Nader calls for impeachment

May 31, 2005 8:04 PM

The "I" Word: Ralph Nader calls for impeachment. In addition to Nader, various groups—including veterans—have announced a campaign to seek congressional help to investigate whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. Let's hope Nader and the others don't get tagged with the "T" Word (Treason). Again and again and again and again and again and again, strange things seem to happen to those who criticize the Bush admin's policies: What cost [Ret. Maj. Gen.] Riggs his star? Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.
posted by jenleigh (127 comments total)

It is about time someone mentioned the 'word that must not be mentioned'. For the love of god, let the flame war begin!
quickly running out to burn an effigy of W.
posted by wuakeen at 8:14 PM on May 31, 2005

Does the "I" word stand for impale?
posted by HyperBlue at 8:25 PM on May 31, 2005

My first thought was that it would have been a little more impactful if someone else wrote it. Like a Republican senator. Or Jesus.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:29 PM on May 31, 2005

Norman Solomon: Impeachment Fever and Media Politics
posted by muckster at 8:31 PM on May 31, 2005

I think the talk of impeachment is simply a huge fantasy of the leftists and Democrats; it's just not going to happen. But some of the linked articles just baffle me. "Strange things" happen to those who criticize the Admin's policies? Get real. For instance, from this link:

After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war...he lost his job as President Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months.
What?! You mean that someone who disagreed with the President about the job he was doing was no longer considered the best man for the job? Heavens to Betsy! /snark/ Please. If I'm the President, I sure as hell would want someone representing me who agreed with my decisions and reasons. I wouldn't begrudge any President the right to select people who agree with his policies.

Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war.
Wrong. People have been arrested for things such as disorderly conduct, or blocking traffic, or such. "Protesting the war" is not something that you can be arrested for. The manner in which you go about, however, can lead to arrest, fines, etc.

(Tim) Robbins said they were called "traitors" and "supporters of Saddam" and their public appearances at a United Way luncheon...and the Baseball Hall of Fame...were cancelled in reaction to their anti-war stance.
Boo-freaking-hoo. They don't a Constitutional right to be the guest speakers at any given event. If I'm organizing a event and invite them to be speakers, and then learn that they had molested sheep (for instance), then I would disinvite them.
posted by davidmsc at 8:32 PM on May 31, 2005

Lots of people get arrested for protesting. They just don't get charged with anything. Big difference.
posted by dreamsign at 8:33 PM on May 31, 2005

davimsc: "If I'm the President, I sure as hell would want someone representing me who is a complete toady and lacks his own ideas. I want some sycophant yes men to lick my . . . boots."
posted by caddis at 8:37 PM on May 31, 2005

There were people arrested for just walking down the street at the wrong time...and then held for 3 days without a lawyer, and forced to sleep on a greasy floor. I don't care what political persuasion you might be, that was wrong. Dead wrong.

As for impeachment, it is a fantasy. This Congress, for the most part, is a puppet of the White House. And, though the lame duck is quacking, they certainly are not going to impeach him on the way out. They should. But won't.

Metafilter...molesting sheep.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:40 PM on May 31, 2005

davismcs,

in fact they do, and then the cops file bogus charges. There was clear video of the NYPD mounted units pushing people into the street, and arresting them for "blocking traffic" and stuff.

I recall the show was called the freedom project or something.
posted by MrLint at 8:45 PM on May 31, 2005

i asked a clown at the coffee shop who decided without asking if it was ok - to make himself at home at my table... with his W sticker plastered to back of his laptop.

when i asked: a. if he the sticker was put there in jest... then b. what he would say to the families of the the 10's of thousands of iraqi civilians who have been killed since bush started his war based on lies .... he looked at me with a stupid look then put his headphones on and buried his moronic face in his laptop.
posted by specialk420 at 9:09 PM on May 31, 2005

Yes, caddis, when you're elected President, I look forward to your cabinet appointments...I'm sure that there will be a wide range of political ideology, motivations, and ideas...why, I'm sure that 1/2 of your cabinet will be people who disagree with you on major policy issues!
posted by davidmsc at 9:11 PM on May 31, 2005

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
posted by a thousand writers drunk at the keyboard at 9:11 PM on May 31, 2005

Was it y2karl or amberglow who hacked jenleigh's account?
posted by orthogonality at 9:16 PM on May 31, 2005

Go Ralph go. Bush lied and thousands of people died as a result. I just don't see it (an impeachment) happening though.
posted by marxchivist at 9:20 PM on May 31, 2005

Impeach the sonfabitch. Hell yeah.
posted by mwhybark at 9:20 PM on May 31, 2005

davidmsc: Don't forget Gen. Eric Shinseki. 40 years of service and his right foot left behind in Vietnam, and he was humiliated and basically fired after he correctly predicted that the Bush Administration's troop level estimates for the war were incorrect.

ortho: I thought it was you.
posted by MLIS at 9:24 PM on May 31, 2005

Was it y2karl or amberglow who hacked jenleigh's account?
Not me. I think jenleigh's posting it to associate Nader (nutcase) with the term. I bet it becomes common very soon. How inventive they are--Kennedy and Hillary aren't associated with crazy as much as Nader, in their eyes. He's discredited by the right and the left.

If we can take back the Senate in 06, we can start hearings. It's a staple of every Republican second term for ages. Watergate, Iran/Contra, Iraq War? He's totally and undeniably guilty, and there's plenty of proof. Time to chImpeach--definitely.

The fact that every single person to come forward speaking of this Administration's criminal behavior is the subject of a massive campaign to slime and spin tells you that they have plenty to worry about.
posted by amberglow at 9:27 PM on May 31, 2005

There's a sale at Penney's!
posted by raysmj at 9:33 PM on May 31, 2005

And lets not forget the whispering campaign against Richard Clarke.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."
posted by MLIS at 9:34 PM on May 31, 2005

I think jenleigh's posting it to associate Nader (nutcase) with the term.

?

What I posted is what you get. I don't see how my wording could have misled you ("Again and again and again and again and again and again, strange things seem to happen to those who criticize the Bush admin's policies"). And there was not a hint of editorializing on Nader being a "nutcase".
posted by jenleigh at 9:34 PM on May 31, 2005

This whole administration has gotten away with a lot more than many of us thought possible, but it's got to come to an end.

You can fool all of the people some of the time...
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:35 PM on May 31, 2005

Davidmsc: Avoiding the topic at all cost! I bet he pulls a dios soon and critics the messenger!
posted by Freen at 9:39 PM on May 31, 2005

jenleigh, what do you think tho? Should he be impeached?
And isn't it just payback and revenge to those who speak out, as well as sending a warning message to those who might someday do so? A bunch of people have come forward with various things, and sometimes they only are disagreeing, not revealing anything--and we've seen the same pattern play out in each case.

