Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?
- Thread starter negator
- Start date
I beleive that normally they will resign rather to stay in Offce an be impeached, its kinda like an embarrasment for the whole Nation to have Their President going to trial. Now time for a quick trivia, a first grade question to all:
Can the President as representative of the Executive Branch declare War on his own?
Can the President as representative of the Executive Branch declare War on his own?
Well without looking it up lol the answer I think is sorta.He can intiate hostilities without congressional approval but then under whats called the war powers act he is required to go to congress within 60 days I think.Not sure how long he has but I know he must go to congress within some period of time.Technically only congress can declare war though.
This is the reason I voted "Yes".
Not just because of their egregious crimes (let's face it, egregious crimes have been going on since the inception of the Republic)..... but to show that the American people are not silent witnesses to "egregious crimes".
Everyone I know or meet tells me I'm fighting for a "lost cause".
Everyone I know or meet tells me I'm fighting for the "fringe elements. Of dangerous extremists".
Well, that was what they said about Washington, Jefferson, Paine and Henry!
cheers,
Very well said fellow patriot!Give me Liberty or give me death!Better to stand for a lost cause than to fall for anything:thumbsup:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Only Congress is granted this authority under the US Constitution - a responsibility that the US Congress has neglected to perform in any war since WWII...
Specifically:
As can be seen from the Constitution - many of the current US institutions are already "unconstitutional"... and it has nothing to do with the War in Iraq.
cheers,
This is from the war powers act of 1973
"The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed ****** are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed ****** from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or ****** a resolution authorizing the use of ***** within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal)."
Premium Link Upgrade
This was enacted after vietnam to try to prevent another similar action.President can start hostilities but has very limited time to get approval after that.
"The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed ****** are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed ****** from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or ****** a resolution authorizing the use of ***** within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal)."
Premium Link Upgrade
This was enacted after vietnam to try to prevent another similar action.President can start hostilities but has very limited time to get approval after that.
I somehow, very LARGELY DOUBT that was enacted to "prevent another similar action".
Which is STILL "unconstitutional".
Nope! I want the fucking sons of bitches impeached and imprisoned! The President is the "Servant of the people"!!!
I want to see them suffer.
I want to see them acknowledge the cause of the deaths of my buddy and the nephews of my friends.
cheers,
Maybe he will just want to "Stay the course"? :jester:
Or maybe not!
Dick might get him a better job with Haliburton, cleaning up or something.
Roughneck it was in direct response to vietnam and to a lesser extend Korea,its all in the link I posted.Here is a papragraph from the link.
"Under the Constitution, war powers are divided, not equal. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed ****** (Article I, Section 8), while the president is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed ******. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed ****** that might lead to war. The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. Presidents have submitted 118 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4(a)(1) or specifically stated that ****** had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger."
While I would agree it should be ******* for him to not get a declaration whenever possible in advance,the war powers act is the law of the land.
So what would the impeachment charges be? I am still not convinced that this is the course to take, it's just going to distract Congress from actually getting something done and a total waste of tax payers money, who do you think is going to pay for this impeachment? How about families that have lost someone and have a reason to seek restitution with his lies in going to war sue them after they leave office?
An interesting link that has to do with this thread:
In October of 2002, Congress ****** House Joint Resolution 114. This resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war, authorized the use of military ***** against Iraq. A review of the resolution shows it was Congress that determined Iraq had "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them." It was Congress that determined Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States…by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". It was Congress that determined Iraq was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." It was Congress that determined "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States…are…in Iraq." It was Congress that determined Iraq was "in direct ********* of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions." And it was Congress that determined that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions would be enforced--"through the use of ***** if necessary."
Premium Link Upgrade
Seems to me like sneaky ol Bush covered his ass pretty good, so it should be Congress (I know this sounds ridiculous) who impeaches themselves for stupidy that's causing so many death on boths sides.
In October of 2002, Congress ****** House Joint Resolution 114. This resolution, which was not a formal declaration of war, authorized the use of military ***** against Iraq. A review of the resolution shows it was Congress that determined Iraq had "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them." It was Congress that determined Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States…by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability". It was Congress that determined Iraq was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." It was Congress that determined "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States…are…in Iraq." It was Congress that determined Iraq was "in direct ********* of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions." And it was Congress that determined that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions would be enforced--"through the use of ***** if necessary."
