OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

Originally posted by Boatphone
The President had to meet with the Preisdent of China, it would be foolish not to seeing as China is a very important power, and growing force in the world.

That dissenter was taken away from the joint speech from President Bush and Hu becuase she was interupting the speech, you can't allow people to interupt things like that! Should the President allow people to yell during everyone of his speeches? No! The idea that removing a yeller during a speech is somehow, "not supporting dissent" is abusrd.

I'm getting concerned about the back lash being generated against the white house and fed by a mass media controlled 89% by foreigners for which most Americans seemingly are unawares.

Also, what has happened lately that is so different than say two years ago when everyone was calm and contented? The answer is that the media wasn't pumping the public to hate Bush and the rest of the White House that's why. So you gotta ask why now? well the 911 truth movement is close to outing the real culprits behind 911 and they are getting very nervous.

Then there is the up-coming election for which democrats are desperate to win back the white house in 2008, so that their friends can get jobs again...

It apparently doesn't bother anyone that Hillary will likely be the next president even though most of the people yelling the loudest that Bush should go will freak out more when they find out what she really is like.

I say that it does not make any sense to make a change if you cannot make things better or resolve problems and most of the people here crying for GWB's head have shown no desire to do that and it is truly sad.

The house of cards put together by the neocons is ready to fall. It cannot come fast enough. We cannot hope to save this republic until and unless these people are out of the way. Secrecy of the type sought by these people is the antithesis of democracy, which requires transparancy. Their dilemma is that transparancy would reveal them for the crooks they are. Fitzgerald is coming and they are very afraid. The rule of law still rules the land and they are going DOWN BABY! I will rejoice when Rove is indicted this week. I will rejoice when Cheney is indicted this summer. I will party hearty when Bush resigns in disgrace in September.

It simply cannot happen soon enough.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The house of cards put together by the neocons is ready to fall. It cannot come fast enough. We cannot hope to save this republic until and unless these people are out of the way. Secrecy of the type sought by these people is the antithesis of democracy, which requires transparancy. Their dilemma is that transparancy would reveal them for the crooks they are. Fitzgerald is coming and they are very afraid. The rule of law still rules the land and they are going DOWN BABY! I will rejoice when Rove is indicted this week. I will rejoice when Cheney is indicted this summer. I will party hearty when Bush resigns in disgrace in September.

It simply cannot happen soon enough.

Just because you are appear to be pro left-wing doesn't make you correct. Those on the left are not just while those on the right are evil as many are eager to believe. Furthermore, I don't think you read my post... but you don't have to either if you don't want to.

Also, the Kennedy's started out as criminals and they are the basis of the democrats... keep that in mind here. The roots of the left, whether Stalin or Marx are covered in blood.

May I ask, denythestatusquo, what party do you support in your country? My impression is that you are hard-right and nationalist. That would explain your continued commentary about the left wing. So, I wonder what your party espouses for you to write of these insights about America.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by ceci2006]

I love watching the sheeple jump through hoops to defend the political party they so whole heartedly put one's faith in...? I live in D.C. and I can say this for all of your hero's on capital hill. They don't give two #'s about any of you! Oh they are your best friend at election time and they lie to you and tell you what you want to hear. But face it --->NONE

Originally posted by Astronomer70
No Muaddib I wasn't joking at all. If you have not been to the site I heartily recommend you go there and read--it isn't what you think.

tommytrouble you might want to look into what happened in Kundzu, Afganistan during the actual fighting that took place when we first went in.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Astronomer70]

I support Bush and I found the site funny. I love satire.

TextText Blue The criminal Bush must be impeached and opposed on all fronts. He is a serial liar, a member of at least one secret society. Observe the truely evil cabal that he surrounds himself with. Everytime he opens his mouth he shows himself to be the moron that he really is.

arrest blair ? there is a theme here - so we impeach and arrest those "elected" officials we dont like - hmmm

Anyone ever study french political history or english for that matter - without due process you propose a Coupt D'etat - if democracy is to be ignored. By all means call for indicetment - but i believe the reauslt is in the habds of the Supreme court unless my understanding of the US judicial process has changed ???

Your people voted the guy in so produce a groundswell - not a proclamation as we have to in the Uk - simple as that - and I see no evidence of that so far

Spying on American citizens is against the law and against the Constitution. (quote from Maidenwolf)

I am not a Bush supporter, and in fact, vehemently appose most of the decisions he and his Administration have made since taking office.