I personally wouldn't associate Nader with anything except for his old consumer advocacy--that's all i see as worthwhile--certainly not his opinion on Bush, which has been clear for years.
posted by amberglow at 9:53 PM on May 31, 2005

wishful thinking: I'd like to see Colin Powell come forward, actually--would they do to him what they did to the others?
posted by amberglow at 9:55 PM on May 31, 2005

yeah lets impeach the guy that almost half the country put back in office, thats a great idea.

while we are at it lets think of other ways of subverting democracy, as if the right isn't doing a good enough job on their own.
posted by nola at 10:04 PM on May 31, 2005

they impeached Clinton, nola...for lying about a blowjob. This certainly is way more worthy, no?
posted by amberglow at 10:05 PM on May 31, 2005

yeah lets impeach the guy that almost half the country put back in office, thats a great idea.

actually, 30% of the country put him back in office, what with voter turnout being only about 56.9%.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:11 PM on May 31, 2005

jenleigh, what do you think tho? Should he be impeached?

I think, as some have said, there is more than enough evidence to justify him being formally investigated, a sentiment I'd assumed had shone through in the post, though I already wish I could retract the editorialization. I'll stop now to avoid nannying over the thread....
posted by jenleigh at 10:12 PM on May 31, 2005

Well, let's hope my 'Impeach Bush' sign gets some usage here. . . .
I'll believe it when I see it though. Along with seeing Feith, Franklin, Perle, Chalabi, et all doing the perp walk. . . Dare to dream. . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:14 PM on May 31, 2005

Freen, don't be an asshole. Davidmsc, made a valid point about the President wanting people in his administration that agreed with the administration's policies.
posted by veedubya at 10:16 PM on May 31, 2005

Along with seeing Feith, Franklin, Perle, Chalabi, et all doing the perp walk. . . Dare to dream. . .

Just start calling them "unindicted co-conspirators" a la Watergate. ; >
posted by amberglow at 10:18 PM on May 31, 2005

Impeachment? Can't we try the asshole for treason?
posted by iamck at 10:21 PM on May 31, 2005

Sadly, torturing logic and the English language are not prosecutable offenses. If they were, Bush would be disassembling under oath right now.

On preview: I think Powell may have torched a civilian hooch or two back when. Cheney OK'd the Highway O' Death move at the end of Gulf I. Rumsfeld et alia overlooked Saddam's use of chemical weapons during the Eighties. Gonzales obfuscated on torture. Someone in the current Administration outed Plame.

Shared guilt ties the hands of most anyone with the kind of access needed to pull off an impeachment. That, Republican control of Congress, and the expiration of the Independent Counsel legislation are why it won't happen.

If our laws meant anything, these people would be RICO'd. That won't happen either.
posted by trondant at 10:28 PM on May 31, 2005

That would be a point if this was about "yes men". This is a point about people who did agree with the President, but when they realized something was seriously wrong, and their conscience got the better of them, the president did everything in his power to smear them.

Not really the same thing. In fact, a wholly different affair altogether.

Davidmsc just doesn't want to talk about former members of the current administration who have spoken out against this administration's policies.
posted by Freen at 10:35 PM on May 31, 2005

I liked Tim Robbins until I found out he molested sheep.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:12 PM on May 31, 2005

Freen, you're right -- I don't want to talk about former members of the current administration who have spoken out against this administration's policies -- because I think that they are largely wrong. I supported President Bush's decision then, and I support it now. I'll grant that some of the criticism of the military tactics used (troop strength, armored vehicles etc) may be legitimate, but I dismiss those who cry "Empire!" and "Bush lied, people died!"
posted by davidmsc at 11:18 PM on May 31, 2005

Davidmsc, given what we now know about the evidence for invading Iraq, and given that we now know how bad the results of that invasion have been, and (seemingly) will continue to be, how can you still support the decision to invade?

I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
posted by veedubya at 11:31 PM on May 31, 2005

....strange things seem to happen to those who critisze the bush admin's policies: He served as assistant to the secretary of defense for space policy and on the Pentagon Defense Science Board and the U.S. Intelligence Board under President Carter. Mr. Weiss was a foreign affairs officer and member of the National Security Council under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan.

In 1976, he was awarded the French Legion of Honor award for his work in facilitating a joint venture between General Electric Co.'s aircraft engine division and the French jet engine company SNECMA that led to the creation of the best-selling jet engine in aviation history, the CFM56.

Mr. Weiss also was involved in numerous intelligence projects, and friends said there were many aspects of his career he could never discuss with them.

'He was wired into the intelligence community, and there were a lot of mystical secrets we weren't privy to,' said Harris Gilbert, a Nashville attorney who had been friends with Mr. Weiss since childhood. 'He was very interested in diplomatic strategy and was very, very opposed to the Iraq war. It was the first military action he ever opposed, but he believed we shouldn't go to war in the Middle East without knowing what we were getting into.'

Other friends said Mr. Weiss remained politically neutral despite spending much of his career in government service. 'He just devoted himself to academia and public service,' said Jane Eskind, a social activist here and former Tennessee political candidate, who also had been friends with Mr. Weiss since childhood.

'The thing about him that was most remarkable was that he remained a totally apolitical public servant in a very partisan environment.'

After graduating from Vanderbilt University, Mr. Weiss worked for a year at his family's upscale clothing store here, Gus Mayer.

He then went on to earn a master's degree in business administration from Harvard University and a doctorate in economics from New York University.

During his career in government service, Mr. Weiss won the Intelligence Medal of Merit, the Exceptional Service Medal from NASA and the Cipher Medal from the National Security Agency. He published several papers on the intelligence and engineering projects he worked on after information about the projects was declassified.

Survivors include Lillian Weiss, his 100-year-old aunt from New York City, and several cousins.

A funeral for Mr. Weiss will be held at 1 p.m. today at the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Home in New York City. He will be buried at a family cemetery plot in Brooklyn.
A classic "drop" from the manual. (cia asassination)
posted by hortense at 11:46 PM on May 31, 2005

actually, 30% of the country put him back in office, what with voter turnout being only about 56.9%

well i should qualify my earlier remake by saying slightly more than half of those who showed up.

they impeached Clinton, nola...for lying about a blowjob. This certainly is way more worthy, no?

"they" do allot of things that i will never do.


Impeachment? Can't we try the asshole for treason?

i'm loath to nit pick, and parse words here, but i'm with
iamck, i think treason, is the word we are looking for, impeachment is to good for him . impeachment makes me think of popular descent. treason, seems like a legal case that either may or may not be made. i don't know this just a thought.
posted by nola at 11:50 PM on May 31, 2005

Hussein was a threat to the entire region: gassing his own people, hundreds of thousands dead in his war with Iran, his brutal invasion of Kuwait, lobbing missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, and making target practice of our planes and troops every day since the end of the "first" Gulf War. That's just the "above the surface" stuff -- the torture that he inflicted on his own people is on a par with any of the madmen of history.

And based on what we AND the entire rest of the world thought we knew back in 2002/2003, disarming him was the right thing to do. 9/11 was the proverbial wake-up call, and the manner in which we dealt with all "rogue" regimes had to be re-evaluated in a new context. Hussein had been trouble for over a decade, with no sign of ever giving up nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons.

