Had Americans impeached Clinton for perjury they would have had no trouble impeaching Bush and Cheney.  

Under Clinton, America seemed to lose much of its gag response.  It became accustomed to expecting lower standards of its leaders.  If Bush is not impeached, and it will be harder now than had Clinton not preceeded him, then the next President will be unimpeachable - and the fault will be with the American citizen for the failure of government of the people by the people for the people. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:16:36 AM

  (0+)

Virtually every President we have had has had romantic dalliances and not been the target of a partisan conspiracy for it. The fault lies with the GOP and their desire to get rid of a popular President at all costs, not with Clinton. The only one who should be deciding whether to hold Clinton responsible for adulterous behaviour is his wife.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:56:01 AM

  (0+)

Was the charge against Clinton and perjury in a President is a serious charge. Presidents that are allowed to commit perjury are not, because of the other powers imbued in the office, able to be held to account.   

You want to say Clinton was innocent of perjury then I am all ears. But if memory serves me he denied having sex because he argued a blow job wasn't sex.  

Whilst I don't doubt that there was a strong element of partisanship in the pursuit of Clinton, and in his defence, that, for me, doesn't change that he did use the White House and his position of President in a way that brought the office into disrepute. He could have behaved better and he should have behaved better. 

I'm not trying to rewrite history, show me that I am wrong on a point of history (what I am talking about has more to do with psychology than history) and I will thank you for setting me straight. 

Giving an intern (a subordinate in a position of vulnerability) a blow job, using the White House and the Office of President as a sex prop, is not exactly a "romantic dalliance".  It is, in my opinion, an abuse of trust. 

Clinton did some good things as President - he signed on to the International Criminal Court which Bush subsequently "unsigned".

Clinton might have done more good if he'd behaved himself better in the White House but nothing in the Clinton experience is an asset towards the impeachment of Bush and the return of accountability to the Presidency and if Americans are to make common ground with Americans that also happen to be republicans as well then it might help to acknowledge that the decline of  Presidential standards which threatens the republic is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush Presidency. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:17:18 AM

  (0+)

As I said below:

"The fact that everyone should remember about the Clinton issue is that he did NOT commit perjury or obstruction of justice. Either of those requires lying about or hiding of a fact that is material to an ongoing investigation.

There was no criminal investigation regarding Clinton at the time that had anything to do with getting a blowjob from Monica. The only criminal investigation going on at the time was Whitewater, a real estate issue that produced zero results after millions being spent. But Monica giving Bill head had nothing to do with that.

As far as the Paula Jones civil case, again, and it gets tired repeating it, Monica being a willing (some would say eager since it was she who went after Bill) sexual adult participant has nothing to do with the Paula Jones case.

So, once again, Clinton did not obstruct justice and he did not commit perjury. Don't fall victim to typical reich-wing lies."

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:33:46 AM

  (0+)

            Are you for real? My gag reflex is in check. You just tested it.

Some of the people on this site who take minority, pro-Republican positions like yours are no doubt sincere, even if, in my opinion, wrong. They believe what they say, and argue in good faith, but with bad “facts” and reasoning (P.S. Clinton was impeached).

Some conservative posters are not sincere. Their purpose is malicious. They are propagandists (liars), and they know it.

I often wonder which kind I am debating with on liberal web sites. It's hard to tell in the short run, although not hard after a pattern emerges.

So, there's no point in me asking which you are, or you telling me, because we both already know your answer.

You must remember the liars’ paradox: there are truth-tellers who say that they are telling the truth, and they are, and ther are liars who also say that they are telling the truth.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 7:55:40 AM

  (0+)

To correct my statement that Clinton was not impeached, I was using, wrongly, impeached as shorthand for impeached (which he was) AND removed (which he wasn't).

I'm not a republican though. I'm Australian. Most of my life I've been pro-American. I'd like to be able to be pro-American again. Objectively I can't be both pro-human and pro-American if America is anti-rule of law. Currently, objectively, more Americans are breaking or turning blind eyes toward the breaking of more laws (big one's like the prohibition against aggressive wars type of laws - or the suspension of habeus corpus (see the MCA 2006 versus Article 1, section 1 of the constitution "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus SHALL NOT be suspended" ) than terrorists.

On the very best day of their lives terrorists like Al-Quaida just might manage to take down an entire city in the future given sufficient motivation and planning.

But given only sufficient neglect from the American citizenry some future American President might bring on a third world war or incite waves of international terrorism (terrorists aligning not with countries or even with religions but against common enemies) the likes of which the world hasn't yet seen. FUTURE Foreign governments have been given excellent reason not to trust Americans on treaties and to use "terrorists" as extensions of their own foreign policy towards the US.  Corporations interested in profits may decide to get into the terrorism freelance business. 

The US President is untouchable to foreigners (Bush "unsigned" the International Criminal Court treaty) except indirectly by force or appeal of reason or force of arms in an asymetric strike.  I am choosing reason. For now.

America, a well behaved, walking its talk America, COULD BE the hub from which freedom extents outward around the world like a crystal. Your Bill of Rights are something to aspire to. But American can also be a lauching site for a plutocracy that sees itself above quaint petty notions of nations and that wants to control the world for personal financial gain and to acquire power only to itself.

The current system doesn't give foreigners the opportunity to vote for Presidents that can currently under US law be deemed to be "enemy combatants" at the discretion of the President and extraordinarily renditioned without habeas corpus rights.

I don't say that Bush WOULD use the power of the Presidency to kidnap and silence political critics - I say that under the Military Commissions Act and in the current climate he COULD, and that if American's don't wake up and stop the rot then future Presidents will inherit that power plus a swag more when the inevitable next attack on "the homeland" occurs. And it is a mathematical certainty that a next attack will occur. Current foreign policy amounts to a terrorism recruitment program. 

If America doesn't impeach Bush America in the future will be the source of real terror for most Americans and non-Americans alike. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:38:22 PM

  (0+)

says

click here

"the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".

America: July 9. No rebellion. No invasion. And yet whaddayaknow no habeas corpus either for those that President Bush or his delegates deem "enemy combatants".

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:52:21 PM

  (0+)

Now that I’m aware that you are not American, perhaps that mistake about impeachment is an honest one. From an American, that’s either cultural illiteracy, or, as one poster above suggests, deliberate revisionism.

Thank you for whatever pro-American sentiment that you can still legitimately muster. I cannot argue that we have strained our welcome on the planet. My countrymen (present company excepted) are clueless and most are well ensconced within the Matrix. Our corporatist government is out of our control, and thus dangerous. I find my own country to continually be anti-democratic, anti-human and anti-environment, as you likely do. Sorry, for whatever part I had in it. “Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo”. Really.

Unfortunately, I don’t take issue with you on any of your comments about my country. I have been saying and posting some of the same things myself here and elsewhere, as have many others.

The Rule of Law? It was already dead before Scooter Libby’s commutation. Nobody has defended the Constitution robustly since Watergate, and the little ink characters on the document sure can’t get up off of the parchment and do it for themselves. The Bill of Rights has been replaced by the prerogative of autocrat to declare fellow countrymen and foreigner alike “enemy combatant”, and be thrown into a dungeon and executed like some subject of Richard III. Using fancy terms like “executive privilege” and “signing statements” merely says “I’m above the law.” And the only remedies to that are very weak and currently being defied.

If you’re waiting for the American people to awaken and put a muzzle on this thing, don’t. Assume the worst and act accordingly. There is zero sign of political life in the people, and very little more in their Congress. The federal courts are a mockery of justice, and the Supreme Court will give Taney’s pre-Civil War era court a run for its money as the worst.

Like you, I am aware of what America could and should be. It adds to the shame and disappointment. Just don’t be taken in by that old American mythos out of Hollywood – True Grit and Dirty Harry. In my opinion, John Wayne will not be coming over the ridge with the posse this time. “Yippe-kiy-yay, MoFo” won’t change a thing when uttered at Bush. And as for, “I’ll be back”, we’ve heard that one before, too, haven’t we?

I feel overwhelmed, and I don’t see a good outcome for this present situation. I’m genuinely glad not to be younger. If there is a solution, it will be for you to find. I’m pretty sure that we aren’t up to it.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 1:29:23 PM

  (0+)

recoup and rejoin the fight. Give your representative a pain in the ear - if you don't someone else may with a worse agenda.

Don't be like a 1930s fatalistic under-the-Fuhrer German that gets marched  through the camps after the war is over to see the mess thats occurred. Better to be like a 1940s free French resistance fighter. 

If you do write or call your representative (I don't have one) and come into resistance then let others know what works and doesn't work.  I'm open to ways to be more effective.

