Will Bush be impeached??

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The nature of the Watergate crime was hidden, there aint much hidden about the Bu****es lying us into a war...now...

There wasn't much hidden in 2003 either. Just look at Colin Powel's body language during the infamous UN speech. He knew he was lying, and he wasn't comfortable about it.

I posted about it the day after, but none of the Americans believed me, they were too absorbed by the war propaganda.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Can someone list out the lies, because I still don't see them clearly.

Even the aforementioned Powell body langauge only indicates he was of the same mindset as Bush when Bush asked Tennet is this all you got? Whereupon Tennet said it was a slam dunk.

Lies not so much to my mind in that instance, only a conscious admission that the case for war was weak.


To date the only definitive lie I can remember and attribute to Bush is his steadfast support of Rummy saying Rummy would remains as Sec Def prior to the election when he knew all along he was sacking him.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
ZK: I dont see #1 as very important, any thing can be cooked up if he is unpopular enough.

Isn't his approval rating already in the 30s? Since there will always be some sheltered 30% that would cling to him no matter what, if he isn't unpopular enough to impeach now then he never will be. That's precisely why some clear legal breach needs to be found at best, or at the very least some proof that he knowingly lied leading up to the war (unless 'lying' now includes saying something you believe to be true, and later finding out it was false).

[Zkribbler]

#1 in necessary to trigger a Republican defection.

Remember, it wasn't until the "smoking gun" Watergate tape came to light, that Goldwater and other Republicans walked up Pennslyvania Avenue to tell Nixon that (a) he was certain to be impeached, and (b) he would get maybe 3 votes in the Senate for acquittal and that the rest would vote to convict.


BTW: See Oerdin's thread on mail searches without warrants following Bush's "signing statement" that he no longer needed search warrants to real Americans' mail.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871


...or at the very least some proof that he knowingly lied leading up to the war (unless 'lying' now includes saying something you believe to be true, and later finding out it was false).

Well, there was this Blix guy (whose job it was to know some things about Iraqi WMD's) who told him it was a big lie.

Bush can at best plea willfull ignorance.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by germanos


Well, there was this Blix guy (whose job it was to know some things about Iraqi WMD's) who told him it was a big lie.

Bush can at best plea willfull ignorance.

Quite right, there was such a guy, but unfortunatedly, he wasn't able to do his job. All his "evidence" was bsed on the fact that he was convinced that Bushy had to be wrong since he was a repugincal prez.

I've seen this idiot in an interview, and he couldn't give any clear response to simple questions such as "did saddam have WMD's " etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

BTW: See Oerdin's thread on mail searches without warrants following Bush's "signing statement" that he no longer needed search warrants to real Americans' mail.

Ahem, Oerdin simply and mistakenly put up a fuss about inbound mail being searched from foreign ports of call. That has always been in existance. His ignorance did however allow me an opportunity to put out a related piece of news.

Moi pointed out the signing statement. As for the exigent circumstances exception that seems a matter of law for physical searches in residences and persons so I fail to see why mail would be held to higher standards then persons or residences.

[germanos]

Originally posted by BlackCat

All his "evidence" was bsed on the fact that he was convinced that Bushy had to be wrong since he was a repugincal prez.

Pot, Kettle, Black

ehhh... any 'evidence' for your claims?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos
Well, there was this Blix guy (whose job it was to know some things about Iraqi WMD's) who told him it was a big lie.

As BC said, Blix only came to his own conclusion based on very limited information. As you know, Bush never allowed him to complete the inspections. Even if he had been allowed to complete them, Bush et. al would have simply claimed that the inspectors had been deceived. In either case, nobody objectively knew whether the WMD were ever there until the invasion was over with.

As I said before, even if myriad ulterior motives of Bush et. al were more important to them than WMD, that doesn't mean they didn't believe the WMD existed. And if they believed they existed, then their claims were - by definition - not lies.

Originally posted by Darius871
Secondly, even if knowingly lying while not under oath were a crime (and it isn't), there really is no way to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. As the right is so fond of reminding us (to the point of making it a cliche), President Clinton and Democratic Senators were given the same intel as Bush and came to the same conclusion about Iraqi WMD.