Hindsight? Yes, the threat that he posed probably was not as significant as he wanted the world to believe. But remember: he could have defused the entire situation -- the whole war -- all by himself. He chose not to -- and opted instead to up his bluff. He lost. And remember: it was not just US intelligence that believed Hussein posed a greater than he did: virtually all intelligence agencies believed he had more capability than we have found evidence of to date.

And now here we are. I believe that the world is a better place -- for America, for freedom, and other nations who choose freedom over tyranny, dictatorship, or statism. In the long run, it was the right decision, though it is painful and costly to us right now in terms of blood & treasure.

So - how's that, veedubya?
posted by davidmsc at 11:51 PM on May 31, 2005

p.s. my point is i don't like going against a democratically elected president with out strong legal ground, i think it is undemocratic, and to be avoided.
posted by nola at 11:52 PM on May 31, 2005

So - how's that, veedubya?


you didn't ask me but i'll answer anyway.

that is the party line, and you can shove it way up your ass.
posted by nola at 11:54 PM on May 31, 2005

Oh, shut up, Ralph Nader, you fuckwitted old coot. Here's a thought: instead of taking money from the GOP to fund your campaign for President, you could have used that money to campaign for Gore or Kerry. Had one of them won, we wouldn't have to listen to you call for Bush's impeachment.

Fuck you, Ralph Nader. Whatever credibility and significance you earned was swiftly blown to hell when you exposed yourself as a puppet for the GOP. Get off my side. You're making my side look stupid.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:17 AM on June 1, 2005

If I can make a quick stab at these points -

"Hussein was a threat to the entire region:
gassing his own people, hundreds of thousands dead in his war with Iran, his brutal invasion of Kuwait"
All of these had our tacit approval.

And based on what we AND the entire rest of the world thought we knew back in 2002/2003, disarming him was the right thing to do.
Most sensible people knew he had nothing. We screamed about him having nothing.

9/11 was the proverbial wake-up call
We never started bombing Northern Ireland. I don't quite think that you'd have supported us had we done so. Not really a war on terror as such. More a war on Islam.

...and the manner in which we dealt with all "rogue" regimes had to be re-evaluated in a new context.
Strange then how we went after the least threatening ones first.

Hussein had been trouble for over a decade, with no sign of ever giving up nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons.
And why would he? We sold him the last two and he never had the first. Would you like it if I took away something you paid for?

...threat that he posed probably was not as significant as he wanted the world to believe. But remember: he could have defused the entire situation -- the whole war -- all by himself. He chose not to...
Again - Saddam was asking before the deadline to allow the weapon inspectors back in unimpeded - the invasion went ahead despite this.

And remember: it was not just US intelligence that believed Hussein posed a greater than he did: virtually all intelligence agencies believed he had more capability than we have found evidence of to date.
Most of them relying on faulty data or worse, making the data fit the facts that we wanted to have the excuse to go to war.

...I believe that the world is a better place -- for America, for freedom, and other nations who choose freedom over tyranny, dictatorship, or statism. In the long run, it was the right decision, though it is painful and costly to us right now in terms of blood & treasure...
The costs incurred right now are significant but I will bet you that it's a democrat administration that starts paying off this debt.

So - how's that, veedubya?
If you'll forgive me it's an extraordinarily poor reading of history. No disrespect intended - I know you are a proud one but your facts are exceedingly thin on the ground. My apologies if you feel my arguments don't convince you, I haven't provided links - these matters have been hashed out so many times on MeFi the only reason you wouldn't be aware of any of them is through choice.
posted by longbaugh at 12:32 AM on June 1, 2005

you know ralph is 71 years old and looks fit enough to whoop dubya's ass in just about anything except a presidental election held in america.

i guess they were right about life not being fair.

on preview what longbaugh said.
posted by tsarfan at 12:34 AM on June 1, 2005

fandango_matt - I have a theory on that. We all knew the vote could be hacked/stolen before the election. It happened in 2000, and with more electronic voting machines and ballot counters the chances of it happening in 2004 were even better. My theory is that Nader guessed that the GOP would be fixing the vote, and that Kerry would roll over and do nothing about it. So Nader did whatever was necessary to get on the ballot in the states where it would be close enough to rig the vote - i.e. Florida, Ohio, Nevada, etc. Then when the election was thrown, he was able to challenge the outcome because he was a presidential candidate. You can't challenge the vote if you aren't on the ballot. If he took GOP money to get on the ballot, that's just more money that can't be spent papering the poor districts with flyers that say "Vote Nov. 3rd".
posted by yentruoc at 1:03 AM on June 1, 2005

So - how's that, veedubya? -davidmsc

you didn't ask me but i'll answer anyway.

that is the party line, and you can shove it way up your ass.
posted by nola at 1:54 AM CST on June 1 [!]

Let me get this straight. Davidmsc is asked to explain his position, and he does without an ounce of attitude, and your answer is "shove it up your ass"?

Metafilter discussion at its finest.
posted by justgary at 1:17 AM on June 1, 2005

Touché, longbaugh.
posted by wsg at 1:32 AM on June 1, 2005

We now know for certain, thanks to the Downing Street memo, that the desire to attack Iraq came first, and the desire to find any data, no matter how blatently unreliable the source, to back up that desire, came second.

Whatever comes last takes the biscuit.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:38 AM on June 1, 2005

And based on what we AND the entire rest of the world thought we knew back in 2002/2003,

I dispute this strongly. No one who was paying attention really believed that Bush Co. was being honest, not even back in 2002/2003. In fact, legions knew that he was lying -- based on reams of evidence that has been re-hashed here hundreds of times and has been available to everyone for long enough that I won't regurgitate it again -- and the public opinion didn't start to sway until the war was already underway and the sheeples decided "well, we're in the war, and it would be unpatriotic not too support it," and then lied to themselves about their former, perfectly legitimate misgivings.

Islam, believe it or not, was, at one time, a relatively peaceful religion (and certainly a tolerant one). Three hundred years of Crusades cured them of that. Now our mentally-defective Commander-in-Chief has chosen to give them more reasons to hate us, all because of his funny-mentalism.

You are doing a great job, Georgie. I'm just so fucking proud to be an American.
posted by Chasuk at 2:17 AM on June 1, 2005

I don't really see how impeachment is an effective move at any point in the near future - you've got a Republican-controlled House and Senate that would never vote to impeach unless Bush were seen killing someone on live television. And I somehow doubt that the Democrats are going to grow the necessary spines at any point in the near future even if they won back majorities in 2006.

I don't even see any revelations making Bush so toxic that the rest of the Republicans rush to disassociate themselves from him - I mean really, what can be the breaking point? We've seen so much crap come out on him, and nothing has stuck. What's going to change that?
posted by graymouser at 2:56 AM on June 1, 2005

No one who was paying attention really believed that Bush Co. was being honest, not even back in 2002/2003.

People have such short attention spans. I can remember a few days after 9/11 and Saddam had strongly condemned the WTO attack. I thought to myself... "damn right he's condemning it, he know's it's the excuse America is looking to kick ass."

