Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

[Jay74]

Troy7:

Ah…the sweet aroma of Impeachment! Fingers crossed!

That’s reprehensible. And I said the same thing when Clinton was impeached. it’s one thing to want to see someone held accountable for their actions, or see the guilty convicted. It’s quite another to call it “sweet aroma”, especially when the reason you are enjoying it is dislike and not justice.

I was satisfied to see Saddam pulled out of a hole and brought to justice, but it certainly wasn’t “sweet aroma.”

 

[estesbob]

Semper Fi:

Won’t happen. He did nothing illegal. There’ll be some clawing for it in the beginning, the when the Republicans bring it to the floor for an actual vote, the person who introduced the bill won’t actually sign it (re: Murtha). Clinton wiretapped people without warrants when it was ILLEGAL and he never got impeached for that.

.

It appear the controlling authority is as follows:

United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

I got this from powerline Blog

 

[estesbob]

Jay74:

They should have learned that lesson from the Republicans. They overcriticized Clinton so much, even over irrellevant things, that they were too sick of it to listen to worthy criticism.

Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury-the same thing Scooter Libby was indicted for… Clinton was also found in contempt of court for his lies,fined and had his law license suspended for 5 years. Do you think that lying to a Grand Jury is irelevant and do you think the Judge who held him in contempt overereacted? Should the Charges agains Scooter Libby be dropped or is lying to a grand jury only irelevant when a Democrat does it?

 

[Troy7]

How dare any poster here ASSUME I want him impeached for mere dislike and NOT for justice…thats YOUR hangup if your dont think he guilty of injustice.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Troy7:

How dare any poster here ASSUME I want him impeached for mere dislike and NOT for justice…thats YOUR hangup if your dont think he guilty of injustice.

You can’t know if he committed an injustice until you’ve seen all the facts. None of us have seen all of the facts and neither has the NYT.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Troy7:

How dare any poster here ASSUME I want him impeached for mere dislike and NOT for justice…thats YOUR hangup if your dont think he guilty of injustice.

Pretty strong rhetoric. It seems to me that no assumptions were made. The poster’s response was based on your provocative choice of words. At least the poster responded to your post. I chose to ignore it. With such hyperbole as “the sweet aroma of impeachment” how could you blame me?

It amuses me that, in the absence of developed points of view, in the absence of supporting links, in the absence of any consideration in choosing terminology which furthers discussion – instead of grinding it to an impasse – some of you all come up with the arch “How dare you” and then fill in the blank.

What did you hope to achieve by saying “How dare you”?

As for Dubya’s impeachment, I suppose it would be helpful if one of us posted the criteria for impeachment, the precedents, and then set out in a logical manner with supporting links the arguments for and against impeaching Dubya. I’ve been busy with the election up here in Canada. So I’m not in a position to oblige you at the moment.

So what I am saying in a nutshell is that it is not my hangup if I don’t think Dubya is guilty of injustice. If you think he is guilty then the onus is on you to demonstrate your position. Saying things like “the sweet aroma of impeachment” is not demonstrating your position.

 

[Jay74]

estesbob:

Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury-the same thing Scooter Libby was indicted for… Clinton was also found in contempt of court for his lies,fined and had his law license suspended for 5 years. Do you think that lying to a Grand Jury is irelevant and do you think the Judge who held him in contempt overereacted? Should the Charges agains Scooter Libby be dropped or is lying to a grand jury only irelevant when a Democrat does it?

I’m not saying anything is irrelevant, and I’m not defending clinton who I twice voted against. In fact, I have great disdain for him and regard him as a very immoral leader. I’m merely asserting that they criticized him so much that people got sick of hearing it and no one took them seriously, even when he deserved it–and he deserved a lot of it.

 

[Jay74]

Troy7:

How dare any poster here ASSUME I want him impeached for mere dislike and NOT for justice…thats YOUR hangup if your dont think he guilty of injustice.

If you want him impeached for injustice, that is fine. I don’t see where anyone would call it “sweet aroma” unless they enjoy seeing a political adversary fall on their face. Your enjoyment was evident from your “sweet aroma” :thumbs up: gestures, where you seemed to literally celebrate the possibility.

I had great disdain for Clinton, but I did not see his impeachment as “sweet aroma” or cause for celebration. It was a sad day for America–not because it wasn’t deserved, but because having a president who warrants impeachment is bad for America. Likewise, if Bush deserves impeachment and gets it, it’s not cause for celebration.

 

[Jay74]

Ani Ibi:

Pretty strong rhetoric. It seems to me that no assumptions were made. The poster’s response was based on your provocative choice of words. At least the poster responded to your post. I chose to ignore it. With such hyperbole as “the sweet aroma of impeachment” how could you blame me?

