Could the entire Bush Admin be impeached?

IRTradRU? · Post by **IRTradRU?** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:39 pm

s1m0n wrote:
I'm saying I'm scared of tying up Congress for more than a year while the impeachment would go on.
Congress has it's own guilt in the matter of the war and the craven way they surrendered their own responsibility to decide on whether or not the US goes to war to the president, but holding the president to account is a primary responsibility of congress. That's one of their most significant jobs; far more important to the constitutional health of the nation than declaring the slime-mould the official fungus of Washington DC, or conducting trade wars with China and the EU.

Trade wars?

Huh?

And wait - I thought that pond scum was the official fungus of D.C.?

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:07 pm

IRTradRU? wrote:Always good to drop in to threads like this for a great laugh.

This one's a keeper.

DO you have anything serious to contribute or is it empty witticisms and smilies?

Doug_Tipple · Post by **Doug_Tipple** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:07 pm

Cranberry wrote:I guess I just get a little bit uncomfortable implying or saying that any individual (even a politician) is going to Heaven or Hell because it's not like we make the descision. When somebody categorically says, "This person is going to Hell," it feels like they are trying to take on powers that don't belong to them.

Rest assured, there is no hell, except here on Earth, as a result of poverty, greed, and corruption.

IRTradRU? · Post by **IRTradRU?** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:13 pm

Wormdiet wrote:
IRTradRU? wrote:Always good to drop in to threads like this for a great laugh.

This one's a keeper.
DO you have anything serious to contribute or is it empty witticisms and smilies?

Hey, my apologies - but when I read such humorous things, I laugh.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:53 pm

IRTradRU? wrote:Always good to drop in to threads like this for a great laugh.

This one's a keeper.

Notice how TradR uses laughing faces to convince us he's funny the same way Bush uses US flags to convince us he's patriotic.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:55 pm

Cranberry wrote:I guess I just get a little bit uncomfortable implying or saying that any individual (even a politician) is going to Heaven or Hell because it's not like we make the descision. When somebody categorically says, "This person is going to Hell," it feels like they are trying to take on powers that don't belong to them.

I can very much relate. I hear this constantly from some people in my circle, and I have to wonder just when they got appointed...

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:33 am

CSPAN will be broadcasting the hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and Pre-War Intelligence again in about a half hour (Friday) at 3 am EST, and then again at 8 pm EST.

Post by **Dale** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:14 am

Impeach me.

I beg you.

missy · Post by **missy** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:58 am

But Dale - what have you done???????

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:48 am

missy wrote:But Dale - what have you done???????

Hmm... perhaps it's better that we don't know? But, like some others, he's asking for it!!

(of course, he's the only one I've heard do it in those actual words)

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:24 pm

For anyone who cares, there is an interesting debate raging in the blawg sphere (blogs about law) on whether lying to the American people in order to start a foreign war would be sufficient grounds for impeachment ("high crimes and misdemeanors," remember?). Yes, I know, it sound like a riculous question framed like that. Brian Leiter makes the point better than I can.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:27 pm

Bloomfield wrote:For anyone who cares, there is an interesting debate raging in the blawg sphere (blogs about law) on whether lying to the American people in order to start a foreign war would be sufficient grounds for impeachment ("high crimes and misdemeanors," remember?). Yes, I know, it sound like a riculous question framed like that. Brian Leiter makes the point better than I can.

When it comes to rationalization, the malleability of the human mind is truly amazing.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:54 pm

I suppose the question really boils down to "Is lying to start a war more, less, or as serious as lying about a blow job?"

If the former or the latter, then the Clinton precedent would surely be a good reason to start the proceedings.

However, a better question is "Can a president be impeached for anything if his party controls both houses?

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:35 am

That's an interesting piece; Brian Leiter's rebuttal of the arguments against impeachment is solid.

S1m0n wrote:However, a better question is "Can a president be impeached for anything if his party controls both houses?

It would take a popular uprising in the form of a mass movement to do the job. This is why the media is no doubt being pressured to downplay the memo.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:43 am

Doug_Tipple wrote:Rest assured, there is no hell, except here on Earth, as a result of poverty, greed, and corruption.

Here is more real to some people than hereafter. I guess that's natural. I, for one, haven't been to the hereafter.