And they did. With no real reason to. (the dogs on the street knew Saddam was not a threat - maybe to his own people, but when has that been a reason to invade a country)

Impeach the arrogant War criminal and put him on trial beside Saddam. Now that would be an event!
posted by twistedonion at 3:15 AM on June 1, 2005

What specific law(s) has W broken?
posted by alumshubby at 3:51 AM on June 1, 2005

Sort of OT, but did anyone else read davidmsc's first comment and picture him in 1940's clothing with a fedora and the voice of Edward G. Robinson? It's a fantasy, see? Not gonna happen! Nyah!

"Leftists?" 23 Skiddoo, flyboy!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:13 AM on June 1, 2005

1960s: UnAmerican Activities
2000s: Anti-American Activities

40 years and the only thing that's changed is the prefix.
posted by blag at 4:27 AM on June 1, 2005

Nola:
"p.s. my point is i don't like going against a democratically elected president with out strong legal ground, i think it is undemocratic, and to be avoided."

Rich. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood (as he blows away Gene Hackman in *Unforgiven*), for quite some time democracy's had nothing to do with it.
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:31 AM on June 1, 2005

alumshubby: I don't fully understand US law, but the Downing Street Memo may be evidence of a conspiracy to commit fraud. Sadly, stupidity and poor decision-making aren't actionable offences.
posted by blag at 4:31 AM on June 1, 2005

What specific law(s) has W broken?

Invasion of a sovereign state is the biggie in my eyes.

That then led to the death's of 10s of thousands of civilians along with 1,000's of soldiers led into an illegal war. As Commander in Chief he is directly responsible.
posted by twistedonion at 4:41 AM on June 1, 2005

And based on what we AND the entire rest of the world thought we knew back in 2002/2003

I'm adding just a little to what others have said here -- Everyone who had read a decent amount of real, credible pieces of news about Iraq in 2002/2003 knew that Iraq was not a "slam dunk." I was blatantly obvious in article after article.

The only reason some of us were willing to even concede that there might have been a shread of legitimate reason was the confidential information the president's administration claimed to have. And we became increasingly cynical about even that information once facts in the State of the Union speech about uranium processing canisters was discredited, and Colin Powell's speech before the UN was taken apart (including leaks of infomration about his supposed outburst about what he was being asked to say).

Now, all justifications have fallen down, and we even have evidence of the administration's plans for deception.

If we can expect to have consequences for anything, isn't this one of those things -- even with Republican control of all levels of government?

twistedonion is right. Invasion of a soverign state. Making up facts to tell the world that it was in grave danger from a soverign state, and then invading that country under the guise of liberation.
posted by VulcanMike at 4:52 AM on June 1, 2005

It's all OK because Saddam was a bad guy. And besides, it's better to be fighting terrorism over there instead of over here.

(there's always a justification for war -- war creates justifications.)
posted by surplus at 4:59 AM on June 1, 2005

TwistedOnion - can you point to a statute that outlaws that? Or even some common law? Otherwise, you're just bloviating. Things aren't illegal just because you want them to be or think they should be.

I'm not aware of a law against invasion of a sovereign state. Got a citation?
posted by swerdloff at 5:05 AM on June 1, 2005

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4.

"... those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." --Alexander Hamilton, March 7, 1788 in "The Federalist Papers : No. 65." (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed65.htm)

In 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford "defined impeachable offenses as 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'" [1] (http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/offenses.html)
from SourceWatch
posted by VulcanMike at 5:22 AM on June 1, 2005

* Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
o Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the “supreme law of the land.” The article reads:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

* Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.
o Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]

* Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [UN Charter]

* Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
o Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.

* Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.
o Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. [Kellog-Briand Treaty of 1928] As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, “War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.” [cited in Dawn, 11/13/01]

* The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
o Summary. The resolution authorized the President to use military force only against those countries and groups responsible for the September 11 attacks. The resolution stated: “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” [Joint Congressional Resolution 23, 9/18/01]
more here
posted by VulcanMike at 5:29 AM on June 1, 2005

Not trying to be snarky here -- I'm actually sympathetic to the prevailing sentiment -- but "invasion of a sovereign state"?

First, is there really a law against that on the books?

And if there is, lots of Presidents could have been impeached with that one. At the direction of various Presidents, the US military has invaded various African, Asian, Micronesian, Latin American, and European countries that were sovereign, no? (And in the 1860s, the US even invaded itself.) So is this instance is legally different...how?

Remember that impeachment isn't just a political expediency. I didn't like the blatantly politically motivated impeachment of Clinton, but there is a law against lying under oath -- it's an act of perjury. As far as I know, Bush hasn't perjured himself in any lies he's told while President. I don't like the idea of "making up facts to tell the world...and then invading," but there has to be clear evidence that the President has violated some law(s) for impeachment to be possible.

On preview...VulcanMike, I'm dubious. That sounds almost like making up the law as you go and applying it retroactively. I could be wrong here, but that's not the way criminal law usually works in the US, is it? And if it's not, what kind of Pandora's box would this open?
posted by alumshubby at 5:30 AM on June 1, 2005

I only recently learned that Cheney had done the same thing during the cold war regarding a supposed buildup of submarine threats to America. Cheney had said that the USSR had undergone a massive military expansion -- that the lack of evidence for this was actually evidence for it, because those sneaky Russians are either doing it in public or in private, no two ways about it. When the FBI said that there was NO accoustic evidence of increased submarine activity, Cheney replied that this must be evidence that the Soviets have a non-accoustic means of submarine propulsion. This is all documented in The Power of Nightmares. To the neocons, this is a (relatively) old game. Those seeing parallels with McCarthyism are dead on.

This has all been done before, and, when you think about it, only very recently in history has there been and prescription against the use of force for domestic economic purposes, necessitating this kind of subterfuge. Just look at the colonial age. Unabashed warmongering for economic prosperity. Things have NOT changed.
posted by dreamsign at 5:37 AM on June 1, 2005

alumshubby, several things come to mind:

Illegal invasion;
Violation of the Geneva Conventions;
Active condoning of torture... in fact, he spent a lot of effort figuring out how we could torture 'enemy combatants', 'legally'. The justification is paper-thin and won't stand up to any real court case in an international court.

And the biggie: treason. He swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has, instead, done more to dismantle it than any other single person in our country's history.
posted by Malor at 5:38 AM on June 1, 2005

As to "what law has been broken"...I'm sure there will be a giant threadpile on that note soon, but let's begin with the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power of the purse.

According to Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" (based on his unprecedented access to this White House, and not in dispute), in July 2002 Bush ordered $700M diverted from the Afghan War appropriation without the knowledge or consent of Congress, to begin preparations to invade Iraq.

Here's the relevant clause:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

More detail on Bush's blatant disregard for the Constitution here,David J. Sirota, "The $700 Million Question", The American Prospect Online, Apr 23, 2004.

(on preview: the threadpile has begun)
posted by edverb at 5:38 AM on June 1, 2005

Invasion of a sovereign state begun well before seeking authorization from congress, which has the sole authority to take the country to war. Lying to congress and the American people to justify said authorization. Approval of torture and other violations of standing international laws and treaties concerning the conduct of war by sovereign states.

