I ended up seeing much of his speech to the military wives today over lunch (there's a diet aid for you!) I was impressed that he finally used the V word - Vietnam. And how stupid it was for us to cut and run and how the terrorists hoped we would, and how Iraq was such a staging ground for terrorism now that we've removed the government that kept outside terrorists out and how we have to stay the course, stay the course, stay the course.
I turned references to 9/11 into a drinking game with my soup.
Calling for Bush to be impeached is calling for Cheney to be installed as President, with a ready-made scapegoat for a few things they're willing to admit are wrong, and a fresh start.
Instead, impeach Rupert Murdoch, get the voters to realize how insane the marriage of the Nehemiah Scudder front and the Halliburton front is, get the poor folks to actually think about whether they're really no better off with the party that actually tries in its fumbling inept way to do something for them than the party who actively treats them as the enemy, take numerical control of both houses of Congress in '06, elect a President who actually cares about the future of the country, the planet, and the human race on a longer time scale than the fundraising cycle for the '12 election, and start actually giving me the country I was taught I lived in when I was growing up, 'cause it ain't the one I see around me today.
Let's get this straight, Phil. I want ALL of them impeached. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Wolfowitz, Card, Rove, Frist, DeLay, every fucking one of 'em from the Chimp down to the kid who makes the coffee and every enabler in between, in chains and gift-wrapped for the Hague.
"A few things they're willing to admit are wrong"? They lied us into a war. Thousands upon thousands of people are dead. Tens of thousands are maimed. Why? We still don't even know.
You can't impeach Murdoch; he's not an elected official. The Nehemiah Scudder/Halliburton thing is too complex for the American attention span.
All the other stuff, yeah, I agree with. But these bastards are unspeakable monsters, criminals and scum of the worst sort, and I pray to a God I don't even believe in that Patrick Fitzgerald brings up Cheney on charges.
I think they probably lied us into a war. But unless he himself did it under oath it isn't a crime, and thus not an impeachable offense.
Impeachment is a very specific tool to be used for a very specific purpose. For the Executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. It is not a general-use, "We want him out of office" solution. It is for dealign with very specific breaches of the law. Most of the reasons stated for impeachment that float around simply don't apply.
For example - the very first Impeach link you post there says, that a World Tribunal on Iraq declared the Administration guilty of crimes. This is irrelevant, as they are not a US legal body.
If it helps - it seems like the American public are finally getting the picture. CNN reports poll results - Bush would lose an election today (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html)
Oh, I dunno -- I think conspiring to violate international law by invading a sovereign nation (no matter how much we may dislike its ruler), breaking many treaties to which we had signed and therefore were bound by law to uphold, and numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions might fit that "high crimes and misdemeanors" or "treason" definition....
Treason clearly does not apply. It is clearly defined in teh Constitution as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,". Bush may have done many things, but he has not gone into combat against the US, nor has he given aid or comfort to any recognized enemies. Halliburton and the Religious Right are not recognized as enemies of the US :)
As for the rest - The "international law" commonly quoted is the UN Charter. I'm pretty sure it is a grave error to treat that as international law that should be enforced upon any particular head of state. Treaties are broken by nations, not individuals. And there's a logical road there we don't want to walk down.
In any case, we are not in a position to claim that Bush violated the Charter. We are not the aggrieved parties. I can bring you up on charges if you assault me, but I can't if you assault someone else. Similarly (as I understand how these things work, anyway) until the UN chooses to declare the US in violation, it isn't grounds for impeachment.
Unnamed democrats have always beaten Bush at the polls -- this is nothing new. The problem is when you start naming Democrats to match up against him, they always come up pathetically short.
There are other things that Fitzgerald can do to make Cheney's life hell. Two words that I remember well from the Summer of '74: "Unindicted co-conspirator". Here's hoping for a Fitz-mas present in the next week or so. :)
Actually, Bill Clinton was impeached for winning the 1992 election, a crime so unforgivable to the right that they wouldn't give up until they could come up with some kind of dirt on him, and never mind that every one of them has done far worse; rules and standards are things for other guys to live up to, not members of the Hypocracy.
I wouldn't bother to spout off on it, except that it points out the basic problem with impeachment: it's not a mechanism of delivering justice, it's a political tool for the majority to use to chastise a minority figure they get really riled up about. Which is why we can't impeach Bush -- we don't have a majority.
Absolutely. It wasn't an investigation, it was an attempted coup d'état.
In contrast, the Nixon investigation ultimately did become bipartisan--at least once the GOP realized ol' Tricky Dick really was a crook. Back then, Republicans could recognize reality. They can't anymore.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 05:44 pm (UTC)now that we've removed the government that kept outside terrorists outand how we have to stay the course, stay the course, stay the course.I turned references to 9/11 into a drinking game with my soup.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 06:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 07:15 pm (UTC):)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 07:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-27 04:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 08:08 pm (UTC)Instead, impeach Rupert Murdoch, get the voters to realize how insane the marriage of the Nehemiah Scudder front and the Halliburton front is, get the poor folks to actually think about whether they're really no better off with the party that actually tries in its fumbling inept way to do something for them than the party who actively treats them as the enemy, take numerical control of both houses of Congress in '06, elect a President who actually cares about the future of the country, the planet, and the human race on a longer time scale than the fundraising cycle for the '12 election, and start actually giving me the country I was taught I lived in when I was growing up, 'cause it ain't the one I see around me today.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 08:16 pm (UTC)"A few things they're willing to admit are wrong"? They lied us into a war. Thousands upon thousands of people are dead. Tens of thousands are maimed. Why? We still don't even know.
You can't impeach Murdoch; he's not an elected official. The Nehemiah Scudder/Halliburton thing is too complex for the American attention span.
All the other stuff, yeah, I agree with. But these bastards are unspeakable monsters, criminals and scum of the worst sort, and I pray to a God I don't even believe in that Patrick Fitzgerald brings up Cheney on charges.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 09:15 pm (UTC)Impeachment is a very specific tool to be used for a very specific purpose. For the Executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. It is not a general-use, "We want him out of office" solution. It is for dealign with very specific breaches of the law. Most of the reasons stated for impeachment that float around simply don't apply.
For example - the very first Impeach link you post there says, that a World Tribunal on Iraq declared the Administration guilty of crimes. This is irrelevant, as they are not a US legal body.
If it helps - it seems like the American public are finally getting the picture. CNN reports poll results - Bush would lose an election today (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 10:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-26 03:13 am (UTC)As for the rest - The "international law" commonly quoted is the UN Charter. I'm pretty sure it is a grave error to treat that as international law that should be enforced upon any particular head of state. Treaties are broken by nations, not individuals. And there's a logical road there we don't want to walk down.
In any case, we are not in a position to claim that Bush violated the Charter. We are not the aggrieved parties. I can bring you up on charges if you assault me, but I can't if you assault someone else. Similarly (as I understand how these things work, anyway) until the UN chooses to declare the US in violation, it isn't grounds for impeachment.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-26 07:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-26 08:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 08:36 pm (UTC)He didn't resign.
If Bush is impeached, he doesn't have to resign.
Nixon resigned *BEFORE* he was impeached.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-25 09:16 pm (UTC)I wouldn't bother to spout off on it, except that it points out the basic problem with impeachment: it's not a mechanism of delivering justice, it's a political tool for the majority to use to chastise a minority figure they get really riled up about. Which is why we can't impeach Bush -- we don't have a majority.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-26 08:07 am (UTC)In contrast, the Nixon investigation ultimately did become bipartisan--at least once the GOP realized ol' Tricky Dick really was a crook. Back then, Republicans could recognize reality. They can't anymore.