If people can be brought to consider the big picture questions like where do they stand on "rule of law" and "keeping promises" and "not breaking contracts" most will come down on the right side because that is the side that suits them and the people they care about in the long run.

You said I should assume the worst and act on it. Perhaps that is what the folk that fly hijacked planes into buildings killing themselves and a bunch of 'innocent' civilians have done out of desperation.  Terrorist attacks are political acts - you can't really want to be on the receiving end of THAT sort of politics. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:02:49 AM

  (0+)

Many people have taken to calling, writing their members of Congress and/or key leaders in Congress on a daily basis demanding impeachment. This has to be a sustained effort - any great movement or social change requires that. After reading Linda Milazzo's piece here, I am adding to that a daily fax to them of well-written, insightful articles I come across. This one will be faxed first thing tomorrow. I hope others are taking daily action as well.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:06:36 AM

  (0+)

Actually the last 4 Presidents should have been Impeached, but Americans have been asleep & allowed the Media to soft sell Regan's & Bush 1's criminal  involvement with Iran Contra.

Also nothing was said when Bush 1 pardoned everyone involved with Iran Contra !!!

We have allowed Congress and the Executive Branch for almost 30 years to turn their backs on the Constitution and their responsibilities to enforce the laws of this nation.

 Now after 6+ years of Lt. Bush using all the leverage, gained by the Executive Branch from the previous 3 administrations,  to his every advantage , people are beginning to realize our Constitution and our Civil Rights have been annihilated and the Checks and Balances once held by Congress no longer exist.

by Joanne (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:10:41 AM

  (0+)

The seeds of Americas current problems and of the worlds problems with America go back at least to the Contras.  No country in the world can break its word on treaties like the UN Charter without being seen to do it.

With the illegal invasion of Iraq GWB was merely going one further and breaking an explicit Security Council resolution (ie 1441), but under Reagan the modern rot was begun.

Personally, I greatly respected George H W Bush for the action he took in the first gulf war and for his statesmanlike decision to NOT exceed his authority and remove Saddam after doing what the UN was supposed to do and standing up for the sovereignty of a member nation in Kuwait that had been attacked.  The US on the world stage has not looked better to me than how it behaved under George H W Bush (strong and honorable) and it has not looked worse than how it has behaved under George W Bush (dishonorable and as a consequence weak).

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:45:48 PM

  (0+)

"The World" would say we looked best under Clinton. He is the one they all hope will visit, not George H. W. Bush.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:57:51 AM

  (0+)

This article begs the question: What is wrong with Bill Clinton's followers that think it's okay to lie under oath, commit adultery, and decimate our military WITHOUT taking to the streets calling for impeachment?

by CJ (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 10:02:40 AM

  (0+)

for demonstrating how clueless the right wing is. You really must learn that listenting to limbaugh and the other dittohead imitators destroys your brain.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 11:04:21 PM

  (0+)

Nancy Can be voted out and should be if she doesn't do what the people want

by Gareece (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 12:25:17 PM

  (0+)

Impeach CLINTON? Why:

 1) For getting us out of a really bad JAM left by George Sr. leftovers of the Gulf War, where they SHOULD have deposed Sadham Hissyfit, but instead allowed his to stay in power so he could fester for 8 years while Clinton was dealing, Successfully, with our DOMESTIC ISSUES?

 2) For immediately starting a process that got us out of one of the worst federal MONEY DEFICITS we ever had? Not even Thomas Jefferson did it that good.

 3) For giving people like me, Disabled, unable to work, unable to pay for my dental bills especially: about three years where I was allowed to GO to the dentist TWICE a year?  For increasing the BENEFITS of Medi-Cal? For disposing of that old system where I was only allowed 5 prescriptions per month? For giving me a NEW Medicaid card, for streamlining the Federal base of the system so that the state-specific systems wold run smoothly?

4) For being VERY Environment Cautious. For discouraging SUV use. For putting in action several alternate/Organic fuel programs that BUSH buried so that our Hummers in Iraq can have more diesel?

 ================================================

IS THAT why Clinton ought to have been impeached? Do you want to know why I PERSONALLY did all I could locally to discredit the idea of impeachment? Cos CLINTON, Monica Lewinsky aside, was THE BEST PRESIDENT I have had the honour of being under the leadership of. Clinton had The Future in sight... If Al Gore had won in 2000... I sincerely believe there would have been NO WTC bombing... Cos it was UNDER CLINTON, the FIRST ATTEMPT was quelled.

WHY did NOBODY March to Impeach Clinton? Well... Simply because WE did NOT want to impeach him. Yes, Of Course, there were some Reactionaries, typical Repukicans, basically LOBBYISTS, may they all obtain intestinal parasites... Damn Them.. That tried to force the Impeachment Issue.

But WE found out simply in 1998, that we had ONE good g#d D#mned PRESIDENT. And so I will be voting for Hilary, and then we will have ANOTHER good president in 2008.  Who Knows, maybe she will seduce some pageboys or some CIA agents. THAT would be great.

Should she be impeached? Hell No.

If you were to take a cross seX-ion of the United States at any given day or night, you would see 50% of our Citizenry F*CK*NG their brains out. SO WHAT?

Granted, I personally would not want to be seduced by Hilary Clinton. But it has to be admitted that Presidents, being Human, have been using their reproductive organs, if possible, during their presidencies, and with people other than their wives, and MAYBE not even with the opposite sexes, ever think of that? Sheesh.

Now, the response to that, that IDIOTS will try to use, is that "Well, George Washington never got caught." Neither did Jefferson, but we KNOW that Jefferson left red-headed mulatto children, and that line still exists today, and God Bless Tom Jefferson.

And God Bless Bill Clinton, and Hilary by inference. So, George Washington through George Bush NEVER GOT CAUGHT f*cking senate pages?

Well, the thing that people seem to forget, is that Clinton DID NOT GET CAUGHT either. When it comes down to it, he was the victim of SLANDER.

I do not think Monica was so Virginally-White either. So WHY was this turned into a NATIONAL FARCE? Cos of 1) Repukicans and 2) THE NEWSPAPERS.

Sure. Bill and Monica became NEWSPAPER FODDER.

I am SO SICK OF HEARING ABOUT CLINTON/LEWINSKY- Neither of those people are threatening the WORLD with obliteration due to a continued presence in a country where were are not Wanted or Needed... BUSH is guilty of NOT HEEDING THE WANTS AND NEEDS of his own military and of his constituents, the citizens of the UNITED STATES - Listen: WE DO NOT BELIUEVE that we need to be IN IRAQ any more. WE believe it. WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT.

Just in case anyone might be thinking that this is just my personal opinion. It is not, and that's no mistake.

Non-Official polling of our military tells us that NONE of us want to be there anymore. If there was ever a chance of a military COUP--- BUSH is PUSHING all of the buttons to cause that.

DID BILL'S ACTIVITIES WITH LEWINSKY THREATEN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR VERY LIVES? NO NO and HELL NO.

 However, every MINUTE that Bush continues down this track... I LIVE IN FEAR.

I never had any reason to fear for my life under Clinton's "reign"

It is time to force a change of the guard... To put this in a British POV: may we never have a king named JOHN ever again. May we NEVER have any relative of the BUSH family in ANY public office, ever again.

Lord, in the name of Jesus, we ask you for the removal of George Bush... For the safety of Your Planet.

by XweAponX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 3:20:18 PM

  (0+)

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi

By ANGELA K. BROWN
The Associated Press
Sunday, July 8, 2007; 4:31 PM

CRAWFORD, Texas -- Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Sheehan announced in May that she was leaving the anti-war movement and selling her 5-acre Crawford lot. She said that she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured smear tactics and hatred from the left, as well as the right.

by walley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 3:49:20 PM

  (0+)

[NOTE: My daughter, a constituent of U. S. Rep. Robert C. Scott in Hampton, Va., has submitted the following open letter to him -- for publication as a letter-to-editor in the Newport News, Va., DAILY PRESS. -- Larry W. Bryant] DATE: July 7, 2007 -- For about a year now, my father, a former Peninsula resident, has been a part of the growing Impeachment Movement. In the course of observing his dedication to what too many citizens regard as a lost cause, I've come not only to accept his rationale for persevering ("If I don't do this, how will I be able to live with my conscience?") but also to add my own voice to the movement, urging you, my representative in Congress, to join us. During the past several years, my father and I have witnessed the horrendous result of a presidential administration gone wild. Of an administration that has earned the dubious fame of being the most impeachable one in history. And of a vice-presidency that finally has had articles of impeachment filed against it by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (House Resolution 333). By taking that bold, brave step toward excising the Cheney malignancy from the White House, Kucinich has opened the door of opportunity to all congresspersons. In particular, in your leadership as chair of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, you can help widen that opening if you were to add your name to the dozen or so co-sponsors of H. Res. 333. Please step forward, Mr. Scott, at this critical time in U. S. history, and help us declare that "enough is enough, Messrs. Bush and Cheney; the people's day of reckoning has arrived." As you do so, you might remind your colleagues that, just as with the Nixon impeachment movement, the one now at hand ideally is -- and should remain -- a nonpartisan effort; for, as Americans, we're all being adversely affected by the scuttling of our once-proud U. S. Ship of State. -- G.B.C.

by LarryWBryant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:02:49 PM

  (0+)

Goes to show that neither the effort to humiliate Clinton by impeachment, nor the inertia against impeaching Bush and Cheney now have anything to do with democracy or popular will.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:26:58 PM

  (0+)

Under Clinton, America seemed to lose much of its gag response. It became accustomed to expecting lower standards of its leaders. If Bush is not impeached, and it will be harder now than had Clinton not [preceded] him, then the next President will be unimpeachable - and the fault will be with the American citizen for the failure of government of the people by the people for the people.

