Why should Bush be impeached?

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

He was tried by a grand jury. Perhaps the trial wasn’t fair, perhaps it was, but the whole thing has been dealt with.

He’s not exactly the only prominent politician to have driven when drunk.

Does that make what happened right? No.

Does that make it fair to single him out, because he has different political views to you, but others who have similar views don’t warrant a mention? No.

We should criticise policies, not personalities.

Mike

I am not criticizing his personality or attacking him because I do not agree with him. My problem is that he killed an innocent girl and afterward he immediately called his lawyer but no one called the authorities until the next day. I would have a problem with that if it was someone in my own family. Politics has nothing to do with it.

 

[2shelbys]

koda:

Even the current spying on citizens is okay by you folks.

It is OK with us because it is legal and has been standard procedure for the NSA for 50 years. I did not even have a problem with Clinton ordering physical searches without a warrant which is FAR more invasive than anything going on now.

We’ve got torture,

Rumors and distortions

Plamegate,

Which is a joke. She was not an undercover operative according to the law which is why no one was indicted for “outing” her.

the lobbyist scandal,

Which affects both parties equally. The biggest contribution connected to it so far went to John Kerry. Another one of the biggest ones went to Hillary.

the spying scandal -

Which is again a joke, because the NSA has been listening in on every form of communication inside and outside this country for 50 years.

yet it’s all just some big conspiracy to get good guy Bush

When you look back over the years since 2000 and and take a running count of all of the manufactured B.S. and all of the invented scandals that have been aimed at him, the organized assault on him would be obvious to a nearsighted mole.

But I don’t believe it for a second and I truly think that the preponderance of the evidence is on my side

I do not know of what evidence you speak. So far, everything you have cited as proof of his wrongdoing is bogus. That is why none of it sticks.

 

[koda]

Ani Ibi:

You can only bet with something on the table. How many links have you provided?

That is an attempt at mindreading and prohibited under the forum guidelines. The facts are that I have frequently apologized when I have made an error. And I have frequently changed my position when persuaded by the facts.

Endlessly repeating unsupported points of view imho does not equate to persuading me on the basis of the facts.

And fault is attributed on the basis of what?

This is a wild generalization.

Is this thread about spying?

Have you learned to offer better sources and defend your country in a more transparent manner?

Who said that? I certainly didn’t.

Once again you could have helped your case against Republicans by offering examples, logical argumentation, and links. But once again you chose not to.

You could also have helped your case by refraining from namecalling; to wit “power hungry Republicans.”

Conspiracy? The Republicans have become purveyors of conspiracy theory?

Could you clarify the offer please? I am not sure what I am being asked to believe.

The proof of the pudding is in actually presenting the evidence.

Give me a break. Like none of us non Bush supporters haven’t posted enough links in the past few months to keep a full time scribe busy til sometime next year – but it doesn’t do any good because the sources are generally dismissed out of hand. Biased sources, you say? No more so than the blogs of rapid Bush supporters you expect us to believe. But even major newspapers don’t work. We could throw links back and forth at each other until doomsday. But there is very little dialog, one thing I think you might agree on. It just turns into a “I can find more links than you can” type of juvenile game (not just on one side either). I confess to falling into the trap myself. Common ground? What’s that?

So we end up where we started. Some like Bush and think he’s great; others, like me, who think he leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody is going to change anybody’s mind. And speaking of minds, I apologize if I intimated that I was reading yours. I wouldn’t even if I could.

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

.

If the invasion wasn’t because of a breach of 1441, it was almost certainly illegal under the UN Charter (which is part of US domestic law).

Mike

Mike, Just to enlighten us: where is it written that the UN Charter is part of US domestic law?

 

[koda]

2shelbys:

I am not criticizing his personality or attacking him because I do not agree with him. My problem is that he killed an innocent girl and afterward he immediately called his lawyer but no one called the authorities until the next day. I would have a problem with that if it was someone in my own family. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence that was not presented at the trial? Calling someone a cold blooded killer when that someone was exonerated if a libelous offense. I read an excellent book “Bridge at Chappaquidick” that presents an excellent case for TK’s innocene.

