NONE of those were ever proven truths. This has created the American mindset of what we thought was going on, as opposed to what really is going on. amen sista!!! AMEN!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If he didn;t know the truth... then why did he say it ? That's what's so ridiculous about our government, the leaders are cluceless as to what is going on, but are quick to present any info they recieve from the people who work behind them. So what you though they had WMDs. They didn't. So what info you acted on was false. an assumption. Look what insufficient information has led us to now? because he was doing what every president does and should do, act on intelligence they recieve. since bush cant go out in the field and do the actual spying he has to rely on those that do.... he was shown a huge amount of evidence saying iraq had wmd's, evidence that came from american intellgence agencies and other countries and acted on it he did not LIE, by definition of the word he did not lie...there can be no arguement saying otherwise, seeing as how the fucking definition of the proves he did not lie. he may have told something that was not true, but he and many beleived it to be true when he acted on it and told the nation. theres a HUGE difference.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Actually that is one of the 3 major misconceptions that surveyed Americans had of this "war on terror" 1. That WMDs were found. 2. That any other countries were in support of our attack. 3. and that Hussein was linked to Al Quaeda. All are false. NONE of those were ever proven truths. This has created the American mindset of what we thought was going on, as opposed to what really is going on. Bush never said saddam or iraq was involved in 911, and i doubt he ever said he was linked to alquaeda, pleases use evidence to prove that. he created teh mindset by using intelligence he believed and the NATION believed, he made no stories up, told no lies. the fact may be iraq had no wmd's but bush was convinced much like the cia, nsa, jordanian intelligence, mi5, french and russian intelligence that saddam had nukes...he was fooled by that evidence and so was our nation...nothing more nothing less... but listen to this BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, BUSH DID NO LIE TO AMERICA....he may have mislead them, but he was mislead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrywoman Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 oh my GOD!! Listen to yourself... lol you're going to on technicalities here... 'by definition of the word' puuuuuuuuh-leeeeeeeeeeease!!! :lol: I have friends who were there on Ground Zero when he came to NYC and said... amidst all that rubble.. amongst volunteers and firefighters and cops....... as he spoke.. people in the back couldn't hear him with out the megaphone.... then his reply "well I can hear you... and soon the rest of the world will hear us.. and we shall find the ones responsible and punish them." --- at that point... I was with him.. I thought this was the purpose of us going into Iraq... to find Osama and company.... you know.. the ones 'responsible'...... this is leading the American public and opinion under false pretenses..... so YOU'RE telling me.... his initial reasoning for invading Iraq was to instill democracy and NOT to find the people responsible for 9/11????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 because he was doing what every president does and should do, act on intelligence they recieve. since bush cant go out in the field and do the actual spying he has to rely on those that do.... he was shown a huge amount of evidence saying iraq had wmd's, evidence that came from american intellgence agencies and other countries and acted on it he did not LIE, by definition of the word he did not lie...there can be no arguement saying otherwise, seeing as how the fucking definition of the proves he did not lie. he may have told something that was not true, but he and many beleived it to be true when he acted on it and told the nation. theres a HUGE difference.... He acted on false intelliegence. When you are the leader, you take responsiblity. That is your job. The people vote you in to do your job. You take oath. You do the job. And when your job was done wrong, then you have failed your responsibilites. This is not a job to be taken lightly. The population of the US is at your hands, the soldiers of the military are at your hands. Your mistakes cause uneasiness with other nations, your mistakes kill innocent lives. It is as simple as that. And if you don't think that any President ever lies....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Bush never said saddam or iraq was involved in 911, and i doubt he ever said he was linked to alquaeda, pleases use evidence to prove that. he created teh mindset by using intelligence he believed and the NATION believed, he made no stories up, told no lies. the fact may be iraq had no wmd's but bush was convinced much like the cia, nsa, jordanian intelligence, mi5, french and russian intelligence that saddam had nukes...he was fooled by that evidence and so was our nation...nothing more nothing less... but listen to this BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, BUSH DID NO LIE TO AMERICA....he may have mislead them, but he was mislead..... The nation puts its trust in the leader to find true information and to make decisions accordingly. I never said he lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazeboflossUK Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Bush never said saddam or iraq was involved in 911, and i doubt he ever said he was linked to alquaeda, pleases use evidence to prove that. he created teh mindset by using intelligence he believed and the NATION believed, he made no stories up, told no lies. the fact may be iraq had no wmd's but bush was convinced much like the cia, nsa, jordanian intelligence, mi5, french and russian intelligence that saddam had nukes...he was fooled by that evidence and so was our nation...nothing more nothing less... but listen to this BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, BUSH DID NO LIE TO AMERICA....he may have mislead them, but he was mislead..... I can't believe this guy. 'Bush never lied, he was misled'....what?!?! HAHAHAHA, that's the biggest political bullshit line all of threads. You should work for those lying, murdering, cheating, stealing bastards. Fuck!?! :-| (Oh, and the rest of what you said is horse shit too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 I can't believe this guy. 'Bush never lied, he was misled'....what?!?! HAHAHAHA, that's the biggest and most political bullshit line all of threads. You should work for those lying, murdering, cheating, stealing bastards. Fuck!?! :-| :sweatdrop: I agree. It's almost exhausting trying to get through to those unaware of so many false moves made by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Bush did not lie...simple as that. he was misinformed and misinformed the nation because he was fooled. he didnt deliberately tell something false to america, he was fooled too. theres a MAJOR difference. it would be one thing if he knew saddam had no wmd's, but he like many in the goverment and intelligence agencies ACROSS the world were convinced he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 I can't believe this guy. 'Bush never lied, he was misled'....what?!?! HAHAHAHA, that's the biggest political bullshit line all of threads. You should work for those lying, murdering, cheating, stealing bastards. Fuck!?! :-| (Oh, and the rest of what you said is horse shit too) by the meaning and definition and sense of the word, there was no lie...a lie would be if he knew it was false thats what a lie is....so by definition and the TRUE meaning of the word, he did NOT lie. its like trying to argue the earth's the center of the universe, by the true meaning of the word he did not lie...simple as that.\ YOU personaly may consider it a lie, thats what you guys are doing, but anyone can consider anything what they want it to be. thats all you all are doing is saying he lied by your definition, but by the worlds standards and true meaning he did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 :sweatdrop: I agree. It's almost exhausting trying to get through to those unaware of so many false moves made by the government. im fully aware of the mistakes made, one being iraq, the iraq war is a major mistake, bush had made many. but you're argueing something about lying now. its not just about bush, you're making the word lie to your own definition. screw bush, but a lie is far different then whtat he did. you are making your own definition of what a lie is, and what the word means. by the true standards its far different then what you guys are calling. thats what im talking about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marisa Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 I never said he deliberately lied. Simple as that. But when a President is impeached, he accused of not fulfulling his duties or misuse of his duties. Bush is guilty of using false intelligence to start a war. " he was fooled too" Well isn't this reassuring? I love when my President is fooled. It reinforces the fact he is unfit for duty. "but he like many in the goverment and intelligence agencies ACROSS the world were convinced he did." Well, when it is my job to make correct decisions concerning my country, then I might want to active in the investigation, instead of relying on other countries (who had no interest in the fact, only dragged into it) to do investigations that are crucial to the decisions I make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now