Impeachbush.com

40 posts

Flag Post

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

for all who hate bush.

 
Flag Post

Its good to see that its actually being worked on but I think its too late to do any good. He will already be replaced by Obama or someone by the time his case starts. Besides he will probably pull a nixon and resign before we get a chance to do it and that just takes all the fun out of the judiciary process.

 
Flag Post

DarthNader has a point, but I think that impeaching Bush is more about the message being sent than the actual results. If Bush were impeached, it would send two things loud and clear. First, it lets future presidents know that this crap won’t be tolerated by the people. And second, it sends a message to the rest of the world that NO, we do NOT support the actions of our president, so please don’t hate us for what he’s done.

Both, I think, are very significant, and would accomplish a lot of good, even if the impeachment went through on Bush’s final week in office.

Unfortunately, though, the most powerful Democrats remember what happened during the impeachment of Clinton — his ratings actually went UP. Democrats know that they have the next election in the bag, and they’re playing it safe so they don’t blow their chances. I personally find it quite sickening, and it’s just one of the many reasons that I most strongly support Kucinich.

 
Flag Post

Bleh. Every president has haters, and every president has a ton of illegal actions that were done. Theodore Roosevelt had enough illegal actions to wind up in jail for life. So did FDR. Huey P. Long (never president) was one of te most well liked and charismatic senators and he had tons of impeachable crimes. The only difference between all of those is that Bush already has a bad image and a low approval rating. If people hated FDR, he would be impeached in a heartbeat for al of the illegal federal spending that he executed, and people would have impeached Teddy Roosevelt for other reasons. Before you get impressed by the big words in that document, you have to realize that a lot of them are pretty much rehashes of old things and a lot of them were llowed by bills for a certain amount of time until they were shot down by the senate, so bringing charges against somebody is absurd (Like arresting a 14 year old kid from the meidival ages for having underage sex even though in his time it was legal[ignore the fact that we can’t pick up from the previous time])

 
Flag Post

How many people are dead as a result of Huey P. Long’s actions? And “people” includes human beings who don’t live in America.

 
Flag Post

You mean besides himself? As far as history knows, none directly, but it is beleived his rewards and penalties for supporters/haters wound up putting at least a couple hundred of people out of a job and into poverty. And if he were president, and in wartime conditions, a helluva lot more people would have died. We are talking about presidents here. And you can’t say nobody died from FDR or Teddy Rosevelt’s presidencies.

 
Flag Post

Also, a note: I am not arguing against impeaching bush, or saying I favor him. I am simply saying that using a bunch of legislative terms to make somebody sound like they did a lot of criminal actions, when in fact almost all presidents have had some stupid and illegal actions, is flawed. Which could be seen as just playing the devil’s advocate for the topic about impeaching George Bush, but it is a valid point.

 
Flag Post

The difference between Teddy Rosevelt, FDR, and Bush is that Teddy and FDR were actually good wartime presidents. Both of their wars, teddy’s (war in Cuba) and FDR’s (WWII) were seen as justified until the end of their presidencies. I guess what made them good wartime presidents was that they were good at suppressing the facts.

 
Flag Post

What’s the point? His term is just about over anyway.

 
Flag Post

its too late any ways

 
Flag Post

Couple things.

I am simply saying that using a bunch of legislative terms to make somebody sound like they did a lot of criminal actions, when in fact almost all presidents have had some stupid and illegal actions, is flawed. Which could be seen as just playing the devil’s advocate for the topic about impeaching George Bush, but it is a valid point.

It’s actually not a valid point. If Dubya et al. really have acted criminally, it’s criminal regardless of whether or not someone else has acted illegally and got away with it. Teddy’s, FDR’s and Huey Long’s actions are largely irrelevant, unless you want to use them as part of a standard for legallizing criminal actions by commanders-in-chief.

IMO, I think I know where you’re going with this, in that every executive needs or is going to need a sort of “moral leeway” to get things done. You please three people, you upset one other: you can’t make everybody happy. Of course every leader is going to have opponents. But how much “leeway” do you wish to give them?

 
Flag Post

My point is that they are making bush seem like an evil man and a bad president when, COMPARITIVLY, they have all been criminals. With your view we should posthumously strip presidents of all of their accollades because they commited felonies. And just because the wars were seen as justified does not change the fact that people died because of it. Public opinion of something does not change the action itself.