 

[MikeWM]

Al Masetti:

Mike, Just to enlighten us: where is it written that the UN Charter is part of US domestic law?

It was ratified by the Senate in July 1945. Under the US Constitution, the Senate is the body that ratifies treaties. Once a treaty is ratified, it is part of the domestic law. (In most countries it is superior to domestic law. Not in the US. Nevertheless it is still part of the law.)

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

That deserves two!

It does indeed. I’m not saying I manage it always, but it is certainly something we should strive for.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

koda:

Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence that was not presented at the trial? Calling someone a cold blooded killer when that someone was exonerated if a libelous offense. I read an excellent book “Bridge at Chappaquidick” that presents an excellent case for TK’s innocene.

I must admit that libel crossed my mind too (although I’m still not sure if this kind of message board counts as libel or slander - I’ve meant to check that out for ages).

I don’t know the truth about what happened; we never will. In the absence of that, we have to go with the result of the authorities.

I find the comments about Ted Kennedy distasteful. I don’t mention GWB’s arrest for drink-driving whenever I talk about him - it isn’t relevant to his politics.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

koda:

Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence that was not presented at the trial? Calling someone a cold blooded killer when that someone was exonerated if a libelous offense. I read an excellent book “Bridge at Chappaquidick” that presents an excellent case for TK’s innocene.

There was no “trial”. There was only a Grand Jury hearing and the Delay case shows us just how bogus they can be.
I read two books on the case back in the 70’s that focused on the scene of the supposed crash and the condition of the car and the girl but I will have to dig to find the titles. I will have to read the one you mention. I am very interested in how any case can be made for his innocence when he was definitely driving the car, she definitely was killed, he definitely did no bother to call anyone but his lawyer, and neither of them saw fit to seek help for the girl or even call anyone at all until the next day. It sounds like a tough case to make without massive fabrication but I will give it a chance.

 

[koda]

2shelbys:

There was no “trial”. There was only a Grand Jury hearing and the Delay case shows us just how bogus they can be.
I read two books on the case back in the 70’s that focused on the scene of the supposed crash and the condition of the car and the girl but I will have to dig to find the titles. I will have to read the one you mention. I am very interested in how any case can be made for his innocence when he was definitely driving the car, she definitely was killed, he definitely did no bother to call anyone but his lawyer, and neither of them saw fit to seek help for the girl or even call anyone at all until the next day. It sounds like a tough case to make without massive fabrication but I will give it a chance.

That’s the weird part of this book - they say he wasn’t even in the car. Further, that he didn’t even know about the wreck until the next a.m. I read it a long time ago and it was a friend’s copy. I finally found a used on at alibris.com. I’ll check tonight and let you know if I gave you the wrong title. I do wish you would read it - I’d be interested in your thoughs. I don’t know many people who can work up an interest in something that happened so long ago - but then I’m a history person (soon to be teacher).

 

[2shelbys]

koda:

That’s the weird part of this book - they say he wasn’t even in the car. Further, that he didn’t even know about the wreck until the next a.m. I read it a long time ago and it was a friend’s copy. I finally found a used on at alibris.com. I’ll check tonight and let you know if I gave you the wrong title. I do wish you would read it - I’d be interested in your thoughs. I don’t know many people who can work up an interest in something that happened so long ago - but then I’m a history person (soon to be teacher).

That presents a major discrepancy from the facts as I had read (and also remember) them. He made a statement admitting that he was driving the car and said he made a wrong turn while heading for the ferry. There was also testimony from several witnesses that he had been drinking for most of the day. I’ll look it up for you.

 

[koda]

2shelbys:

That presents a major discrepancy from the facts as I had read (and also remember) them. He made a statement admitting that he was driving the car and said he made a wrong turn while heading for the ferry. There was also testimony from several witnesses that he had been drinking for most of the day. I’ll look it up for you.

I know what you mean. Until I read the book I always assumed he was guilty. Still, the theory in the book makes you think.

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

It was ratified by the Senate in July 1945. Under the US Constitution, the Senate is the body that ratifies treaties. Once a treaty is ratified, it is part of the domestic law. (In most countries it is superior to domestic law. Not in the US. Nevertheless it is still part of the law.)