Gag response? Nice play on words. Too bad the rest of your argument is wrong.

Will people ever remember that the groundwork for what has become the DUBYA administration was laid by Nixon? Before he unleashed his version of the presidency (ie, the president is above the law) the American public was clueless as to how criminal our leaders could ACTUALLY become. Oh sure, there were other criminal presidential administrations, but Nixon was the pinnacle, the touchstone for government corruption.

That is until DUBYA stepped into the picture. His administration has eclipsed any other in sheer criminality.

During the time of the Clinton Administration, it seemed as if there was a media campaign to grind him into the dirt. Just about everything that Clinton had ever done in the past was fair game for criminal investigation. How many millions of dollars were wasted investigating Whitewater? How many years were wasted as well? Where did it all lead?

Nowhere. From the time he took office until the time of his "impeachment", Clinton was awash in controversy; all sorts of people looking for all sorts of corruption...and none was found....

...until the infamous blowjob.

Then all hell broke loose, brought on by hypocrites who had their cocks pickling in a vaginal brine of the unfamiliar (and un-familial) kind. How ironic it is that Newt Gingrich has decided to spill his own beans now in hopes to gain enough favor (and sympathy for his coming back to the flock after admitting he was a sex pig, like Clinton) to fuel a presidential run (or at least the consideration thereof), and the world seems to be willing to forgive and forget. Yet, when it comes to the BEST president I have ever personally voted for, Bill Clinton, people can't help but tie all the sins of the world to his presidency.

And for Christ's sake, he only got a blowjob from someone who wasn't Hillary. AT WORST, this should have landed him in divorce court. But Noooooooo! His indiscretion landed him at the doorsteps of impeachment.

Isn't it telling that Clinton had 70+ percent approval rating at the time of his impeachment, but DUBYA hase been hovering in the mid twenties for quite some time now and remains unimpeached? People knew it was bullshit. That's why it didn't go anywhere. As I recall the big thing at the time was being jealous of him, and commenting that if he was going to do such things, he should pick prettier women.

And yes, I know, Clinton lied under oath. As I am reminded all the time, he worked to obstruct justice. But what business was it of the country at large whether or not the president had his dick sucked in the Oval Office? How many "bosses" have reclined in their favorite chair in their favorite office to enjoy arguably a man's favorite sex act? How many presidents before Clinton had done the same thing?

And how many sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical anal warts like Newt Gingrich had done it as well?

The point is, while there MAY be precedents set by Bill Clinton that can be construed as part of the problem with DUBYA's three-ring circus, it's total bullshit to place all the blame at the feet of Clinton.

Clinton lied! Of that there is no doubt. But let's look at reality. The American people realized that not only had Clinton been unfairly dogged throughout his term for things he hadn't done, the "thing" for which they finally snagged him wasn't political in the least, and was at worst, a matter of private family business between a man and his wife. If Hillary wasn't leaving him, neither were we!

When Clinton lied, no one died!

I have seen that bumper sticker around. It speaks a truth that is undeniable. Clinton lied because it was no one's business whether or not he got a hummer while wearing a three-piece suit, sitting in the Oval Office. DUBYA lied because he was tired of playing war-based video games, and wanted to put some REAL people in the ground. Dick(LESS) was there, "erraaarr errrairing," in agreement. How could DUBYA resist?

They lied to make Iraq look like "the devil" (classic propaganda move, see my article for more about that subject). They lied to make Saddam look like Hitler. They lied about yellow cake Uranium from Niger. They lied about WMD's. They lied about everything. In the process, they committed treason.

And the lies of DUBYA now stand with an "official" body count of almost eight thousand Americans; three thousand for 9/11, thirty-six hundred for Iraq and eleven hundred for Hurricane Katrina. Unofficial (and probably more accurate) numbers puts the body count to almost a million people killed. That's a lot of people dying for a man's lies. That is the kind of thing that proves that DUBYA can't even live up to his own supposed moral center.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Remember that one, DUBYA? It's in the bible you supposedly read every night before you go to bed. I guess if you can miss, "thou shalt not kill," it's just as easy to miss "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." You must be reading a defective bible....yeah, that's it!

Today, we look at the deaths of a million people brought by a tissue of lies spoekn by DUBYA and his minions. And still, there remain assholes that come around trying to blame the f*ck-ups of DUBYA on Bill Clinton! How can you people sit their picking at the splinter in Clinton's eye, but you can't see the Sequoia growing out of DUBYA's lying, chimp-like face? Isn't it about time to do some logging and cut that tree down?

I know that this argument will fall upon some willingly blinded eyes. Some people just can't give up on people who appear to get more sex than the average. Somehow, loose sexual morals mean the person's all bad, despite evidence to the contrary. At the same time, those who come at one spouting the words of "god" from the ancient tome known as the bible are seen as infallible, despite irrefutable proof to the contrary.

Given the choice between a leader who gets head on a daily basis, and one who believes that the book of revelations is the real deal, and they can't wait for it to come, I'll pick the guy with hickeys on his dick. At least we know that the leader who gets pleasured is probably more likely to not make hasty, testosterone OD fueled attempts to be THE war time president.

So, thanks for the amusing bit about the gag response. As one who has very little of said response, it is good to know that my talent is noted in a somewhat positive way. And while you are fully entitled to your opinion, I am just as entitled to think you are wrong, and think you need to look at history a bit more in depth than thinking Flush Lintball-based talking points to be right or accurate.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 5:04:02 PM

  (0+)

"blessed are the pIecemakers."

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:49:33 AM

  (0+)

I call Rep. Wu every weekday.  I demand to know if he has joined in the impeachment effort.  If not, why not?  Then I ask his people another question-you can hear them cringe, "Does Bush have to start sacrificing babies in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue before you people will get off your duff?" They haven't come up with an answer to that question yet.  Mostly they just sputter.  I will ask it every day until Rep. Wu adds his name to the impeachment bill.

by Susan Cass (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:51:28 PM

  (0+)

Hey Rob, somebody posts a comment that says impeaching Clinton  might have been proper, and you resort to insults? "Right wing clueless...Limbaugh... blah blah blah..." Please tell me that's not what they're teaching in debate class nowadays. Further point: So crowds of people are screaming impeachment at protests and meetings and what-not. And this proves what, exactly?

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:27:47 AM

  (0+)

better. I'm not a fan of insults over facts in debates, but those who spew the same tired lies about Clinton are a waste of good protoplasm.

The fact that everyone should remember about the Clinton issue is that he did NOT commit perjury or obstruction of justice. Either of those requires lying about or hiding of a fact that is material to an ongoing investigation.

 There was no criminal investigation regarding Clinton at the time that had anything to do with getting a blowjob from Monica. The only criminal investigation going on at the time was Whitewater, a real estate issue that produced zero results after millions being spent. But Monica giving Bill head had nothing to do with that.

As far as the Paula Jones civil case, again, and it gets tired repeating it, Monica being a willing (some would say eager since it was she who went after Bill) sexual adult participant has nothing to do with the Paula Jones case.

So, once again, Clinton did not obstruct justice and he did not commit perjury. Don't fall victim to typical reich-wing lies.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:07:13 AM

  (0+)

Perjury is defined as " lying or making verifiably false statements under oath in a court of law", or  the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding".   I was unable to find your particular qualifier "lying about or hiding of a fact that is material to an ongoing investigation" (italics mine) in my (admittedly) brief search of the net. 