I don’t care particularly how much leeway you give a president, it is just if you are going to slam somebody for one thing, then slam all the presidents. Because we know for a fact that whatever George bush has done detaining Iraqis, FDR did it ten times worse to 3rd generation (IE grandchildren of the original immigrants) japaneese while the war was going on. All I am pointing out, and it may just be the devil’s advocate in me, is that that site is making bush seem like a criminal and the only president who does things the way he does, when practically all presidents have skeletons in their closets, and the greatest presidents have even more immoral actions than others.

I don’t particularly like Bush, but unless they can come up with a good reason for why to impeach him that isn’t just legal jargon repeated in 3 points and hasn’t been done by quite a few other presidents, impeaching him is just a stupid measure. Also, they brag about almost 1 million supporters, but with roughly 200 million of voting age, and 70% disapproving of him (and not caring) it actually means a very small fraction of people want to impeach him.

Lets take the other presidents who have been impeached/almost were.

Johnson: (it was Johnson, not Jackson, right?). He was impeached for firing a federal official illegaly and abusing his veto privelage. Actually not really illegal, but meh.

Nixon: Watergate scandal, federally lying. He could have gotten away as a hero if he would have just fired the idiots who told him what they did, but no other president had that big of a cover up.

Clinton: Federally told the truth due to a stupid definition, but that was found out later in the removal from office hearing. While being impeached he was charged with federally lying.

FDR: Never impeached, detained over one million japaneese-american citizens illegally in harsh camps.

George W. Bush: People want to impeach him for illegally detaining cuban prisoners and Iraqi prisoners of war totalling a few thousand.

To reiterate: My beleif is that if something gets a president impeached, it should get other presidents impeached. I mean, we are founded on a judicial system to that effect, where something that was ruled before will be used to decide the ruling in similar cases. George Bush’s impeachment is, to my fair legal understanding, things that most president’s have done and gone free with (and in some cases in smaller amounts) and mostly due to his low approval ratings (even though he in fact had the highest presidential approval ratings ever right after 9/11, which was around 95% approval).

 
Flag Post

George W. Bush: People want to impeach him for illegally detaining cuban prisoners and Iraqi prisoners of war totalling a few thousand.

There is way more than that on bush’s record. Try starting a war without justifiable cause for a start.

 
Flag Post

it is just if you are going to slam somebody for one thing, then slam all the presidents.

1. Historians have been doing that for quite some time.

2. Again, our past presidents’ actions are irrelevant: if it’s illegal, it’s still illegal. Should we not prosecute a murderer today because we missed a few back in the 60’s? If three men rob a bank, and the police only catch one of them in the act, should they let him go without charging him of a crime, simply because they can’t charge all three at once?

George Bush’s impeachment is, to my fair legal understanding, things that most president’s have done and gone free with

Again. Fallacy. It does not matter what past presidents have done. What matters is what the current president has done, and more importantly, what we will allow future presidents to do. Does this sound silly to you? To future presidents reading this: The US Congress and the judicial system will overlook detaining foreign nationals and our own citizens (up to 1 million). Perjury, however, is a big no-no.

and mostly due to his low approval ratings (even though he in fact had the highest presidential approval ratings ever right after 9/11, which was around 95% approval).

Timothy McVeigh had some pretty low approval ratings, too.

 
Flag Post

Its amazing to me how so many people can drink the koolaid and parrot everything they hear about how terribly evil Bush is. Nothing Bush has done has been “illegal” and certainly not done on his own. Thats why we have the legislative and judiciary branches. Anything that Bush might be “guilty” of (and I use the term loosely) you have to charge the rest of the government with as well. Then again, if we want to start finger pointing, there are plenty of skeletons in the closet for both sides of the aisle.

In any case, this whole “impeach Bush” thing is a waste of time and pretty silly. Hate in politics never gets us anywhere…look at the useless democratic controlled congress right now. Instead of trying to get things done and work for change, they have wasted a lot of time and resources bickering, placing blame, “investigating”, and so forth.