How's that for a start? This guy wadded up the constitution and the Geneva conventions and used them for toilet paper. Scratch below that and there are probably hundreds of prosecutable offenses. All we want is an investigation by a special prosecutor to begin with. If he's done nothing wrong, there's nothing to fear. Remember that logic from Blowjob-gate?

Impeachment is too civilized.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:39 AM on June 1, 2005

Oops, I didn't see VulcanMike's second post when replying...just his first one.

If you think you can get Dubya for violating any of those, go for it, but I doubt there's going to be a lot of support among a Republican-controlled Congress for the UN-charter violation one. Better to get Dubya to testify to Congress under oath and catch him lying...there's even precedent for that.
posted by alumshubby at 5:39 AM on June 1, 2005

As far as I know, Bush hasn't perjured himself in any lies he's told while President.

Here's his letter informing Congress that he intend to avail himself of the authorization to use force in Iraq (emphasis added):

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

There's a boldfaced lie to Congress, a statement he knew to be false, over his signature.
posted by edverb at 5:50 AM on June 1, 2005

Alumshubby: how is checking the terms of a treaty ratified in 1945 against a present-day conflict "retroactive"? I think a better word would be "applicable".

For that matter, how is quoting the terms of the UN charter "making up the law as you go"?

Seems to me that "making up the law as you go" means stuff like declaring people "enemy combatants" to get around the Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs, declaring torture not to be torture, and deciding that US law does not apply to US treatment of US prisoners if they happen to be in Cuba.
posted by flabdablet at 5:59 AM on June 1, 2005

Didn't the law enabling special prosecutors get sunsetted out of existence after the Clinton flap? How do you even get started on something like this?
posted by alumshubby at 6:00 AM on June 1, 2005

flabdablet, had you been paying closer attention, you would have noticed my remark that I didn't see that post before I replied. To repeat: If you think you can impeach a sitting president for violating the UN charter, go for it. It would make for interesting political theater in the current US regime, but as a practical exercise it wouldn't get very far. (As to whether it should, well....)
posted by alumshubby at 6:04 AM on June 1, 2005

We'll see what happens in the 06 elections--there are still many many questions unanswered, and if an impeachment helps answer those, it'll be more than worth it. Holding a president accountable can only be done in very few ways--impeachment is one of them.
posted by amberglow at 6:06 AM on June 1, 2005

Things aren't illegal just because you want them to be or think they should be.

Tell that to your President!
posted by twistedonion at 6:14 AM on June 1, 2005

"If I'm the President, I sure as hell would want someone representing me who is a complete toady and lacks his own ideas. I want some sycophant yes men to lick my . . . boots."

"If you're dumb, surround yourself with people smarter than you. If you're smart, surround yourself with people who disagree with you."
- Isaac Jaffe
posted by davelog at 6:15 AM on June 1, 2005

Seems to me most of you are too young to remember how "impossible" the Nixon impeachment/resignation seemed just before it all started to blow. Few people saw it coming.

And of course, today the "main stream media" is just too liberally biased to be trusted, so they will jump all over this and railroad "W" out of office.

Oh, wait, that won't happen, because the MSM is owned by the Rethuglicans.
posted by mooncrow at 6:56 AM on June 1, 2005

So - how's that, veedubya?

Now I'm sure a) he's on the payroll, b) he is worse than ignorant, and c) he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Let's keep him as a nasty pet.
posted by acrobat at 7:47 AM on June 1, 2005

yentruoc writes "If he took GOP money to get on the ballot, that's just more money that can't be spent papering the poor districts with flyers that say 'Vote Nov. 3rd'."
Did this actually happen?

VulcanMike writes "The only reason some of us were willing to even concede that there might have been a shread of legitimate reason was the confidential information the president's administration claimed to have."

The only reason I felt at that time that Saddam may have so called WMDs was this confidential information. That information consisting of the serial numbers and descriptions of all the WMD the US had funnelled Iraq's way whether legally or in some underhanded Iran-Contra type deal.
posted by Mitheral at 7:54 AM on June 1, 2005

Please channel your disgruntlement into a clear demand to the Democratic National Committee to field a credible, statesmen- (or woman-) like candidate for 2008. (I'm assuming that while the RNC's in thrall it's up to the loyal opposition to steer us back to the center). Someone besides Hilary, who'll do nothing but bring out the hyenas sniffing for blood. Let's have a real change for Christ's sake.....
posted by Pressed Rat at 7:55 AM on June 1, 2005

Why would a republican congress vote to impeach Bush if the media is asleep on the job? The media has not adequately covered the issue of Bush's misleading the country over the war in Iraq. There is no reason to believe that they will cover any impeachment process with enough integrity to override the partisan squelching of the judicial process. The political process has been largely hijacked, and the media is complicit because it's owned by a few people who are more interested in making money than reporting the truth, let alone educating the public. Gloom. Doom. And why doesn't www.chomskytorrents.org work anymore?
posted by mert at 8:03 AM on June 1, 2005

Personally, I prefer the L Word to the I word, but they're all good words.
posted by indiebass at 8:08 AM on June 1, 2005

I have a conservative friend, who before the war in Iraq stated that if no WMD were found then Bush should be tried for war crimes. Not believing that there were any WMD, I could only smirk. Maybe some higher agency should be looking at this?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:17 AM on June 1, 2005

And why doesn't www.chomskytorrents.org work anymore?

I noticed a couple of days ago there were a few messages on the discussion board saying they were having problems with bandwidth/downtime/technical shit... be a shame if they don't get it back up and running, was turning into a brilliant resource
posted by twistedonion at 8:32 AM on June 1, 2005

Mitheral: I don't know about actually accepting cash, but Nader accepted the help of Republicans.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement.
posted by MLIS at 8:39 AM on June 1, 2005

there is more than enough evidence to justify him being formally investigated...

This is a sentiment becoming more and more widely shared.

There is a strange disconnect in America at the moment, with the press partly to blame but in the position to do something about it, or at least explain it. You may be surprised to learn that nearly 6 in 10 Americans feel the Iraq war is "not worth it," according to a recent Gallup poll. Exactly 50% feel that President Bush "deliberately misled" them on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and virtually the same number call the war an out-and-out "mistake." More than 56% now say the war is going badly for the United States. Gallup also recently found that 46% of those polled say we should start withdrawing troops...

That's why every week when we consult Gallup, I'm always surprised to find the growing public doubts about the war. Most of the time, in our work and play, you'd hardly know a war was going on. There is more opposition to this war than there was in 1968 with regard to Vietnam, yet far less public and editorial protest. That 57% of Americans say the war is "not worth it" is haunting: such clarity, and such acceptance...

...[Dr. Frank] Newport [editor in chief of the Gallup Poll]: "I believe it's more important in people's minds than many think it is. It's incredibly important to people, a sleeper issue, perhaps on the verge of a tipping point." He pointed out that Iraq shows up as the No. 1 issue in every poll. In a recent survey, people were asked what subject they would bring up if they got to spend 15 minutes with the president, and Iraq easily ranked at the top.