I say that now because of the story and facts I am about to reveal to you, and the way in which I came to these conclusions.

I am a college student, pursuing two degrees, one in Communications and one in Pre-Law. Now that I am in my finaly two years, I get to take all the really interesting classes that people remember the rest of their lives. One of these I took last semester was entitled Constitutional Law. Throughout the semester, we were asked pointed questions about political policy and asked what a bare-bones study of the Constitution said about those policies. These included the obivous ones (gay rights, abortion, death penalty) and some incredibly fun ones. The last one was about the warrantless wiretapping program.

Now, there is a very precise formula that one follows when trying to prove or disprove the legality of a political decision. It is painstaking and it is meticulous, and must be followed exactly in order to have any relavance whatsoever. I will walk you through this formula, as it applied to the question, and how I came upon my answer.

Here is the question exactly as it was framed: "Given the research we have done on the Constitution this semester, and your knowledge of its content, please tell me whether or not the warrantless wiretapping program is Constitutionally legal."

This question does not surround the program itself, and how it works or does not work. It has nothing to do with the information gathered, and whether or not any phone companies were directly or indirectly involved. It only deals with two things: the Constitution of the United States and the legality of a warrantless wiretapping program sponsored by the President of the United States. All other concerns are thrown out the window at this point.

The Constitution is, by design, a document of positive language. By and large it is very specific on what the Legislative, Congressional, and Executive Branches can and must do as entities. However, there is very little language on what they must not do. Understanding this is key.

Article 2 of the Constitution dictates the Executive Branches responsibilities. Section 3 of Article 2 dictates how the President must act in relation to congress. Clause 5, Section 3 of Article 2 states the following:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

While this is a very small piece of the puzzle, it is the Constitutional justification of warrantless wiretapping.

Terrorists in the United States will need to have contact with other parts of their organization. One way they may do that is through phone calls.

With the signing into law of the Patriot Act, Congress says that suspected terrorists may be investigated without their knowledge. Well, how will the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. know who is a terrorist? One way would be to monitor phone calls that might be made by terrorists to other terrorists. Clause 5, Section 3 of Article 2 tells the President he must make sure that all laws are faithfully executed. The Patriot Act is a law. Warrantless wiretapping ensures that law is carried out in a proper manner according to the way in which it was written.

Again, I do not agree with warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, or even like President Bush. However, in an impeachment trial, this is one argument that could be raised in support of this program. As such, warrantless wiretapping, as long as the Patriot Act is in place, is not grounds for impeachment.


Edited for spelling

[edit on 2-6-2006 by RockerDom]

I think it's great that you took a Con Law class at college.

Nevertheless, the FISA requires that the Executive obtain a warrant from the FISA Court for any domestic wiretapping. There is no question about the requirement and the statute does not conflict with the Constitution nor has any court found it to be in conflict. Bush himself admitted that the FISA requires he obtain warrants for wiretaps. He simply decided he was above the law.

He is the "decider" a.k.a. dictator.

And those of you who think dems and repubs are two apples from the same barrel, that's not quite accurate either.

However, the Patriot Acts I and II sponsor surveillance not just in wiretapping, but in finding out what books your read, the things you buy as well as where you fly. The government is trying to "classify" all of us in their act to root out all the terrorists.

It isn't just the fact that Mr. Bush "decided" to circumvent the law to employ his own endeavors; it is also the fact that we are increasingly being denied privacy. And as "reasonable" as it might be to "some" part of society, the invasive measures being conducted by the government is more unreasonable by prying into our business and preventing us to live in liberty. The problem here is that under the surface, there have been stories coming out in the news of people who were arrested for simply voicing their dissent against the government.

And if they can be detained by the government. Who's next?

[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Nevertheless, the FISA requires that the Executive obtain a warrant from the FISA Court for any domestic wiretapping. There is no question about the requirement and the statute does not conflict with the Constitution nor has any court found it to be in conflict. Bush himself admitted that the FISA requires he obtain warrants for wiretaps. He simply decided he was above the law.

He is the "decider" a.k.a. dictator.

I agree with you, and that is why I left out of my discussion any talk about the way in which the programs work. I looked at straight legality. Now that you've brought it up, though, I have even more disturbing news.