 The difference between being guilty of perjury and being found guilty of perjury is, for many, an important one.  For many others, it is a distinction without a difference.

For the record:

Independent Counsel  Robert Ray (Ken Starr's successor) declined to pursue any further prosecution of President Clinton in consideration of  the "significant non-criminal sanctions" that had already been imposed on him:

1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for "false, misleading and evasive answers" in his civil suit deposition; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.

 In addition, on October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended,  and he was given 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than face the penalties related to disbarment.

Sure sounds like someone was guilty of something.

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 9:32:59 AM

  (0+)

THING as what I wrote.

Being disbarred has nothing to do with doing anything illegal either. Many people have been disbarred for doing things that were immoral, not necessarily illegal.

Again, the pro-Clinton-Impeachment crowd is attempting to make something out of facts that are already so thin they barely exist.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 10:15:19 AM

  (0+)

 You have been emphasizing ongoing investigation .  Here's one example:

"There was no criminal investigation regarding Clinton at the time that had anything to do with getting a blowjob from Monica. The only criminal investigation going on at the time was Whitewater, a real estate issue that produced zero results after millions being spent. But Monica giving Bill head had nothing to do with that." (italics mine)

The definitions I cited do not mention any requirement of an ongoing criminal investigation at all.  All they mention is lying in a court of law.  My original post pointed out that I was unable to find any definition that included your "ongoing investigation" element.  I'm not being partisan; help us out.  Where is the reference? 

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 11:18:25 AM

  (0+)

See my response further down this thread with citiations from Cornell School of law and lectlaw.com

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 5:48:31 PM

  (0+)

I see the source of the confusion.  "Ongoing criminal matter" is not the important part of what you're talking about.  "Material" is.  (Otherwise people would be prosecuted for forgetting their birthday or their dog's name!)  Being less than truthful about something irrelevant is - irrelevant.

I believe we may continue to disagree as to whether President Clinton perjured himself,  but I appreciate the reference and the clarification. 

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 4:02:47 PM

  (0+)

If I am investigating you for, lets say Insurance fraud because that is one of the examples that lectlaw uses. If I subpeona you and have you sworn in to give a deposition, and I ask you under oath if you if you have ever cheated on your wife and if you lie, it is not perjury. That question and its answer are not material to the case before the court. Now, in practice, if you have an attorney present, they will probably object to any such question as irrelevant and the judge will almost certainly sustain the objection.

In a perjury case, as it says in the link to the Cornell Law School that I posted below, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the question was Material to the matter before the court. Oddly enough, being President hurt Clinton because if he had been a regular citizen subject to the regular court system, anyone trying to bring him up on perjury charges would have found their case thrown out immediately. Unfortunately, with impeachment, the Supreme Court has ruled that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can mean anything congress wants it to mean. Basically, congress can impeach the President because they don't like him, if they so choose.

The exception to the "Material" test is non-judicial matters like when you fill out your tax return or sign up for a drivers license. There is no 'case' before the court in those situations but you still have an obligation to tell the truth or you have committed perjury. But those exceptions are only for specific cases where there is nothing being investigated and you are not formally sworn in. The issue with Clinton did not fall under that exception.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:47:27 AM

  (0+)

Quote: Angry citizens DIDN'T fill the streets, carry signs and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. Well, I don't think you wrote this ACCURATELY... The way it should have read.... Angry unemployed college kids, union members, and other people with no real job prospects, DIDN'T fill the streets, carry signs and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. First off, they didn't have to, because Congress DID impeach Bill Clinton... Secondly, and more importantly, the people PO'ed by the Clinton antics were too busy trying to PAY THEIR TAXES, pay for their children to go to school, and living their lives as opposed to running around in the street, looking stupid and acting dumb. There are reasons to march on DC, but this is not one of them. There will not be anything that comes of this, because Congress knows, for all of the windbag BS that any attempt to impeach GWB would only make them look colossally stupid, and erode their massive 14% approval rating!

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 7:41:00 AM

  (0+)

As I alluded to in two of my posts above. This person is not interested in the truth. How many tired talking points can one post in one response? This typical freeper post repeats the idea that anyone who is politically active enough to protest must be unemployed. How more dumb can you get?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 9:14:38 AM

  (0+)

I support impeachment. You don't have to trust me just look at the comments or Google on my name (Brett Paatsch and impeach).

But Steven the case has got to be made for it. Dropping Reich-wing in all over the place isn't persuasive. I would suggest that those that want to impeach Bush need to be honest about the strength and weaknesses of their own cases and motivations.

It is not easy to write succinctly why Bush should be impeached in a way that ordinary men and women will be able to read and understand. And for better or worse the average American that votes is an ordinary man or woman not someone that wants to spend a whole lot of their time thinking about politics or things they think they can do little about.

To be effective an activist has to be able to communicate the truth persuasively and succinctly. To build a popular movement content has got to be demonstrated that can be used and reused to persuade. The truth is important. Reliable sources of information are important. Engaging with people who have genuine objections is important.

Impeachment (with removal following) has got to be the right thing to do not just the Democrat thing to do.

I think it is frankly a bad idea to bring up Clinton at all if the only thing that happens is that tribal loyalties go up. In my opinion the author of this article who has written other better articles own-goaled by bringing Clinton up.

If party-first democrats can't acknowledge that Clinton was in some respects a flawed President then party-first republicans will cancel them out, and take them out of the debate.

The issue of impeachment is bigger than any party. I am for impeachment because I don't want the whole American experiment to be a waste and I don't want America to be an impediment to human progress and America could be and is threatening to be. 

The Bush Presidency if Bush is not impeached will be the perfect working model for building a cabal to control a nation and much of the world using the media and money to divide and conquer and bribe opposition.  

Certain principles are fundamental. The rule of law must be upheld. Solemn oaths made must be kept. The President will be an example for good or bad precisely because they are the President and what they do will be observed by everyone else. The standards of Presidential behavior need to be high ones.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 10:04:13 AM

  (0+)

case in the same thread about 5 times already and it has not been refuted.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 11:12:06 AM

  (0+)

GREAT ARTICLE, LINDA! And a new portrait, as well!

Thanks to Mr. Starr's salacious expose, it is likely his lurid accounting of a private consensual affair will be his singular most powerful climax.

A triple play, great line, great article and new portrait!

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:05:43 PM

  (0+)

Also my favorite line.  I was hoping someone would get off on it.  

by Linda Milazzo (128 articles, 1 quicklinks, 18 diaries, 210 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:54:16 PM

  (0+)

Repeating over and over that somebody is telling "right wing lies" does not qualify as "proving your case". And dancing around the definition of "perjury" is like dancing around the definition of "is". Bill Clinton perjured himself. Whether he should have been impeached over that can certainly be debated, but don't hide from what happened on the witness stand under oath.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:12:10 PM

  (0+)

This is the last time I'll try. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I know it pains people like you that the law is not what you wish it was, that is, Murder is OK when a Republican does it, but adultery is punishable by death when a Liberal does it.

Per the Cornell School of Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1621 Prev | Next
§ 1621. Perjury generally
 
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. 
-----------------------------------------------

You will once again note the phrase 'material'. These kinds of phrases were added to laws like these by the founding fathers precisely because they wanted to avoid witchhunts like that we had against Clinton. You cannot just ask questions of people (under oath or otherwise) until you get a false answer and say, "Aha you committed perjury! Now you go to jail!"

The question has to be MATERIAL. Material is one of the most important legal concepts to grasp. For instance, it is illegal to provide material support to terrorists. That does not include if you loaned one a cigarette. That is not MATERIAL support and would not result in prosecution.

What is a Material Fact, from Lectlaw.com

MATERIAL FACT - A fact that would be important to a reasonable person in deciding whether to engage or not to engage in a particular transaction; an important fact as distinguished from some unimportant or trivial detail.

The word "material" means that the subject matter of the statement [or concealment] related to a fact or circumstance which would be important to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail. (e.g. re: insurance fraud - To be material, an assertion [or concealment] must relate to a fact or circumstance that would affect the liability of an insurer (if made during an investigation of the loss), or would affect the decision to issue the policy, or the amount of coverage or the premium (if made in the application for the policy).

A material fact is one which might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must also be "genuine," such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

MATERIALITY - That which is important; that which is not merely of form but of substance.

When a bill for discovery has been filed, for example, the defendant must answer every material fact which is charged in the bill, and the test in these cases seems to be that when, if the defendant should answer in the affirmative, his answer would be of use to the plaintiff, the answer would be material, and it must be made.