Mike

Not exactly.

The President can modify it as needed. If it was domestic law, he couldn’t do that.

Here is one reference. I just copied the abstract and the conclusion and the URL. It’s pretty meaty.

So, it’s NOT the same as or superior to domestic law. Not the same thing.

64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:MZ9skhGBDjUJ:www.usdoj.gov/olc/treaty.top.htm+US+treaty+obligations+United+Nations+1945&hl=en
Conclusion

VALIDITY OF CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS THAT
SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFY THE UNITED STATES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER AN EXISTING TREATY

**********It lies within Congress’ power to authorize the President substantially to modify the United States’ domestic and international legal obligations under a prior treaty, including an arms control treaty, by making an executive agreement with our treaty partners, without Senate advice and consent.
******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ********** November 25, 1996

********** It lies within the power of Congress to authorize the President substantially to modify the United States’ domestic and international legal obligations under a prior treaty, including an arms control treaty.
******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ***********Christopher Schroeder ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** Acting Assistant Attorney General ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ****** Office of Legal Counsel

 

[Al_Masetti]

2shelbys:

That presents a major discrepancy from the facts as I had read (and also remember) them. He made a statement admitting that he was driving the car and said he made a wrong turn while heading for the ferry. There was also testimony from several witnesses that he had been drinking for most of the day. I’ll look it up for you.

My recollection was that the Wall Street Journal published an EDITORIAL that included a photograph of the “crime scene”… the first time in history they used a photograph. Prior to this, the WSJ only published pen & ink sketches.

Also of interest, after the car crash, the local authorities rebuilt the bridge and approach roads… Some cynics suggested that the change was made so that in future, people could not visit the site to reconstruct the car crash circumstances.

 

[MikeWM]

Al Masetti:

Not exactly.

The President can modify it as needed. If it was domestic law, he couldn’t do that.

Yes, that’s right. Nevertheless he hasn’t, and until such time as he chooses to do so, it has the same legality as domestic law (it just can be altered more easily).

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

koda:

I know what you mean. Until I read the book I always assumed he was guilty. Still, the theory in the book makes you think.

I remember that there was a book published shortly after the event (in 1969 or 1970) that supposedly proved his innocence but that book was a laughingstock that ignored virtually all of the facts and testimony. I hope that is not the one you refer too.

 

[mary_bobo]

MikeWM:

I must admit that libel crossed my mind too (although I’m still not sure if this kind of message board counts as libel or slander - I’ve meant to check that out for ages).

I don’t know the truth about what happened; we never will. In the absence of that, we have to go with the result of the authorities.

I find the comments about Ted Kennedy distasteful. I don’t mention GWB’s arrest for drink-driving whenever I talk about him - it isn’t relevant to his politics.

Mike

Perhaps some of you posters were not around or not news interested when the Kennedy accident happened. There were interviews with the other women at the party, the hotel personnel gave statements about when the senator returned to the hotel where he was staying in town. Yes, GWB was arrested for drunk driving a number of years before he got into politics. Was it wrong, yes it was. IMO, however, it does not rise to the seriousness of the Kennedy happening. And as for books saying otherwise, you can read anything in a book. From what perspective does the author come? Might they be apologists for Kennedy?

The story from the headlines at the time stated that Kennedy contacted “his people” and never reported the accident until the next day, some 12 hours later, as I recall. Perhaps the papers at the time were wrong. Wonder if there is access to the Boston papers at that time?

And then there is the little episode in West Palm Beach, and the restaurant in D.C. where Kennedy and Dodd were having sex on a table. I think the root of all his is that Kennedy is an alcoholic and he is to be pitied.

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

Please be polite to each other. Posts must be courteous and kind. I will start enforcing this rule more strictly. If you see your posts disappear, you have been warned.

Discourteous posters have been suspended in the past.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Koda:

Could you please cool the Flamer Bait? You’ve made it quite clear in your posts that your thoroughly dislike President Bush. Do you still need to act as if you thoroughly dislike those of us who are trying to defend him and what he is trying to do?