"The average Joe or Jane is very concerned about Iraq," Newport observed. "They may be saying, 'don't fix Social Security or worry about judicial appointments, but do something about Iraq.'" He added, "You know, we found the approval rating for Congress is now very low, about 35%. Maybe that's because people feel Congress is arguing over things they don't care about when you have a war going on." He didn't say it, but I will: You might say the same thing right now about too many editorial pages.

Why Do Most Americans Feel the War Is 'Not Worth It'?

a sleeper issue, perhaps on the verge of a tipping point...

One can only hope.
posted by y2karl at 8:46 AM on June 1, 2005

I love Bush-hating! It is the pinnacle of bad, futile politics, and as such is exceptionally helpful in the effort to complete the Bush agenda and elect another strong Republican in 2008 to keep the country moving forward.

Politics is about ideas and prinicpals. Bush's supporters like his ideas and admire his principals, and those of Congressional Republicans. You can only beat them by putting forward candidates with better ideas and more appealling principals.

The most astonishing thing about it is that it's like Bill Clinton never existed. There was at most a sprinkling of George H.W. Bush hating in his first campaign no Bob Dole hating at all in his second campaign. And he beat Gingrich like a drum in his own impeachment battle, as the collasal failure of Republican efforts to win with Clinton-hating was demonstrated.
posted by MattD at 8:49 AM on June 1, 2005

Pressed Rat: Barack Obama? I voted for him once already when i lived in Chicago, and I'd love to get a chance to vote for him again.

dances_with_sneetches: In the online world, we've got ParisParamus, who once famously said if WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
posted by Freen at 8:52 AM on June 1, 2005

People have been arrested for things such as disorderly conduct, or blocking traffic, or such. "Protesting the war" is not something that you can be arrested for. The manner in which you go about, however, can lead to arrest, fines, etc.

There have been several cases here in DC where people have been arrested for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who haven't even been protesting have been arrested in public places without warning, as a preemptive measure to limit protests.

you know ralph is 71 years old and looks fit enough to whoop dubya's ass in just about anything except a presidental election held in america.

He doesn't look so good in person. He always looks very tired when I see him. His office is down the hall from mine, so usually I happen to see him going to or from the restroom, which might explain his appearance.

Fuck you, Ralph Nader. Whatever credibility and significance you earned was swiftly blown to hell when you exposed yourself as a puppet for the GOP. Get off my side. You're making my side look stupid.

You know, Nader's not on your side. He's on his side. You're free to disagree with him (I do as well) but why should you expect him to do what you want him to do? He honestly believes that the Democrats are not significantly better than the Republicans, so what difference does it make to him whether Tweedledee or Tweedledum is elected? And quite honestly, the more time I spend reading the partisan crap that passes for discussion here, the more I find myself in agreement with him.

I think jenleigh's posting it to associate Nader (nutcase) with the term.

I am constantly amazed by the ability to find a partisan explanation for everything under the sun. Most people I know don't consider Nader a "nutcase" even though they may disagree with him on every issue.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:15 AM on June 1, 2005

MattD:

Good points at the base. But the Democrats, with their basic endorsement of neoliberalism and imperialism (although they prefer less outre shows of power than Bush goes for), and their general abandonment of social democratic welfare programs, have no ideology to oppose with. So last year we had the absurd spectacle of Kerry talking about - "I'd do it better!" about pretty much everything Bush talks about doing.

~sigh~ If Nader really wanted to do something good, he'd start a party instead of just running as himself.
posted by graymouser at 9:17 AM on June 1, 2005

Ah but Freen, he has now amended that since they are "obviously somewhere else" like Syria. Don't try and pin PP down - just like those WMDs he's as elusive as a ferret in a Welshman's trousers.
posted by longbaugh at 9:22 AM on June 1, 2005

one difference betweent the right and left is that when the right says "impeach," the right rallies around the call, no matter how shallow the grounds; but when the left says "impeach" and there's nothing but damning evidence, the left follows it up with a hearty, "it's a fantasy, it'll never happen."

make it happen, people. just make it happen. we cannot go on with this chimp.
posted by 3.2.3 at 9:59 AM on June 1, 2005

For those interested, there is a group of bloggers out there trying to get more info out to perhaps do just that ... impeach ... you can read about it here ... The Big Brass Alliance
posted by ang6666 at 10:11 AM on June 1, 2005

Mitheral - yeah, the Vote Nov.3 flyer, thing happened. Also, someone claiming to be an election official was calling registered Dems to tell them they couldn't vote. Not too much news about it, though.

Interestingly, the Onion called it.
posted by yentruoc at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2005

"He should stand trial."

"He controls the Senate and the courts! He's too dangerous!" </episode iii>
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:47 AM on June 1, 2005

I drew this
posted by kaemaril at 11:16 AM on June 1, 2005

Sorry that wasn't clear MLIS I was talking about the wrong vote date fliers not the money. I knew that Nader allowed the GOP to collect signatures and cash for him. Personally I believe more choices make for better government. Working towards that regardless of the short term pain is a worthwhile goal so I have no problem with the GOP paying for other names on the ballot as long as they aren't confusing. yentruoc has the confirmation I was looking for. Appalled is all I can say.
posted by Mitheral at 11:30 AM on June 1, 2005

Seriously? That has you appalled? You should google around a bit with search terms like "election stealing" or "voter fraud" and "2004 presidential election" and prepare to get truly irate. A little voter misinformation is the least of it. There were shredded voter registration forms, people convicted of misdemeanors who were denied the vote, more hanging chads and misleading ballots, voter intimidation by people pretending to be feds or police, and of course, the overwhelming statistical evidence (that was overwhelmingly ignored) that the vote counting machines were rigged - not just at the presidential level, but for judges and governors as well. Have fun.
posted by yentruoc at 12:02 PM on June 1, 2005

Bush's supporters like his ideas and admire his principals, and those of Congressional Republicans.
It's too bad most of the country does not like his ideas or admire his principles, and they feel the same way about the Congressional Repubs. There's a vast difference bet. Bush supporters and the public. If Bush truly cared about all the American people and not just his supporters, he'd realize that and adjust his rhetoric and criminal behavior.
posted by amberglow at 12:31 PM on June 1, 2005

In the debate on "Can you imagine if Gore were elected..." fantasy I think the singular difference in the way the two administrations would have handled things and how things would have turned out is that Gore would have been impeached by now.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on June 1, 2005

Longbough: The administration recently stated that the WMD are definitely not in Syria. Where next? Djibouti? Boguslavia? I await his answer with baited breath.
posted by Freen at 12:50 PM on June 1, 2005

Oh I read those reports - PP still has to cling onto hopes or we may end up on a mission into the Welshman's trousers searching for the thousands of tons of extremely dangerous/toxic biowarfare and chemical weapons.

You may not like what you find within...
posted by longbaugh at 12:58 PM on June 1, 2005

I've got lots of appallation to go around yentruoc. Viewing the last election down there was like a driving by a 200 car pile up on the freeway. I just couldn't look away from the carnage. The possibility for undetected fraud with the voting machines is over the top all by itself. I can't believe Diabold got away with it.
posted by Mitheral at 1:21 PM on June 1, 2005

"It's too bad most of the country does not like his ideas or admire his principles, and they feel the same way about the Congressional Repubs."