In order to convict a witness of a perjury, it is requisite to prove that the matter he swore to was material to the question then depending.
    --b--

________________________________________________________

Once again, whether or not Monica gave Clinton a blowjob was not material to any possible case going on at the time, before or after. Thus, once again, Clinton did not commit perjury and did not obstruct justice.

I know this does not fit the wishes and hopes of Freepers and other Reich Wing garbage that periodically infest this site, but reality seldom does.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 5:47:37 PM

  (0+)

thanks for it.

I do not know enough yet to know whether perjury is the same when a court determines it as it is when Congress does. Congress is a higher body than a mere court but perjury related to impeachment as was the issue with Clinton is a question decided in a distinctly political (and perhaps less just) environment.

For my part, whether Clintons behavior was or was not perjury at law he behaved inappropriately. I saw on television in Australia, Clinton who was then President, saying he "did not have sex with that woman", then later it came out that he had gotten a blow job in the White House by an intern and it became clear that he had chosen under interrogation to try and offlay a moral charge against by deciding that a blow job wasn't sex.

Okay I thought at the time. Maybe a person might argue a blow job isn't sex. And no politician likes accountability if they can avoid it with a bit of word play. And language sophistication is important to politicians. And to prosecutors and to defendants. But the slick willie tag was something that Clinton did his bit in earning with that particular performance. I cannot help but think that Clinton (as President) should not have put himself into such a position that he could have been made to look as bad as he did. And he did look bad. Clinton had legislation on his agenda that I was in favour of and that he could not pursue because he had lost much of his moral authority. I am not fond of Clinton since then.

That does not mean that those who went after him for political purposes did not behave inappropriately also. Perhaps, I don't know, the republicans were playing a particularly personal and vicious brand of politics on Clinton. Right now though I would like to see a lot more ferocious challenging of Bush. Politics at the level of the President will be fierce because the power that Presidents have is not the sort of power that you want in the hands of either a villain or a twit. 

My interest in perjury is in making sure that Presidents don't lie and get away with lying on material matters as you have helped clarify.

Whether Bush lied on a material matter (like Iraq) is what I want to see come out in a fair process. I don't care if the process is anything but gentle. I don't care if it is fierce as all hell in fact so long as it is fair. I suspect that Bush did lie (but perhaps to himself first). I think there is an extremely strong prima facie case for impeachment that arises from the seriousness of the consequences and the publicness of the claims that were made by Bush about Iraq before the invasion. Bush just MIGHT, might have a defence in that part of his presidential oath that says "to the best of his ability". Bush might have low ability as a defence. Frankly I can see no other defence for him and if he has made the mistakes he has made out of low ability then I want the American people to have the opportunity to see that so that they don't inflict Presidents of such low ability (from any political party) on the world in future.

Steven please do not waste (your and my valuable) time trying to rehabilitate Clinton to me. I am more interested in holding Bush who is still at large accountable. Or failing that, in holding America accountable for electing and then not impeaching Bush.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 1:34:42 AM

  (0+)

rehabilitate Clinton on the issue of adultery. He did it and that aspect of his behavior sickens me. I suppose that someone who is otherwise as great as Clinton is/was must have some sort of flaw somewhere otherwise he simply wouldnt be human. I am in favor of holding both participants in adultery somehow responsible, but that shouldnt start with a Democratic President simply because Republicans dont like him. If there is some sanction to be created for it, it should be done with plenty of notice to all. Whether or not something like this could be done and done fairly and in a way that makes sense is not clear to me at all.

However, a lot of things sicken me that should not be the basis of impeachment or imprisonment. I know, you get it. There is still someone in this thread (aka Damaris) who doesn't, most likely because they don't want to get it because they hate Clinton for his politics and are happy to see him assailed whether or not the law supports it.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:16:01 AM

  (0+)

Rahm Emanuel for the non-impeachment. it will be oh so hard for the master fund-raiser to do his job if that is going on in the background, but the reality is that in the 2006 election, and before, there are probbaly no more than 10-20 dems who would support impeachment. It would ultimately fail. A better scenario is a Special Prosecutor, after Cheney and Bush and I would Include Starr as well.

By the way, have you noticed that as yet, no trial for DeLaye? Aftyer 2 years, no trial! In a way, this is good,I would rather see him tried if a DEM becomes president, then he cannot be pardonned.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:15:55 PM

  (0+)

but Bush is   liar and a murderer.  If he cannot be impeached due to   some procedural and/or party  mechanism it just means that liars and murderers can be very successsful in our environment.  Clinton, aas a matter of fact should have been impeached for Jugoslavian pogrom. But we all know that  justice is neever done and the  good things are rarely rewarded. Rather bad things are.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 2:41:24 PM

  (0+)

Thanks to Mr. Starr's salacious expose, it is likely his lurid accounting of a private consensual affair will be his singular most powerful climax.

Actually, I was going to say, wish I'd said it, and then I realized I had, several times, referring to several Bushites, except that I left out the first 2 of the last 3 words. The reality is that Liberals enjoy sex, and Neo-cons not only are too anal Retentive to enjoy it, they can't even figure out what it is. You can always tell happy people, they enjoy the natural life, the miserable ones, get frustrated counting money and then have no release for their frustration.

Sex makes Smiley, Happy faces, babies and love, money counting makes unhappy faces and unhappy people make ... wars

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 3:19:48 PM

  (0+)

What in the world?! How did they get Clinton impeached without millions upon millions of Americans writing strongly worded letters to the editor and coming out in protest? How can this be - my goodness these Republicans don't know how to get anything done right.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 3:24:05 PM

  (0+)

right on.

by tom felt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 6:55:07 AM

  (0+)

It is not easy to write succinctly why Bush should be impeached in a way that ordinary men and women will be able to read and understand. And for better or worse the average American that votes is an ordinary man or woman not someone that wants to spend a whole lot of their time thinking about politics or things they think they can do little about.

Are you f*cking kidding me? "...not easy to write succinctly why [DUBYA] should be impeached...?" Excuse me!?!?!? Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start...

1) Stealing the election in 2000

I shudder to bring this one up, but it is within the greater chronology as to the problems with the DUBYA administration. It's not really one of my pet issues. However, there are many who believe that Al Gore really won this one. For their edification, I place this event in this chronology. If DUBYA did steal the election, then we have voter fraud right off the bat...and that's before he stepped into the White House to (P)reside.

2) Ignoring a memo entitled. "Bin Laden determined to strike in America."

Herein lies the first absolutely verifiable truth about DUBYA, he's an incompetent boob. If he ignored this memo because he was dead sure that no one would dare attack America, then he is an idiot who just showed a lack of true leadership. If he ignored the memo because he already knew the sh*t storm was on its way, then he's a traitor. In either case, both are good enough reasons to consider impeachment.

3) Sitting in his own piss for seven minutes on 9/11.

I am so with Bill Maher on this particular issue. If any incident became a watershed moment in the fight to impeach DUBYA, this would be it. He sat there, for seven minutes, doing nothing, staring into space, looking for all the world as if he had just dropped a size twelve turd into his three-piece.

That would not have happened on Clinton's watch. First of all, after the first tower was hit, Clinton would have been kicking ass and taking names trying to get to the bottom of what was happening. Oh yes, that's right, lest we forget, DUBYA entered that school room KNOWING that the first tower had already been hit. He was sacrificing his duty as president to make a cheap, empty political gesture. How ignorant! How arrogant! How cowardly! How un-leader like.

How much more reason do you need to prove bad leadership?

4) The Downing Street Memo

DUBYA was itching for war from the time his daddy got his ass handed to him by Saddam. DUBYA was planning for war even as his daddy's friends were giving him the White House. DUBYA had already planned on a war with Iraq. The Downing Street Memo proves DUBYA was planning on going to war with Iraq, no matter what happened, or who died as a result.

The very existence of The Downing Street Memo proves that DUBYA is guilty of war crimes. If this is the case, being guilty of war crimes is surely a reason for impeachment.

5) Hurricane Katrina

Here is a sheer human tragedy. The response to Hurricane Katrina remains a joke; a continual source for derision to be placed on the head of DUBYA. He claimed no one knew how bad the storm was going to be.

LIE! A few months later, we get video of him being told just how bad things are going to get. He simply didn't care.

Once again, his leadership ability is called into question. When you have a storm as big as the Gulf of Mexico entering the Gulf of Mexico, it's a surety that someone somewhere is going to get hit upside the head with all the hell that is a hurricane. The only question with Katrina was where was she going to land. Once they were sure that New Orleans was in the cross hairs, the federal government should have been doing everything in their power to assist state and local authorities.

They didn't do that. They left Americans to die in a disaster that could have been less damaging to life than it was. It was DUBYA's failure as much as it was anyone else's.