Premium Link Upgrade
Seems to me like sneaky ol Bush covered his ass pretty good, so it should be Congress (I know this sounds ridiculous) who impeaches themselves for stupidy that's causing so many death on boths sides.
Just the warrantless wiretapping is good start on impeachment charges.Once the precedings start and Bush insiders were ****** to testify a lot more would come out.Bush has politicized every ascpect of his administration and much of it illegally.The attorney general and the whole fired US attorneys thing is another story of ******* political action.He is refusing congressional subpoeneas right now cause he knows that what they have done is *******.As to paying for it,it is a govt function and would be paid for by the govt.But he can't be sued by families,presidents are immune from that.
I thought most of that was called "The Patriot Act". You have some good points but do you believe that Congress is smart enough to do that, Bush is anything but stupid, he seems to got everything covered.
Short-term memories ...
It's political grandstanding at its finest, but most people have short-term memories, so they can't even remember recent history (like the Clinton administration).
I have heard the "*******" word through around so much -- with Bush, with Clinton, with Reagan, etc... -- it doesn't hold much weight with me anymore.
My personal favorite continues to be the use of the word "sovereign" -- as in "invaded a sovereign country" -- on Iraq.
Again, short-term memory.
Be careful what doors you open on the DOJ firings, pardons, etc... as they can point back to Clinton, Reagan and others as well.
It's political grandstanding at its finest, but most people have short-term memories, so they can't even remember recent history (like the Clinton administration).
I have heard the "*******" word through around so much -- with Bush, with Clinton, with Reagan, etc... -- it doesn't hold much weight with me anymore.
My personal favorite continues to be the use of the word "sovereign" -- as in "invaded a sovereign country" -- on Iraq.
Again, short-term memory.
short term memory is a term that affects most people in the U.S. I have seen a "mob" mentality since 9/11 on that tragic day it seems like everyone was so bloodthirsty that they wanted to go against any country that talked **** to us. Bush took advantage of those events and went after Iraq to finish his "Sadam wants to **** my *** feud", a lot of people approved his actions, France did not agree with the U.S. actions towards Iraq, now we were told to **** the french (it got really bad on some parts). Dixie Chicks say that they are embarrased that the Prez is from Texas, **** it was hunting season for them. Patriot Act passes, not many people question the Constitutionality of it. All of sudden we are being invaded by ilegal inmigrants mostly from Mexico (like this just started to happen, after generation of families living here already) so now we **** them and we want strict border security. Social Security fund is not important at this time, just every now and then it has to be brought up that unless is not fixed it would run out of money (sucks to be a Gen Xer). Bush got reelected because the concensus was that, he was better to handle the course (boy did he overstayed the course) in Iraq than Kerry did. Now the media say's Bush should be impeached once again the "mob" mentality reacts and agreeds.
I don't agree with that. I never liked him and questioned his intelligence and policies from before he was elected. I've stated many times, I don't like any of them, Kerry included and am at a loss as to what to do. As far as I was concerned this was Vietnam the Sequel from the first day of the Iraq invasion, and "Mission Accomplished" was when I really started to wonder how stupid are they to think we are all really dumber than they are? My enthusiasm doesn't go up or down through the publicizing of the views of others or what the "mob" does. His popularity has been slowly fading weekly, so if there is a mob, they are casually and quietly changing sides because many were such strong and vocal believers in Bush and seem to be left without words for all his bad political decisions and special interests. One old poll suggested those with higher education did not like him, but those without did. Quite an interesting view.
I don't remember ... I don't recall ...
That's never a good thing.
Had we provided a "united front" back then, and had not select members been so easily "bought off," then Saddam would have been far more likely to actually disclose everything.
He never did, sadly enough.
They are at the heart of the current Wiretapping and Classified Oversight battle.
Bush claims that he now has Congressional approval that Clinton did not.
And everyone is using the US Circuit Court rulings to try to say whatever they want, instead of actually reading them.