The defense will be that no "real" wiretapping has gone on. Que, you say? Yes, I guaran-damn-tee that will be their defense of this nonsense. You see, they haven't done any direct wiretapping. They don't literally record the phone calls themselves. The program monitors phone calls made from a domestic number to a foreign number, and vice versa. The databse then narrows down that data, analyzes it, and, according to the NSA, is another piece of the puzzle in the defense against terrorism.

Just in case there is any confusion, I do not believe that such a system would be supported by our the Framers, nor do I believe it has a rational legality. I think it is dangerous, and undermines our freedoms in horrible, detrimental ways. However, the Constitution is like the Bible; you can always find some part of it that will say what you want it to say, even though it may mean something drastically different. We are at the tail end of a Democratic America, and it's been a fun ride, for sure. But with people like this at the helm, tyranny will rise very quickly, and very easily.

/doom

Originally posted by ceci2006
May I ask, denythestatusquo, what party do you support in your country? My impression is that you are hard-right and nationalist. That would explain your continued commentary about the left wing. So, I wonder what your party espouses for you to write of these insights about America.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by ceci2006]

I am generally right wing yes but I am able to find fault with my own kind.

In regards the left it is obvious that most of the critics here of Bush are in fact left wing. I also bring up the comment again that 89% of the US MSM (main stream media) is foreign owned.

We know that foreignors did not want Bush to go into Iraq, nor did the UN. Is this why the media attacks Bush constantly??

A fair question to answer I think.

The more people attack the idea of the US being in Iraq the more boldness they give the insurgency to keep fighting and the more they incourage the involvement of Russia, China, Germany, France, Iran, North Korea, and a whole host of others on the sidelines.

Originally posted by crmanager
May I proppose a question?
WHY!!???
Why is this up for "serious" discussion?
Disagreeing with policy is not justification for impeachment.
Domestic Spying? Half the population agrees and disagrees.
Iraq? Congress said ok so impeach the whole government?
So please share with us the unwashed masses why this deserves anything beyond scoffing.

Why???? The answer is very simply an overriding need to get even for the Bill Clinton impeachment. Plus I suppose you have to throw in what many of the people howling for impeachment perceive as not one, but 2 stolen elections.

Who said there had to be a rational reason for wanting to impeach a president?

That all said, I'm angry as hell about the way the war has been managed, immigration issues (potential amnesty) and energy policy. But disagreement with decisions and policy means you vote for someone you hope will be different next time, not impeach.

Originally posted by ceci2006

And if they can be detained by the government. Who's next?

And if you suddenly quit posting, can we assume it was you?

Some posters want to drag U.S. leaders out of their houses and arrest them (or worse) because they don't like or agree wit them. Some posters seem to be afraid that they might be dragged out of their houses and arrested (or worse) because the government doesn't like them or agree with them. Sounds to me like the same kind of thinking is involved in both scenarios.

If it's the same people saying both things, that is an example of hypocrisy. IMO it also shows the fallacy of this entire argument.


[edit on 6/12/2006 by centurion1211]

I don't feel that this political situation has anything to agreement or disagreement. It's about crime.

The Treasury has been ransacked; and a large proportion of USA parklands have been given over to the UN without our consent.

The last two elections were rigged; and the Judiciary doesn't care.

These wars we're in are built on lies by the current Administration; and it's not just the puppet in the White House. Indeed, the whole Neo-Con movement is comparable to the Nazi Party, in strategies (Reichstag fire, crippling legislation, and defense contractor "brownshirt" mercenaries). To add to this the Bush Family has historically supported and financed Nazism, since 1934.

The CIA is operating covert ops utilizing the sale of south American drugs, as a funding source, and then laundering the money through London and New York banks.

Influence-peddling and nepotism are rampant. Bribery is rampant. Blackmail for the BCCI scandal and pedophile connections is rampant. DynCorp and Halliburton are not merely profiteering off this war; they are profiteering off prostitution and slavery.

Impeachment won't work. It only takes down the figurehead. What we as American citizens may need to do is Petition the International Criminal Court, which is the only legal jurisdiction on the planet with the Laws in place and the power to take it all down, just as the Nurenberg trials took down Nazism (the part of the Third Reich that the CIA didn't spirit off to America and employ in rocket science and psych-ops).