I’m not saying that Bush and the Republicans are without blame and real innocent, but it irritates me to see the same crap being bandied about that simply isn’t true or based on deceit to start with, but is believed wholeheartedly because some people WANT to believe it is true. A good example is the whole Valerie Plame issue…some people still insist that Bush or one of his cronies “outted” her.

Does it hurt that much to think for yourselves and find out the facts?

This thread will probably descend further into a black hole with more misleading statements about how terrible Bush is or was, and a lot of accusations or “proof” will most likely be bandied about as well. Hopefully the smart and rational readers will see this for what it is and ignore it. Time is better spent being constructive. If you don’t like the government, vote in some new people. 2008 is a good year for that.

Go vote. But don’t vote until you understand the issues and you know what each candidate stands for. Certainly don’t vote for someone because that is what someone else tells you to do. Lemmings are stupid.

 
Flag Post

Impeachment may only be a tool used if someone has broken the law. It is also used to (but not admitted to) remove an unpopular president from office (Do you realy think all of america was angry about Nixon doing some snooping?). No we do not have to remove the rest of the government from office if we remove him if we want to be entirely just at least imediatly. If bush is equally guilty of the crimes he has been accused of along with everyone else in government then why don’t we just remove one link from the chain? if we remove the executive branch portion of the chain nothing unlawful will be given the green light. Everything returns back to the way it was and our government isn’t left completely open. We can go ahead and arrest all the senators and congressmen who are guilty one at a time. Doing it all at once is very unwise.

Also you make it sound like bush isn’t guilty because there are others responsible too. It is called Bush’s war on terrorism for a reason. He gives the go ahead for almost every minor detail and being the creator of this war on terrorism it does make him responsible for anything that happens. The only time he can’t be held accountable is when a decision is decided on before it reaches his desk. Decisions made in the field quickly although are his responsibility the second he is told the debriefing. If he himself doesn’t act on something illegal that makes him by law an accomplice and just as guilty.

Now on the topic of people using unlawful means to detain those suspected of crimes in order to keep the greater mass of people safe I believe it to be justifiable. If and only if it works. For instance when FDR detained millions of Japanese Americans in order to prevent espionage and terrorism absolutely no such acts were recorded after that. Although in bush’s case he is detaining and wire taping those suspected of such acts but terrorism and espionage are still occurring all over America and the world. In other words he is not doing what he isn’t admitting to. The reason this has everyone worried is because if the resources he is devoting to this objective aren’t doing there job they could be doing something else to different more innocent and less involved people that we don’t know about.

Does it hurt that much to think for yourselves and find out the facts?

To say that we are just repeating what we hear is stupid. Just because we agree with someone doesn’t mean that person has brainwashed us into thinking like them.

In any case, this whole “impeach Bush” thing is a waste of time and pretty silly. Hate in politics never gets us anywhere…look at the useless democratic controlled congress right now. Instead of trying to get things done and work for change, they have wasted a lot of time and resources bickering, placing blame, “investigating”, and so forth.

If there was no “hate” in politics everything would be permitted and that’s not good. Our governing system works off of hate. If there was no hate in politics there would be one party, one way of thinking, and basically communism. Also calling democratic controlled congress “useless” is an uneducated and stupid statement. You can’t expect a new congress to get anything groundbreaking done in a couple of months. I am sure they have fixed lots of potholes and built lots of schools during this time anyways. So at least they are doing their jobs set forth for them. That job includes bickering, which I am sure they are getting allot done.

 
Flag Post

Tybur, the thing is, we are not talking about only CATCHING one person. We KNEW about the illegal actions of past presidents during their term and because they were liked, the impeachments never came through. I am saying since we let them go after catching them before, we can do it again.

Darth, as far as I know a terrorist threat was considered a justifiable cause. And if we went back to the months after 9/11, 95% of america would agree with me. Keeping the war going is not good for his public appeal, but it is not illegal since congress gave him the go ahead.

 
Flag Post

Ummmm were fighting two wars that started under two completely different circumstances. There was no terrorist threat from Iraq. First we wanted to stop him from making weapons of mass destruction (never found any), then we were there to free the people from oppression, Then we admitted oil had a small share in the giving of a go ahead for an invasion, and now were just there because of honor and if we leave terrorist will declare victory (like it maters!) even though they probably wont be able to topple the new Iraqi government we put in place anyways.