Even IF Bush indeed launched a war of aggression just to steal Iraqi oil/raise global oil prices to enrich his oil buddies' profit margins/create a strategic noose to prepare for invading Iran/inflate the 'terrist' bogeyman to perpetuate the military-industrial complex's funding and influence/acquire another plank in the NWO to accelerate the Bilderberger Illuminati's global fascist police state/harvest Arab babies for Ariel Sharon's breakfast/whathaveyou, that doesn't mean he actually knew Iraq had no WMD.

More likely he and/or his handlers probably concluded WMD would be found, and thus that casus belli would be established after the fact. If that was the case then nobody lied per se; rather they said what they believed to be the truth whilst remaining quiet about ulterior motives. If lying were an impeachable offense that wouldn't qualify anyhow.

Pretty much the only thing that would amount to a smoking gun is an oval office tape recording of the guy saying "this report unequivocally proves to us that Iraq has no WMD nor any active WMD program, but I'm throwing it in the fireplace right now so the foolish masses will believe our lies! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11one." Good luck finding that.

Personally, I think the admin's more explicit violations of the Constitution would make a far better case for impeachment. All that would require is a paper trail of approval leading to the Oval Office (to preclude scapegoating), and congressional investigations with subpoena power could dig up that trail with ease.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871

And if they believed they existed, then their claims were not lies.

Wasn't Slick Willy impeached fror just that?

"I did not have a sexual relationship with that women"

And yes, he got out because of just that as well: the man really beleived a blow job was not sex

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos


Wasn't Slick Willy impeached fror just that?

"I did not have a sexual relationship with that women"

And yes, he got out because of just that as well: the man really beleived a blow job was not sex

Well, I'd never step into your strawman's outfit and defend Clinton's impeachment.

Anyways, there was no chance that he'd get a 2/3 conviction, while this thread (I presume) is about Bush being removed for real. That would require hard evidence that semantic games can't slither out of.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by germanos


Pot, Kettle, Black

ehhh... any 'evidence' for your claims?

Well, I'm in a bit of trouble here since that program ran on DR2 wich isn't exactly youtube material.

Though, it still remains that Blix stated that according to the inspections there was no evidence, but it was also without any doubt that the inspectors hadn't been allowed to check all what they wanted - you can howl just as crazy as you want, but since it was so, it was still reasonable to belive that there was WMD's.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The thread says Impreachment not conviction in the Senate, the later cant happen untill after the former and is far less likly, I think most of the people commenting so far are aware of the difference and have refered only to an impeachment senario like Clintons.

Also dont neglect the possibility of double think, Bush could very well know their are no WMD and at the same time belive his own propaganda about them. Likewise he probably belives all that bringing democracy to the middle east stuff and at the same time knows he's doing this for personal vengence and to get the Oil. Dont be fooled into the false dicotomy that he must be either a totaly cynical master mind OR a totaly naieve beliver of everything he says, I can and in all liklyhood IS as are most polititians. The higher ranking they are the MORE their affected by doublethink. We Poly-ers are quite the oposite, we try the utmost to maintain logical coheasion between our ideas and beliefs, simultaniously beliving two mutualy irreconsilable things is almost inconcivable. Yet its the only explination that offers us any insight into the political process.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Your analogy to Nixon, which you seem to be trying to use to refute me, actually makes my case: the Dems spent two years painstakingly investigating his crimes before they tiptoed toward impeachment. That's how it should happen now.

Then why do you keep arguing with me when I write about investigations?!? Investigations are part of the impeachment process!!!

You're right that being pragmatic without standing for something is how the Dems got where they are; but standing for something without being pragmatic is how the Left got where it is, and that's one small, cold, lonely place.

It depends on your definition of left. The hard left, where I am, was deliberately destroyed from without. Only once they were reduced to irrelevancy did they begin tearing each other apart over "principled" hair-splitting. The Democrats, on the other hand, compromised without principle. They rolled over for Ronald Reagan like a ***** in heat, and I see little indication they've recovered.

Right now, the only reason the Dems are in power is because they aren't the GOP. That's not a platform that can sustain them for long.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's just interesting to me how the right says that they are not fascist. Even wants to rewrite history and say that they were anti-fascist during the 40s (when they gave Franklin Roosevelt grief with the New Deal). But really they snuggle up to avowed fascists right here on this board.

Opposing a welfare state is not fascistic, moron-sophist. Oh...and are you conceding my earlier point, since you've stooped to the "he does it too" style of argument?