Our military is almost totally out of the country--being poisoned by [so-called depleted uranium] radiation where they stand; and the Junta in power is getting ready for martial law with international troops, with none of our troops available to protect us from it.

I think we better start thinking past "what the Congress is willing to do" and we better get going on it, if we want any part of what we know as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to exist ten years from now. That's what I think.

If anyone should be impeached, it should be us.... the American public, after all it was us that put him in office right? No matter what happens, we (the american public) ALWAYS have something to bitch and moan about when it comes to our elected leaders. Bush is no Saddam the put HIMSELF in power and kept himself there. I would gladly choose Bush over Nixion when it comes to a leader. I would also choose bush over ANY of our past pesidents that had the nerve to keep slaves as slaves. We even had the nerve to want to impeach Clinton for having sex with a co-worker...... How many of us are guilty of that crime!? And yet we try to use that as an excuse to take him out of office? If we really hate our president that much then the responsibility to keep a bad person out of office should have been OUR responsibility in the first place. All this hype and negitive publicity is self inflicted on ourselves. We should be more coutious when we vote of a President. If you vote like the rest of us.......leave Bush alone. he's trying to save to wol dfor Godos sake!

Denythestatusquo says --

Just because you are appear to be pro left-wing doesn't make you correct. Those on the left are not just while those on the right are evil as many are eager to believe. Furthermore, I don't think you read my post... but you don't have to either if you don't want to.

Also, the Kennedy's started out as criminals and they are the basis of the democrats... keep that in mind here. The roots of the left, whether Stalin or Marx are covered in blood.

I'm wondering about this quote. I haven't heard the "Left-Right" argument in years. I'm wondering if this statement is "real" or a trumped-up debunker troll, merely present to raise hackles and ire.

What becomes apparent to me is that the plurality of voters (having been frustrated by rigged elections in 2000 and 2004) are now concerned about the law-violating behavior of this administration.

Congress isn't concerned; the Judiciary isn't concerned; Federal Departments do not appear to be concerned. But ordinary people are concerned.

Bush flaunts international treaties and 750 domestic laws by writing "signing statements" that repudiate the laws they are written on; he stacks the Supreme Court with five (yes, 5) Papists; his junta operates by nepotism, croneryism and influence-peddling top-down; his White House entertains a known prostitute-agent for 200 days of 2002 and 2003; further, they compound secrecy and unwillingness to be accountable for effects they create.

These are not the characteristics of Right or Left. They are the characteristics of corruption, irrespective of Party affiliation.

Framing this predicament as merely a disagreement between the arguments of individualists versus socialists is not a fair argument. Looks like a ruse to me--this comment--here only to inflame and distract.





[edit on 15-6-2006 by joshai2334]

Originally posted by ludaChrisI support Bush...

Good for you. And I hope he will be there to support you too.

Originally posted by minister117
...we (the american public) ALWAYS have something to bitch and moan about when it comes to our elected leaders.

Annd, your solution is negative reinforcement? We should punish ourselves? And disempowerment? To allow political leaders the moral highground? IMHO it is learned helplessness that keeps the people from the polls. Now, where do you think they learned that from? Hmmm...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The headline may be a bit extreme, but it represents a growing theme we will be seeing over the coming months.

The headline isn't extreme, it's inflammatory - big difference, and it represents a theme we have been seeing for some time now.

Just more USA bashing drivel with little or no serious purpose other than to foster anti American hatred and bait American members who support their president.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T

The headline isn't extreme, it's inflammatory - big difference, and it represents a theme we have been seeing for some time now.

Just more USA bashing drivel with little or no serious purpose other than to foster anti American hatred and bait American members who support their president.

There is a major difference between bashing the USA, and members who may live in the US not supporting their president. It is the inherent right of Americans to be critical of their president if they do so choose to. I personally do not feel as though the purpose of this was to foster "anti-american hatred", which has been discussed on so many threads.

It is inflammatory to you. Because of this, is it the responsibility of others to make sure that you are never inflamed? You choose to be angry, you choose to read it. Baiting American members? Is it really bait if you choose not to bite? Seems like you baited yourself into becoming inflamed.

Why is it that you feel something like this shouldn't be said, if you believe in the President of The United States, but have a distaste for one of the biggest priviledges that we have in this country: Freedom Of Speech?