BAD LEADERSHIP IS THE HALLMARK OF THE DUBYA REGIME. If there is a better reason to get rid of a leader, what is it?

I am stopping here because I know I made my point. In order to make a real case for impeachment, one doesn't have to look very hard or very deeply to find some crime associated with the DUBYA administration. When there is no crime present, there is clear and present proof that DUBYA is a horrid leader; innefectual, arrogant, and stupid.

Notice I haven't said one word about his political party. That's because for me, it's not an issue! I don't care what his party is. He's a bad leader for all the worst reasons. His politics are irrelevant!

DUBYA should be impeached because he is a criminal and a traitor. He shouldn't be impeached because he's a Republican. Had Bill Clinton done the same things, I'd have been calling for him to be impeached as well. It's not about politics, it's about criminal behavior and treason. If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 1:45:36 PM

  (0+)

Perhaps you should go for an article instead. Perhaps I should my comments are long as well. Its pretty hard to respond to someone who throws in lots of swear words and then follows them with a line from Julie Andrews about starting from the very beginning.  

I DO think it is useful and important for individuals to be able to make their personal case for wanting impeachment (impeachment of a President any President is a bloody big deal) so why not do it in an article? Perhaps I should take my own advice on this too.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 1:51:28 AM

  (0+)

Leser, you are projecting all the moral authority of a defense attorney who just got a criminal off on a technicality. Putting all the legal contortions aside, Bill Clinton lied under oath. Seriously, you must be channeling Johnnie Cochran. I'm waiting to hear more stuff about bigoted detectives, ill-fitting gloves and melting ice cream.

And don't give me this crap about President Bush being a murderer. You want to be consistent and say that Bill Clinton is a murderer? No, I'm not talking about those dead-bodies-in-Arkansas conspiracy theories; I'm talking about Iraq! Clinton dropped a boat load of bombs on Iraq during Monicagate. And what was one of the reasons he gave? WMD's. Hey, it's deja vu all over again.

There you have it. Now take your "reich wing" designation, crumple it up into the nearest bong and start gurgling.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:34:33 PM

  (0+)

and that is the bottom line. One of the reasons the law has safeguards like the Material clause is because of people like you. The founding fathers realized that unscrupulous people would want to prosecute other citizens just because they didnt like them. What a great way if you could subpeona them and then ask embarassing questions that had no bearing on any case before the court, and keep asking embarassing questions until you got them to lie. Boom, perjury, five years in jail.

Thankfully, the founding fathers realized that creeps like you exist and stopped you from doing things like this. Unfortunately, as I said in a response to Tim above, that didnt protect Clinton because as President, he wasnt afforded the same legal system, he has to deal with congress and congress can impeach the President on a whim if it so decides.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:52:57 AM

  (0+)

Perhaps you should go for an article instead. Perhaps I should my comments are long as well. Its pretty hard to respond to someone who throws in lots of swear words and then follows them with a line from Julie Andrews about starting from the very beginning.

Oh, please...cry me a river! Lots of swear words? Did I offend your poor virgin eyes? Too bad, so sad.

Now you are going to tell me how to post here? Are you an editor? If so, then I'll take it under advisement and will only act if Rob gets on me. If that doesn't happen, then I couldn't care less about your suggestion.

I write as I see fit. Yes, sometimes that results in people being upset with me, and in some cases, even censorship. However, that is for the the editors here to decide, not you.

I DO think it is useful and important for individuals to be able to make their personal case for wanting impeachment (impeachment of a President any President is a bloody big deal) so why not do it in an article? Perhaps I should take my own advice on this too.

Perhaps you should! Unless things have changed here, we are allowed to say pretty much whatever we wish wherever we wish it to be said. As long as we stay tangentially on topic, then who is to say who can say what in the comments after an article?

Until such time as I am told to modify what and how I write by Rob, my writing style will remain as is.

What I find curious is you aren't answering the substance of what I said, such as pointing examples of the ease with which one can write a list of the reasons why DUBYA should be impeached...oh and Dick(LESS), too. You said, and I quote here, "It is not easy to write succinctly why Bush should be impeached in a way that ordinary men and women will be able to read and understand."

I proved that it would be very easy to write a succinct list of reasons for impeachment. You didn't answer any of my points. You merely whined about my verbiage and the use of a line from a song in The Sound Of Music. Then you told me it was wrong for me to write such a long answer to your previous point.

So, why is it you can't or won't answer my questions? Is it because I use the word, "fuck," or is it because I use the word, "shit?" Or is it because you know your point was wrong and you can't admit it?

Oh, and by the way, unless you are counting the word "ass" I only used four expletives in the comment to which you refer. If you count "ass" then the number of "dirty words" in the comment in question was seven...f*cking SHOCKING!

That brings the total of bad words in this comment up to three, unless you count "ass", in which case, the number has just gone up to six. That's a lot of expletives in just two paragraphs...I am going for a dirty word world record.

Not really.

I would appreciate it if you would answer my points without the transparent attempt at knocking me! I'm not holding my breath that you will, but it's worth it to at least ask. I might also ask you to answer my points, but that would be too much like making you admit you were wrong...and I get the feeling that hardly ever happens for wonderful you...

Sad...

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 4:29:41 AM

  (0+)

I'm just not sure what the protocols are, if there are any, in this sort of forum. I will give you a point by point reply but I would have done that under your own article if you'd posted it and I knew that you had. It might have been easier to follow.  You and I may be getting away from the topic the original author posted was my thought.  I'm more used to a mailing list forum.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 5:28:26 AM

  (0+)

ME "It is not easy to write succinctly why Bush should be
      impeached in a way that ordinary men and women will be
      able to read and understand. And for better or worse
      the average American that votes is an ordinary man
      or woman not someone that wants to spend a whole
      lot of their time thinking about politics or things
      they think they can do little about"

You " you f*cking kidding me? "...not easy to write succinctly why    [DUBYA]should be impeached...?" Excuse me!?!?!?

Succinctly and EFFECTIVELY or PERSUASIVELY
I should have said. But I was too succinct.

You " Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start...

1) Stealing the election in 2000

I shudder to bring this one up, but it is within the greater
chronology as to the problems with the DUBYA administration. It's not really one of my pet issues. However, there are many who believe that Al Gore really won this one. For their edification, I place this event in this chronology. If DUBYA did steal the election, then we have voter fraud right off the bat...and that's before he stepped into the White House
to (P)reside."

You should hesitate if not shudder to bring it up. It isn't credible that Bush controlled the SCOTUS (or the courts BEFORE he appointed two judges.

If Gore didn't fight to the SCOTUS or if he did and lost - he didn't deserve to be President. I can put no blame on Bush for being ambitious and for wanting badly to be President. Anyone that runs should want to be President badly.

" 2) Ignoring a memo entitled. "Bin Laden determined to strike in America".

Herein lies the first absolutely verifiable truth about DUBYA, he's an incompetent boob. If he ignored this memo because he was dead sure that no one would dare attack America, then he is an idiot who just showed a
lack of true leadership. If he ignored the memo because he already knew the sh*t storm was on its way, then he's a traitor. In either case,
both are good enough reasons to consider impeachment."

Okay how serious this is, in my opinion, goes to how serious the memo is. I don't have the memo to judge on the basis of it that Bush was criminally negligent. Perhaps if I did I might. But I doubt it.

To impeach a president, in my opinion, as opposed to just letting the electoral process take its course, the incompetence would have to be extreme.

" 3) Sitting in his own piss for seven minutes on 9/11.

I am so with Bill Maher on this particular issue. If any incident became a watershed moment in the fight to impeach DUBYA, this would be it. He sat there, for seven minutes, doing nothing, staring into space, looking for all the world as if he had just dropped a size twelve turd into his three-piece. That would not have happened on Clinton's
watch. First of all, after the first tower was hit, Clinton would have been kicking ass and taking names trying to get to the bottom of what was happening. Oh yes, that's right, lest we forget, DUBYA entered that school room KNOWING that the first tower had already been hit. He was sacrificing his duty as president to make a cheap, empty political
gesture. How ignorant! How arrogant! How cowardly! How un-leader like.
How much more reason do you need to prove bad leadership? "

I saw the report of that. I think I even saw the Michael Moore (extremely unobjective version) I give Bush a pass on this one. A President has staff and people he can rely on, or should have, during emergencies as well. He has to act, he has to be informed but he doesn't have to be super human or to drop everything and immediately rush to do something. It was acceptable (or not so unacceptable as to be a ground for impeachment) for Bush to continue doing what he was doing for the time that he did. Even in hindsight 9-11 was an event that was going to require a considered not a knee jerk response. Just because Bush wasn't running around for the cameras looking Presidential doesn't mean that nothing was going on in his mind or that he was negligent. Nor, I'd add does it mean that a lot was necessarily going on either.
This point is just irrelevant in my opinion.