There are ways to disagree without being so disagreable, even if you do fel as if you are right and the rest of us are wrong…

koda:

Give me a break. Like none of us non Bush supporters haven’t posted enough links in the past few months to keep a full time scribe busy til sometime next year – but it doesn’t do any good because the sources are generally dismissed out of hand. Biased sources, you say? No more so than the blogs of rapid Bush supporters you expect us to believe. But even major newspapers don’t work. We could throw links back and forth at each other until doomsday. But there is very little dialog, one thing I think you might agree on. It just turns into a “I can find more links than you can” type of juvenile game (not just on one side either). I confess to falling into the trap myself. Common ground? What’s that?

So we end up where we started. Some like Bush and think he’s great; others, like me, who think he leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody is going to change anybody’s mind. And speaking of minds, I apologize if I intimated that I was reading yours. I wouldn’t even if I could.

Regarding the links:

USCCB Link: usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-006.shtml

The one from the USCCB is essentially the present Bush Administration policiy - As soon as the Iraqis are able to stand on their own and defend their own country against the foreign terrorists, we’re out of there!

I thought LIBERALS would want people to have a Democracy and not live under tyranny - Are you upset because a Republican freed these people from that brutal, mass-murdering dictator?

Berkeley It’s the Oil Link: ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

The previous one from Berkeley has already been discredited multiple times. Saddam, as evil as he was, wanted to sell us as much oil as we could use. He was already doing that with the French in violation of the UN embargo when we invaded. I don’t know how many times I heard,“NO Blood for Oil!!” With the way Iraqis were being slaughtered by Saddam Hussein’s thugs, I say it should have been, “NO Oil for Blood!”

If we invaded for oil, why are we paying over $65/bbl and $2,50/gal. for the stuff?

Robert Fisk - It’s 1917 all over again Link:
informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm

And, there are some real differences between the British situation as reported by Robert fisk and the present situation:

The US Army captured Bagdad and wasn’t led into captivity, and we occupied the rest of the country while we began training Iraqi forces, including many former Iraqi Army units (now numbering over 150,000 with another150,000 due before we leave)

Hussein and almost all of his lieutenants have been either killed or captured. The people leading this insurgency are mostly foreigners, who are beginining to feel mistreated by the remaining Baathists hardliners.

We’ve rebuilt much of the infrastructure of Iraq and assisted the Iraqis in creating a civilian democratic government which is following a federal model with the Provinces acting as STATES (like in the USA or Spain). The Iraqis were even given different Constitutions to work with, including ours and Spain’s, 2 countries with expirience making heterogenous groups live and work together.

And, the “Insurgents” are now asking for a “Truce” so they can rebuild and rearm (that’s what a “Hudna” is).

Those are the links you posted on this issue since December 7th. Hardly the mountains of links which would keep a full time scribe busy until next year.

It doesn’t matter whether a source is biased - we all have biases, but whether that source accurately reflects the reality on the ground and is based on real information and not supposition.

It’s why I think both Bush-hatred and Clinton-hatred have been so bad - Because they have both caused blindness and deafness in those who caught either one.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Thekla]

I don’t know that he deserves to be impeached because I don’t know enough about the necessary grounds for impeachment. But I’ll answer the question about why his policies, and in turn he, are so disliked and held in low regard.

You know, when people say that Mr. Bush is hated, they really aren’t listening to what the majority of Americans are saying about the direction of the country. They simply dismiss all criticism as some sort of national personal hangup and plug their own ears. It’s the same deafness we see exhibited by our leadership.

The fact is that Mr. Bush became president with less votes than Mr. Gore. And when that happened, he had a choice on style of governance; to either govern from a position of absolute power or to recognize the unique circumstances of his presidency. He chose the former.

Mr. Bush staked out his allegiance early in his presidency and has shown no sign of deviation. For many of us, and my family is in a wealthy, left-tilting area, there has been a squandering of the financial well-being of the nation in order to benefit “the elite” of the country. Actions that appear so immoral that we cannot separate the man from the policy. Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens to a Medicare drug program, of exhorbitant expense, that enriches insurance companies and HMO’s, there seems to be no interest in our collective financial health.

And then there is Iraq.