But if you asked me us being in Afganistan is understandable.

 
Flag Post

Tybur, the thing is, we are not talking about only CATCHING one person.

No, we’re talking about prosecuting. :)

We KNEW about the illegal actions of past presidents during their term and because they were liked, the impeachments never came through.

That’s the breaks of the politics biz. And real life, too, come to think of it. If you’re liked, and generally a swell guy, you’ll get off with a warning, a slap on the wrist. If you’re the town drunk they’ll throw your ass in the klink.

I think, too, you’re making too big a deal over the popularity thing. As if it’s a bad gauge of the president’s status. It’s an approval rating: if a president farks up, his rating goes down. There’s a direct correlation.

I am saying since we let them go after catching them before, we can do it again.

I am saying that’s a bad precedent to set and simply bad policy. If anything, it needs to be standardized a bit.

as far as I know a terrorist threat was considered a justifiable cause. And if we went back to the months after 9/11, 95% of america would agree with me. Keeping the war going is not good for his public appeal, but it is not illegal since congress gave him the go ahead.

Honestly, I’m still for Afghanistan. Iraq is another story altogether. Where are the WMD’s the conservatives promised us? AFAIK, Congress gave him the go ahead after being lied to.

And where’s that cheap blood-oil that the liberal protestors promised us?

 
Flag Post

Regardless of your feelings of the war, which is what almost everybody who dislikes bush dislikes him for, it is not illegal. If that is the sole reason you are for having him impeached, then you really need to take a look at the law and the fact impeach is to ring charges against somebody. AFAIK you can’t bring charges against somebody for something legal.

 
Flag Post

Regardless of your feelings of the war, which is what almost everybody who dislikes bush dislikes him for, it is not illegal. If that is the sole reason you are for having him impeached, then you really need to take a look at the law and the fact impeach is to ring charges against somebody. AFAIK you can’t bring charges against somebody for something legal.

Impeachment is to have charges brought against a public official, yes. And what happens after that? Hmm?

You can’t bring charges against somebody for doing something legal? How curious, I did not know that. Usually, before you bring charges against somebody, you have to suspect them of a crime, yes? You have to investigate whether or not a crime has been committed, and honestly I think that’s what they ought to be doing.

Listen, I see a few possibilities here, regarding Iraq. None of them are too great. Here are two.

1. Bush, etc. fabricated evidence to invade another country. Illegal? I don’t know. Personally, I’d call that a Bait n’ Switch confidence act. Which, IMO, could probably be construed as a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

2 Bush, etc. worked on bad evidence to legally justify an invasion. This is just my personal opinion, but that seems to demonstrate some poor decision making ability: to wit -Bush is a moron. Now last time I checked being a moron isn’t ground for removal from office. It’s still a little unsettling, however.

 
Flag Post

Torture is illegal. Warrantless wiretaps and searches are illegal. Heck, look up Bush signing statements and you’ll see that he claims the right to violate hundreds of laws that he signed.

 
Flag Post

We need to impeach to send a message to future presidents that if they do this, they WILL be arrested and sent to jail. And if you need a reason to impeach heres a list:
-Warrantless wiretapping. Bush came out and BRAGED about this on national television.
-Torture and extraordinary rendition (declaring someone is an “enemy combatant” and sending to black site prisons like Guantanamo Bay)
-Voter caging and Voter intimidation
-Leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative
-Lying about Sadaham Husein having yellow cake uranium in the state of the union
If this doesn’t give tou enough of a reason to impeach, then i don’t know what will.

 
Flag Post

I see everyone wants to blame a single person for the actions of many, why? President Bush did not start the war, rather he supported the Congress’s decision to let terrorists know that the USA will not tolerate their actions. Contrary to what some believe the President cannot declare war, it takes an act of Congress. Presidential powers are actually quite limited, even an executive order can be over ridden by Congress if deemed illegal.

I am curious, seeing as some of you have all the answers, what would you have done in response to 9/11 if you were president?

 
Flag Post

I am curious, seeing as some of you have all the answers, what would you have done in response to 9/11 if you were president?

Err…attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan…not Hussein in Iraq?