What you don't get is that most of MeFi doesn't but a large portion of the US population does.
posted by Carbolic at 2:11 PM on June 1, 2005

Let me get this straight. Davidmsc is asked to explain his position, and he does without an ounce of attitude, and your answer is "shove it up your ass"?

Metafilter discussion at its finest.
posted by justgary

first i didn't ask for his rational, i was just disgusted by the lack of real thought that went into his so called "position" a position, the hard line insiders know is fucking horse shit,
and as such felt an overwhelming need to make him feel bad for sharing it. i hope he gets well soon.

as for, realcountrymusic
all i have to say is this, democracy is all we have left, you want to undermine the idea of democracy then go ahead, but what idea will you replace it with?

you may think "democracy's had nothing to do with it." but the americans that cast their vote for bush don't think that, and to enter into a shit slinging politically motivated impeachment proceeding, with out massive popular support is undemocratic. but all this is beside the point, because it won't happen now even if there were popular support for it , because the house , and the senate (R) are not going to do anything about it, for obvious (with the exception of our local neocons for which nothing obvious can be taken for granted) reasons.
posted by nola at 3:24 PM on June 1, 2005

nola: you're an ass, and your typing, grammar, and spelling skills make you look even more idiotic than you are, which is hard to imagine. You see, longbaugh had the decency to rebut my assertions in a calm manner without name-calling; why couldn't you do the same?

justgary, thanks for the support. Regular MeFites -- my apologies -- you know that I rarely get riled here in the Blue, and don't think that I have ever used profanity here, but flamebaiters like nola who simply lash out, unprovoked, at any nearby target just piss me off.
posted by davidmsc at 3:48 PM on June 1, 2005

Carbolic - What you don't get is that most of MeFi doesn't but a large portion of the US population does.

If I can quote dios here -

Ah, so you are saying that the public are stupid then because they don't understand nuance?

Isn't that obvious? People don't waste time with nuance.
posted by dios at 6:40 PM GMT on May 18

davidmsc - good to see you've read my comments - have you anything to say about them at all? I am genuinely interested in your reading of the events. We may not come to an agreement on every point but if you come round to my way of thinking even slightly I'd be exceedingly happy.
posted by longbaugh at 3:51 PM on June 1, 2005

"It's too bad most of the country does not like his ideas or admire his principles, and they feel the same way about the Congressional Repubs."

What you don't get is that most of MeFi doesn't but a large portion of the US population does.

You couldn't be more wrong.
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on June 1, 2005

I used to enjoy asking repubs "what would it take?" (for you to abandon support of GW) But that was back in the day that they were gutsy and certain enough to answer. Since he's crossed so many of those lines (where are those people now?) I don't get so much as a peep from that question anymore.

What would it take to impeach is a similar question.
Seriously, what would it take for people to stop making excuses for this man's behaviour, when they'd be out for blood if a Dem did the same? (and no, Dems would not similarly be out for blood -- we'd probably be relieved if a Republican pulled off something Clintonesque -- far, far preferable to Bush and The Gang)
posted by dreamsign at 4:46 PM on June 1, 2005

i stand by what i typed poorly in here. if it offended you well? . . . are you right to be offended? . . .

i'm done with this, i would buy you a beer now, but i doubt that a) you would let me
b) that you drink beer or
c) that i could procure such a libation for you without much travel.
posted by nola at 5:21 PM on June 1, 2005

I didn't see this here yet: AfterDowningStreet.org.

Seems to me most of you are too young to remember how "impossible" the Nixon impeachment/resignation seemed just before it all started to blow. Few people saw it coming.

Very true. All we need is a smoking gun and the whole administration could be in big trouble.

An impeachment motion has been sitting on Mr. Conyer's desk for years. He needs a grassroots movement to propel it into the Committee for action.

Mr. Conyers is seeking a million signatures from US citizens. Please join this effort at www.johnconyers.com

You can join the citizens' coalition working for impeachment at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org
posted by mrgrimm at 5:51 PM on June 1, 2005

Even with Democratic control of House and Senate you are not getting impeachment without a clear crime being committed. Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's actions all met that standard, even if the first and last were a bit weasely. Find an act committed by shrub that is at least technically illegal, and war crimes won't work because the definition at least applied to the current situation is too political, and you might even get impeachment with the current House and Senate. As much as I dislike GW and as poor a job as I think he has done, impeachment is really harmful for the country. The Republicans who went after Clinton should be ashamed of themselves as their actions hurt, not helped, America. It would be nice to move away from the politics of personal destruction that really took hold during Nixon's tenure.
posted by caddis at 6:33 PM on June 1, 2005

It would be nice to move away from the politics of personal destruction that really took hold during Nixon's tenure.
We're more entrenched in those now more than ever--look at the links in the post.
posted by amberglow at 6:42 PM on June 1, 2005

I know. The big difference between GW's band of merry tricksters and tricky dick was tricky's transparency in evil. Bushco hide the evil so much more effectively. Even when not hidden everyone blames Rove, when it is likely coming from GW himself; at the very least the tacit approval is.
posted by caddis at 6:51 PM on June 1, 2005

As much as I dislike GW and as poor a job as I think he has done, impeachment is really harmful for the country...
posted by caddis at 9:33 PM EST on June 1 [!]

caddis: As harmful as GW?
posted by exlotuseater at 11:22 PM on June 1, 2005

OK, nola, if that was a peace offering, cool and appreciated. But you're right about the beer -- I never touch the stuff!

longbaugh, I did indeed read your comments, and while I respect the manner in which you posted, and your civility, I assure you that I am quite firm in my beliefs, as you are in yours. To wit:

"Hussein was a threat to the entire region: gassing his own people, hundreds of thousands dead in his war with Iran, his brutal invasion of Kuwait"
All of these had our tacit approval.
Perhaps - the "degree" of approval is up for debate, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a menace to his neighbors, and in the post-9/11 world, this took on a whole meaning. And even if we assume that such approval was evident in 1990, for example, that doesn't mean that such approval was right. If it was wrong, then it was high-time to make a correction.

"And based on what we AND the entire rest of the world thought we knew back in 2002/2003, disarming him was the right thing to do."
Most sensible people knew he had nothing. We screamed about him having nothing.
No, I think that most people either "knew" that he had something, or knew that he was hiding something...hence the consensus of many governments and the UN resolutions during the 12 years following the first Gulf War.

"9/11 was the proverbial wake-up call"
We never started bombing Northern Ireland. I don't quite think that you'd have supported us had we done so. Not really a war on terror as such. More a war on Islam.
I don't think that comparing Northern Ireland to the horror of 9/11 is really wise -- the scale of destruction, the number of lives destroyed, the economic cost, the symbolism -- not even in the same ballpark. And re: war on terror vs war on Islam -- hey, when the Unitarians start beheading hostages and flying planes into buildings and blowing up Navy ships, then we'll add Unitarians to the battle plan.