"4) The Downing Street Memo

DUBYA was itching for war from the time his daddy got his ass handed to him by Saddam. "

Rubbish re ass handed to him. Until I see evidence of anything other than his having appropriate respect for the rule of law I'm giving
George H W credit for statesmanship on Gulf War 1.

I do accept that Saddam tried to assassinate George H W Bush. And that possibly has been a motivating factor on W junior when it should not have been. But motive is just motive its not alone enough to prove he was in bad faith over Iraq.

"DUBYA was planning for war even as his daddy's friends were giving him the White House. DUBYA had already planned on a war with Iraq."

     I've seen internet blogger style reports on this. I think there may be something to it. But those reports have to be reliable and well sourced to have evidentiary value in my opinion. I'm not sure they do yet. A lot of strongly opinionate internet based types get upset when you ask them about hard evidence and sources - they prefer sometimes to just want to be believed it seems.

   I'd like to see impeachment happen in part because there are a range of witnesses that could be subpoenaed to testify as to whether W was in good faith about the weapons of mass destruction being the motive for the Iraq attack.

"The Downing Street Memo proves DUBYA was planning on going to war with Iraq, no matter what happened, or who died as a result. "

     It may be a very substantial piece of evidence. I'd like to see it form part of the impeachment process because it goes to the question of whether W was acting in good faith or playing a dishonourable double game with the world.

    A dishonorable double game would take away Bush's defence of having been doing his "best" in the Presidential oath.

" The very existence of The Downing Street Memo proves that
DUBYA is guilty of war crimes. If this is the case, being guilty of war crimes is surely a reason for impeachment.

    I'm not sure that I can agree with this. Perhaps you know more about The   Downing Street Memo than I do. I understand it is a statement from a high level UK official to other UK people saying that the intelligence was being fixed to fit the drive to war. That would be evidence worth following up but not of itself necessarily full proof. Could be the UK official was expressing an opinion only.

   I do regard this as a serious piece of evidence as to state of the Presidents mind POTENTIALLY.

"5) Hurricane Katrina

Here is a sheer human tragedy. The response to Hurricane Katrina remains a joke; a continual source for derision to be placed on the head of DUBYA. He claimed no one knew how bad the storm was going to be. "


     A tragedy yes. Incompetently handled by W - I don't honestly, personally, know. But again in my opinion this sort of incompetence doesn't easily rise to an impeachable offense in my mind.


"LIE! A few months later, we get video of him being told just how bad things are going to get. He simply didn't care."

As President he always has a duty of care to US citizens. But any failure of duty of care would have to be extreme to warrant impeachment.

"Once again, his leadership ability is called into question. "

    Yes. But I don't see poor leadership as enough to impeach.

"When you have a storm as big as the Gulf of Mexico entering the Gulf of Mexico, it's a surety that someone somewhere is going to get hit upside the head with all the hell that is a hurricane. The only question with Katrina was where was she going to land. Once they were sure that New Orleans was in the cross hairs, the federal government should have been doing everything in their power to assist state and local
authorities. "

      I don't know enough about what was in the Presidents power. They didn't do that. They left Americans to die in a disaster that could have been less damaging to life than it was. It was DUBYA's failure as much as it was anyone else's.

" BAD LEADERSHIP IS THE HALLMARK OF THE DUBYA REGIME."

        Perhaps true and an indictment on the people that elected him but "bad leadership" is not in my view enough to impeach him on. Bad leadership is not a "high crime". Bush can only do his "best" as it says in the oath of office. To get Bush on impeachment I think you have to show he did NOT do HIS honest best.

"If there is a better reason to get rid of a leader, what is it? "

     That is the article I need to be writing. In a nut shell my argument is that W knowingly broke the UN Charter which is part of the supreme law of the United States because of the US Constitutions treaty provisions. And that the consequences of him knowing breaking that law have astronomical in terms of the harm that has been done the US and the US citizens in the world.

"I am stopping here because I know I made my point. In order to make a real case for impeachment, one doesn't have to look very hard or very deeply to find some crime associated with the DUBYA administration."

     With respect you haven't made your case even to me who actually agrees that Bush should be impeached. To get impeachment to happen in the Congress there has to be the political will for it to happen. That means someone or someones have to be able to persuade others that may not have all that much interest or motive to be persuaded even though they are fairminded.

"When there is no crime present, there is clear and present proof that DUBYA is a horrid leader; innefectual, arrogant, and stupid.

Notice I haven't said one word about his political party."

        Quite rightly too.

        Perhaps when I write my case you will review it.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 7:23:58 AM

  (0+)

"Boom. Perjury. Five years in jail."

You mean, like Scooter Libby? Nobody has been convicted on outing a CIA agent, not even Richard Armitage, who was apparently the source of this kerfluffle. Fitzgerald kept the investigation open even after he knew who "leaked" the information, and voila, Libby was apparently caught lying under oath.

"Creeps like you..."

Yep, another example of left-wing debate skills. Throw in some name-calling, and your side becomes convinced you just won another debate. Dream on, pal. I am a proud American. And you're down for the count. Don't get off the canvas.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 2:14:05 PM

  (0+)

Apples to oil barrel comparisons, as in, not even remotely resembling each other.

Because you have some unique idiocy that prevents you from acknowledging one fact in my post, that being the idea of "MATERIAL" there is no getting through to you. Scooter Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice because he hid facts that were material to an ongoing investigation into the felony outing of Plame, a covert CIA agent.

And what investigation did Clinton hinder? Yeah, thats right, NONE.

That is why you are a creep. You want someone thrown in jail because you dont like his politics, not because they committed an actual crime.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:40:03 PM

  (0+)

havent you even noticed that everyone else who was debating on me on this acknowledged that I was right? That upside down view of me that you have is because YOU are on the canvas, not the other way around.

Everyone else has had the honesty and grace to admit they were wrong after I presented the texts and relevant citations of the law in question. Of course, facts being against them never stopped reich wing creeps before, I guess I shouldnt be surprised that it doesnt now.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:45:02 PM

  (0+)

You should hesitate if not shudder to bring it up. It isn't credible that Bush controlled the SCOTUS (or the courts BEFORE he appointed two judges.

If Gore didn't fight to the SCOTUS or if he did and lost - he didn't deserve to be President. I can put no blame on Bush for being ambitious and for wanting badly to be President. Anyone that runs should want to be President badly.

As I said, I bring that issue up because it falls into the chronology that is the DUBYA regime. Yes, Gore should have fought it. That was his bad. However, just the history behind this issue is enough to make one wonder. And whether or not you agree with Michael Moore, to date, not one libel suit has been placed against him. His facts are rock solid, even if his motivation are seen as anything but. While that particular point was admittedly weak, just the fact that it exists as a fact in this case carries the implication that DUBYA was in on some kind of malfeasance. True it is only an implication, but when one checks it with the pattern that emerges out of the DUBYA regime, it shows a pattern of lawlessness.

DOWNING STREET MEMO...

Okay how serious this is, in my opinion, goes to how serious the memo is. I don't have the memo to judge on the basis of it that Bush was criminally negligent. Perhaps if I did I might. But I doubt it.

Well, there is a link to it...http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ . Read it for yourself. This document shows clearly long before the start of the Iraq War that it was our intent to go to war, whether or not the facts supported that decision.

War is seen as a supreme crime against humanity, especially wars of choice such as the one DUBYA fomented. When a leader makes a choice to foment war in such a way, they become war criminals. Such is the case with Adolf Hitler. Such is the case with Slobodan Milošević. Such is the case with DUBYA. If human rights violations such as fomenting a war against a country that didn't attack us first are considered crimes against humanity, and they are, then DUBYA is a war criminal, pure and simple. As such, he is not only subject to the laws of the US, but international laws as well.

Please note that Dumbsfeld can no longer leave our airspace because he stands accused of war crimes in Germany. The American legal system may be willing to allow DUBYA to continue, but as the case of Germany vs. Dumbsfeld proves, the rest of the world is nowhere near as pussified as we are here.

To impeach a president, in my opinion, as opposed to just letting the electoral process take its course, the incompetence would have to be extreme.

First of all, your opinion is meaningless. If DUBYA's incompetence isn't in the extreme, where is it? My goddess, he drove Arbusto and other businesses into the ground, unless his Saudi friends were bailing him out. He was an ineffectual lame duck until 9/11 landed in his lap (or was placed there). Even after that, his incompetence remains the stuff of legend.