It amuses me that, in the absence of developed points of view, in the absence of supporting links, in the absence of any consideration in choosing terminology which furthers discussion – instead of grinding it to an impasse – some of you all come up with the arch “How dare you” and then fill in the blank.

What did you hope to achieve by saying “How dare you”?

As for Dubya’s impeachment, I suppose it would be helpful if one of us posted the criteria for impeachment, the precedents, and then set out in a logical manner with supporting links the arguments for and against impeaching Dubya. I’ve been busy with the election up here in Canada. So I’m not in a position to oblige you at the moment.

So what I am saying in a nutshell is that it is not my hangup if I don’t think Dubya is guilty of injustice. If you think he is guilty then the onus is on you to demonstrate your position. Saying things like “the sweet aroma of impeachment” is not demonstrating your position.

Thank you. I wasn’t trying to insult him or impune his character. I was merely trying to assert that impeaching a president, love him or hate him, isn’t cause for celebration. Even if its Bill Clinton. Even if it’s George Bush.

When Clinton first got in trouble, my disdain for him notwithstanding, I was hoping it wasn’t true for the sake of the country.

 

[John_Pain]

Sirach14:

Does this go for Bill Clinton too?

Clinton is irrevlevant as he is no longer president unless we wish to prosecute him for crimes committed while in office, such as treason.

As to impeachment, that was already done.

 

[John_Pain]

WanderAimlessly:

They have been calling for his impeachment from his first day in office, so what else is new. This is just another inane attempt at a power grab since they cannot get power through the elections.

PF

You would probably disagree, but I can thing of many crimes for which I would like to see Bush prosecuted which have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with constitutional government.

 

[John_Pain]

geezerbob:

Until just recently, he appeared completely out of touch with reality…

I must be claryoyvant, as I thought that back in 2000.

 

[John_Pain]

gilliam:

Even if it was illegal, which I don’t think it was, it was not done maliciously or for personal gain, but to protect the United States of America in fulfillment of his duties.

If I shoot you in the hopes of killing a murderer behind you, you are still dead.

 

[John_Pain]

davy39:

Are people so stupid that they don’t believe that there are people in this country that are our enemies, and they want to bring this country to it’s knees? Get your heads out of the sand or wherever.

And before the first Republican Party primary in 2000, Bush had raised over $50,000,000 while the next closest, John McCain had about $3,000,000 and all the challengers to Mr. Bush had less than $10,000,000 total. Shouldn’t that have told the American public something? Who bought and paid for Mr. Bush?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

John Pain:

If I shoot you in the hopes of killing a murderer behind you, you are still dead.

What’s your point?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

John Pain:

And before the first Republican Party primary in 2000, Bush had raised over $50,000,000 while the next closest, John McCain had about $3,000,000 and all the challengers to Mr. Bush had less than $10,000,000 total. Shouldn’t that have told the American public something? Who bought and paid for Mr. Bush?

This relates to the congressman’s call for Bush’s impeachment in what way?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

John Pain:

You would probably disagree, but I can thing of many crimes for which I would like to see Bush prosecuted which have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with constitutional government.

Instead of making a blanket statement and trolling, let’s list 'em, get them out in the open, and we can go through each and every one of them right here and contrast them to past presidents (we don’t even have to do that, but it would be good to have a historical context and precedent).

 

[John_Pain]

SamCA:

Maybe, but in this case they’re clearly right. Bush has openly admitted to doing something which is unambiguously, inarguably against the law. Dude, even Richard Nixon’s lawyer has called Bush “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.”

It may not be clear for some, but breaking the law in the name of “national security” is still breaking the law, and the last time I checked, the president is not supposed to be above the law.

Kick the bum out!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jay74:

Thank you. I wasn’t trying to insult him or impune his character. I was merely trying to assert that impeaching a president, love him or hate him, isn’t cause for celebration. Even if its Bill Clinton. Even if it’s George Bush.

When Clinton first got in trouble, my disdain for him notwithstanding, I was hoping it wasn’t true for the sake of the country.

OK. It took me a while to think your reply through. But I get the possibility. Ironic language is sometimes very difficult to understand. Putting a after what you say ironically sometimes helps convey the idea that your are speaking with irony.

 

[John_Pain]

shockerfan:

Bush must defend us from terrorists but he can’t wiretap them, interrogate them, kill them, track them, etc.

On one had we have people who would love to kill us, slice the necks of our children, bomb our cities, poison our water, etc.

Hitler told the German people the same thing.