"...and the manner in which we dealt with all rogue regimes had to be re-evaluated in a new context."
Strange then how we went after the least threatening ones first.Not quite -- we went after the one most directly associated with the perpetrators of 9/11 first; then we went after the one that had defied international sanctions and UN resolutions for over a decade and continued to bluff about it's capabilities. In addition -- it's not a perfect world -- policy and idealism must often be balanced with realism; invading North Korea would have far greater implications, casualties on a much larger scale, and potentially involve China. Reality is a bitch, sometimes, but she must be factored into decisions such as this.

"Hussein had been trouble for over a decade, with no sign of ever giving up nuclear, chemical, or bio weapons."
And why would he? We sold him the last two and he never had the first. Would you like it if I took away something you paid for?
Nope -- this argument doesn't work at all. Citing previous "bad" behavior does not justify current bad behavior. People who make this argument seem to think that George W. Bush himself flew to Iraq in 1980 and personally sold Hussein chemical weapons. That was decades ago, decisions made by different leaders, in an entirely different context (Cold War, etc).

"...threat that he posed probably was not as significant as he wanted the world to believe. But remember: he could have defused the entire situation -- the whole war -- all by himself. He chose not to..."
Again - Saddam was asking before the deadline to allow the weapon inspectors back in unimpeded - the invasion went ahead despite this.Saddam Hussein had TWELVE YEARS to fully comply with all UN resolutions -- he failed to do so -- and when his back was against the wall, facing an American president who was not afraid to "pull the trigger," he tried to bargain, bluff, and buy his way out.

"And remember: it was not just US intelligence that believed Hussein posed a greater than he did: virtually all intelligence agencies believed he had more capability than we have found evidence of to date."
Most of them relying on faulty data or worse, making the data fit the facts that we wanted to have the excuse to go to war.Hindsight is 20/20 -- I agree that some of the intelligence was flawed -- and heads should roll for how some of it was handled and possibly interpreted. But the overall consensus of most major countries remained: Saddam Hussein had chem/bio/nuclear materials or capabilities, and was seeking more.

Point/Counterpoint: what say you, longbaugh? We agree to disagree.
posted by davidmsc at 11:55 PM on June 1, 2005

Not at all - it's good to see a reply. Whilst we are at opposites on some aspects I think we differ only fractionally on a few issues - the only sticking points are just matters of degrees - you agree intelligence was flawed, you agree that heads should roll etc.

The only thing we perhaps disagree on is the actions of the USA after 9/11 which I would describe as the random thrashings of a nation in mourning. They have proved pretty ineffective at stopping the creation of hatred and terror from what I can see.

You cannot win a war on a concept. The best you can do is kill a whole bunch of people, spend a whole heck of a lot of money and then eventually sit down and hash it out over a table.
posted by longbaugh at 4:15 AM on June 2, 2005

exlotuseater: more
posted by caddis at 4:16 AM on June 2, 2005

davidmsc writes "'9/11 was the proverbial wake-up call'
"We never started bombing Northern Ireland. I don't quite think that you'd have supported us had we done so. Not really a war on terror as such. More a war on Islam.
"I don't think that comparing Northern Ireland to the horror of 9/11 is really wise -- the scale of destruction, the number of lives destroyed, the economic cost, the symbolism -- not even in the same ballpark."

I wonder which series of events the British felt more terrorised by? The only thing 9/11 really has going for it is it happened all on one day.
posted by Mitheral at 6:48 AM on June 2, 2005

The goals of the IRA and Al Qaeda differ substantially. The IRA seeks a peaceful co-existence with England, just one different from the current situation. They don't seek to demolish the British sate. Al Qaeda on the other hand ultimately seeks destruction of the US and Western governments. Given these larger goals they seem willing to take more extreme measures than the IRA and there is really nothing to negotiate with them. Thus the purported analogy between the IRA and Al Qaeda really doesn't work.
posted by caddis at 9:07 AM on June 2, 2005

I think y'all might be missing the point of the Ireland - Iraq comparison. I didn't make the original comment, but I don't think the implication was that IRA = al Qaeda. I read it to mean that neither Ireland nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but both harbor terrorists. So, why go after Iraq and not Ireland? If anything, there is clearer evidence for Ireland harboring terrorists.

Obviously, bombing Ireland isn't a real option, but it does underscore the fact that there was no actual analysis to determine which countries would be the best to invade to effectively combat terrorism. Bush et al wanted to go after Iraq and was just waiting for the excuse. If it wasn't 9/11, it would have been something else.
posted by yentruoc at 10:15 AM on June 2, 2005

caddis writes "Al Qaeda on the other hand ultimately seeks destruction of the US and Western governments. "

Only in the broadest sense of wanting God to rule on earth. More immediately they seem to want the US and it's lackeys to stop messing around with the self determination of Muslim countries.

And ya what yentruoc said. This whole action against Iraq makes no real sense if your going after Terrorism. If on the other hand your looking to gain control over the second largest oil reserves on the planet, get some pay back for daddy, extend your sphere of influence in the middle east and distract the home land from all the bad government going on and restrictive, over reaching laws being passed then Iraq makes perfect sense.
posted by Mitheral at 10:41 AM on June 2, 2005

david, how about all the evidence coming out that they planned to go to war with Iraq first (even before 9/11), and then made the evidence fit afterwards?

Containment was working--what's been going on for the past 2 years isn't--at all. It was a ghastly mistake that we've compounded daily. While some are profiting, and isn't it funny that they all have administration connections, not one American should ever die for lies. We're not fighting for freedom, or democracy, or to stop wmds, or torture, or rape rooms. (if i missed any other rationales for this shit, please let me know)

and you say, Reality is a bitch, sometimes, but she must be factored into decisions such as this.
The reality is that we now have the entire Muslim world furious at us, and will pay for that in blood for decades to come.

The people who planned this Iraq war should be hung by their thumbs like Milosevic (another dictator we never invaded), or placed in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib forever.
posted by amberglow at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2005

Al Qaeda on the other hand ultimately seeks destruction of the US and Western governments.

Not true. AQ wants western nations to get the eff out of the mid-East. That's a far cry from wanting to actually destroy the western nations.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2005

It's not as simple as "al qaeda wants the US to get the eff out," or "Muslims just want the US to leave them alone." Radical islamists -- such as al qaeda -- may not want to "destroy" the US and Western governments, but they do want to inflict as much damage as they can to America and her allies. Destroying the US is simply not possible -- they seek to wound and hurt as deep as they can. The bullshit about "they just want to be left alone" is just that: bullshit.
posted by davidmsc at 3:11 PM on June 2, 2005

Nola:

I'm not meaning to cause offense, but is English your first language? Is there some design to your haphazard punctuation and capitalization, or is it just that - haphazard?
posted by Chasuk at 1:48 AM on June 7, 2005

Ralph Nader says the Downing Street memo is grounds to debate the impeachment of the president. Four constitutional scholars weigh the issue.
posted by homunculus at 8:22 PM on June 8, 2005