If unfitness for leadership isn't a reason to get rid of a leader, what's the point of having a leader in the first place?

I saw the report of that. I think I even saw the Michael Moore (extremely unobjective version) I give Bush a pass on this one. A President has staff and people he can rely on, or should have, during emergencies as well.

Are you serious? He's the goddamned president, the commander in chief of the military. In a crisis situation such as 9/11, it is his R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y to lead, not to sit pissing himself in a room full of children. He wanted to be president. Whether or not he was aware that dealing with national emergencies such as 9/11 or Katrina is a part of the job doesn't negate the truth that these things are things the job entails. If he wasn't willing to deal with these incidents (which evidence shows he wasn't), then he shouldn't be president.

You can say what you want about Michael Moore. He didn't make up the fact that DUBYA sat there ROCKING BACK AND FORTH LIKE A SCARED CHILD for seven f*cking minutes while the country was under attack. Even I didn't do that, and I watched it from right after the first plane hit.

And, once again, the first plane hit B-E-F-O-R-E DUBYA made it to the school. I am sure that the teacher and the students would have understood why they couldn't meet the president on that day if he had actually done his job. He should have been on Air Force One jetting back to DC instead of sitting in a limo on his way to hang out with school kids reading My Pet Goat.

But if you doubt me, buy or rent a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 and simply watch as DUBYA rocks back and forth like a scared child. If nothing else, it's a despicable site. It shows that DUBYA isn't a leader, he's a scared child. We don't need a country run by a scared child.

I do accept that Saddam tried to assassinate George H W Bush. And that possibly has been a motivating factor on W junior when it should not have been. But motive is just motive its not alone enough to prove he was in bad faith over Iraq.

Possibly? Once again, your talent for making jokes when you aren't intending to do so is astounding. We are talking about DUBYA, the cowboy diplomat, the scared rocking child, the world bully.

If his intent, as proved by the existence of the Downing Street Memo, isn't enough proof he was going to foment a war with Iraq, a country even he admitted didn't have anything to do with 9/11, then what is?

Would a reasonable person believe that the intent of DUBYA was to start a war with Iraq after they read the Downing Street Memo? Yes. What other choice would they have?

How about the fudged intelligence, the lack of WMD's, the outing of Valerie Plame? All of these things imply intent to start a war with a country that was, according to his own admission, NOT involved with 9/11. Once again, this implies that DUBYA was itching to start a war. That makes him a war criminal, and being a war criminal is surely an impeachable offense.

I've seen internet blogger style reports on this. I think there may be something to it. But those reports have to be reliable and well sourced to have evidentiary value in my opinion. I'm not sure they do yet. A lot of strongly opinionate internet based types get upset when you ask them about hard evidence and sources - they prefer sometimes to just want to be believed it seems.

May be something to it? Oh please. There is evidence all around if you would but open your eyes. Read the Downing Street Memo. Read links from that site. There is a lot of evidence out there, if you would just open your eyes to see the lies right in front of you.

I'm not sure that I can agree with this. Perhaps you know more about The Downing Street Memo than I do. I understand it is a statement from a high level UK official to other UK people saying that the intelligence was being fixed to fit the drive to war. That would be evidence worth following up but not of itself necessarily full proof. Could be the UK official was expressing an opinion only.

For f*ck's sake, read the goddamned thing! The Downing Street Memo is official minutes, not someone's f*cking opinion. READ IT, or make the choice to remain in ignorance of a topic upon which you are trying to be an expert. Don't waste my time with your lame theories.

I really don't get you. On one hand, you say you are for getting rid of DUBYA, on the other hand, you play the blinded Devil's Advocate. You are calling accepted truths about the DUBYA regime into doubt. I submit that I have a much more unique perspective on the DUBYA regime than you. I have had to live it on a daily basis. How about you? Nope. You are sitting half a world away.

A tragedy yes. Incompetently handled by W - I don't honestly, personally, know. But again in my opinion this sort of incompetence doesn't easily rise to an impeachable offense in my mind.

It shows a pattern. The only difference between Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 is there was no video showing DUBYA rocking like a child as New Orleans was turned to rubble and a killing field for poor black Americans. There was, however, a video showing him being told about what was happening, and how he sat there on his ass, thumb up said ass, doing nothing! BAD LEADERSHIP IS A REASON TO IMPEACH AS IS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE! DUBYA is guilty of both when it comes to the case of Hurricane Katrina.

Perhaps true and an indictment on the people that elected him but "bad leadership" is not in my view enough to impeach him on. Bad leadership is not a "high crime". Bush can only do his "best" as it says in the oath of office. To get Bush on impeachment I think you have to show he did NOT do HIS honest best.

Crimes are a good reason, and he has plenty. From treason for his part in Plame-gate to criminally negligent homicide in Katrina, and all the crimes before and after these two watershed moments are more than enough reason.

I am over you. You don't want to look at the evidence, or you claim supposed ignorance. If you are going to enter a debate on something, please at least try to look prepared. I am not going to sit here any longer and try to convince you that DUBYA needs to go away, now! There is a difference between true debate and the brain-dead crap you are spouting here.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

It is clear to me that you are filled with contempt prior to investigation. I am not going to waste any more time trying to get you to investigate.

Whether or not you accept my list of reasons for impeachment of DUBYA is of no concern to me. The fact that I did put forth five reasons means I proved you wrong. Just because you don't accept my points made doesn't negate their truth or impact. If you wish to continue, you are going to need to do some real research into the topic you are discussing. Whether the list I provided was succinct or not, there is evidence contained within the list that is irrefutable by RATIONAL people. Re-read it, then do some research. It's good for you!

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 2:55:23 PM

  (0+)

"You want someone thrown in jail because you don't like his politics..."

What - and who - are you talking about? Bill Clinton? I never said I wanted him thrown in jail; I was never even all that sure I wanted him impeached and/or removed from office, although it was worth considering. You assume way too much.

"You are a creep..."

You're wrong. I know that's achingly hard for extremists from the right or left to try and process, but it's true. You are wrong. Whether it's Mike Malloy or Michael Savage doing the name-calling, it's still crapola. Ponder that while you continue to pick yourself off the canvas.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:59:08 PM

  (0+)

based on our previous posts on this.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 4:10:57 AM

  (0+)

and been part of this discussion.

I would like to hear if you are for or against the impeachment of President Bush. If you are against I'd like to know why. I like to know why because I figure its in the interests of most Americans to impeach this particular President so as to protect their own rights under the Constitution and so that future Presidents learn not to screw with the people whose interests those Presidents are supposed to represent.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 5:57:23 AM

  (0+)

Who woulda thunk it, eh? I don't support impeaching President Bush because I don't buy into all the sinister motives and/or conspiracy theories that have sprung up regarding him. I got embarrassed by people on my side of the political fence back in the 90's. I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, but the dead-bodies-in-Arkansas crackpot conspiracy theories were disgraceful. Now, that same mentality is back in spades. Well, screw that noise. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Thanks for asking.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 9:32:44 PM

  (0+)

I don't buy into "all" the sinister motives and conspiracy theories either.  

I do want to see Bush impeached yet I don't regard him as an evil or sinister person.  He doesn't seem like that sort of person when I see him on television. He seems personable and genuine.  Impeaching him would be, inevitably, to hurt him personally quite badly I think, and that would not be a good thing to do but it is under the circumstances I think a necessary thing to do.

If I could present you with an honest open argument based on the US Constitution and the United Nations Charter and perhaps a link or two to sources that you could readily see were reliable, that George Bush, should be impeached and posted it to this forum, would you read it, would you be open to changing your mind?   

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 3:46:52 AM

  (0+)

Feel free to send me whatever material you want. To be honest, I have yet to see any worthwhile arguments, constitutionally speaking or otherwise, for impeachment. And that goes double for a sovereignty-eating body like the United Nations. (No, I'm not some kook who thinks the UN will take over the planet. I just think it's an incompetent body that doesn't need any more power that it already has.) But I'll take a look.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:20:20 PM

  (0+)

Do you think that the rule of law should apply to everyone including to Presidents? Do you think that if oaths are taken and promises made by politicians to citizens that those promises and oaths should be kept?

Do you think that if a sovereign nation like the United States makes treaties with other sovereign nations that the United States should honor its obligations on those treaties?

I think all of these in principle questions can be answered pretty readily with a straight yes or no. They aren't meant to be tricky or to set any sort of trap just to find out if there is any real chance of my persuading you.  Unless the answer is yes - I suspect I could not persuade you.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 9:48:23 AM

  (0+)