To give the man some credit, he actually speaks conversational Spannish, despite all the demonizations people make of him.
For the most part, my view is simple -- cut off the social services, and you cut off the problem.
Those who want to work will still come, those who want to leech won't be able to.
Generation-X is going to be hurting as the Boomers retire, but when Generation-Y is in their prime income earning years, Gen-X will be fine.
Gen-X is small compared to not only the Boomers, but even more so, Gen-Y!
So even if Gen-Y is a low-playing service economy, they are large enough that Gen-X'ers will enjoy a good slice because they're just so small.
And the reason I didn't vote W. was for the same reason.
I vote my conscience, even if that means I show up and omit a ballot entry, or even all of them.
I won't vote for anyone I don't believe in, I won't vote for any office or referendum I am ignorant of all the details on.
Oh why oh why do I get chewed out for trying to be a responsible voter?
And people wonder why they "don't have a say" or we don't have anyone but "Democrats and Republicans" who are more interested in rhetoric/counter-rhetoric?
Duh, maybe it's because of we vote? (party lines, don't read up on referendums beforehand, etc...) Duh!
When you start cornering them with the statistics of Clinton, much of which Hillary is constantly hit on (and she often sidesteps), it's rather pathetic.
"I don't remember. I don't recall."
-- Anyone remember that Hillary Clinton broken record?
Yeah, I think both you and I see eye-to-eye on this -- point fingers, blame other people, assume this is the worst -- only to see the same thing over again within 10 years.
And the root causes are never addressed.
Agreed -- the common "that's never been done before" is getting rather old.
Not completely, but yes, there was a time that too many Americans all agreed.
That's never a good thing.
It's deeper than that, but the fact remains that it was a poor move on many accounts.
The French (and Russians) also fucked everyone on the Security Council with regards to Iraq in 1995 as well.
Had we provided a "united front" back then, and had not select members been so easily "bought off," then Saddam would have been far more likely to actually disclose everything.
He never did, sadly enough.
It was a poor "marketing" decision for them to do so, considering their fanbase.
Or two of the major, Executive Orders of 1998 that became law with it.
They are at the heart of the current Wiretapping and Classified Oversight battle.
Bush claims that he now has Congressional approval that Clinton did not.
And everyone is using the US Circuit Court rulings to try to say whatever they want, instead of actually reading them.
Well, this is one area where I have to say Bush is not so ignorant, although I hardly agree with him on his plans.
To give the man some credit, he actually speaks conversational Spannish, despite all the demonizations people make of him.
For the most part, my view is simple -- cut off the social services, and you cut off the problem.
Those who want to work will still come, those who want to leech won't be able to.
Actually not.
Generation-X is going to be hurting as the Boomers retire, but when Generation-Y is in their prime income earning years, Gen-X will be fine.
Gen-X is small compared to not only the Boomers, but even more so, Gen-Y!
So even if Gen-Y is a low-playing service economy, they are large enough that Gen-X'ers will enjoy a good slice because they're just so small.
Well, I'm still wondering what Kerry was offering, much like Gore before him.
And the reason I didn't vote W. was for the same reason.
I vote my conscience, even if that means I show up and omit a ballot entry, or even all of them.
I won't vote for anyone I don't believe in, I won't vote for any office or referendum I am ignorant of all the details on.
Oh why oh why do I get chewed out for trying to be a responsible voter?
And people wonder why they "don't have a say" or we don't have anyone but "Democrats and Republicans" who are more interested in rhetoric/counter-rhetoric?
Duh, maybe it's because of we vote? (party lines, don't read up on referendums beforehand, etc...) Duh!
Yep. "Oh, he's the worst." "Oh, he's done this ******* and that *******." "Oh, it's different than Clinton."
When you start cornering them with the statistics of Clinton, much of which Hillary is constantly hit on (and she often sidesteps), it's rather pathetic.
"I don't remember. I don't recall."
-- Anyone remember that Hillary Clinton broken record?
Yeah, I think both you and I see eye-to-eye on this -- point fingers, blame other people, assume this is the worst -- only to see the same thing over again within 10 years.
And the root causes are never addressed.
Similar threads
