Skip

Could it happen?
January 13, 2006 9:46 AM   Subscribe

The Impeachment of George W. Bush It's been called for again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, and some MeFites have been praying for it for almost 6 years now. When I saw it pop up in del.icio.us/popular/ this morning I had to read it. An upcoming Nation article written by Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who was there for the Nixon impeachment. Will anyone come to the defense of our President? Let the debate begin!
posted by daHIFI (172 comments total)

 


I think some pople will come to the defense of the president.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:56 AM on January 13, 2006


Pipe dream. I know it's a tired complaint, but why can't the Democrats inspire people with their ideas instead of continuing to harp at Bush? People know Bush isn't a great president, they just hate Democrats more. Politics makes me sleepy...
posted by billysumday at 9:56 AM on January 13, 2006


Bush sucks. This should come as a surprise to no one. There's nobody left on MeFi to defend him.
posted by wakko at 9:57 AM on January 13, 2006


nevermind. missed first link. duh.
posted by NationalKato at 9:58 AM on January 13, 2006


But don't we have to take Congress to issue articles of impeachment? And that ain't happening.
posted by surferboy at 9:58 AM on January 13, 2006


I meant the House.
posted by surferboy at 9:59 AM on January 13, 2006


More
More
More and
More
(fun).
posted by caddis at 9:59 AM on January 13, 2006


why can't the Democrats inspire people with their ideas instead of continuing to harp at Bush?

The Republicans have done a great job of shedding their ideals in favor of harping at the Democrats for the past 2 decades. Honestly, what does either party stand for these days?
posted by wakko at 10:00 AM on January 13, 2006


I would love G.W. to be thrown out on his ass so hard it scrapes through dirt and dents the pavement.

However, the thought of Cheney as President is a thought much more horrifying. Isn't G.W. the only stopgap keeping that from happening? Or do I understand that incorrectly?
posted by Peter H at 10:01 AM on January 13, 2006


Somehow I see GW as the skin on the Republican party. You peel him off, there's nothing but guts and ugly pus underneath - the smell, stupidity and risk of disease to the country all the worse. At this point, unless you can replace him with a Dem, there's no gain made from impeaching him and instead putting all effort into a Blue victory in 2008.
posted by Peter H at 10:04 AM on January 13, 2006


Great post!

/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 10:10 AM on January 13, 2006


Now this is clear and direct:

Bush will NOT be impeached so long as the GOP controls the House, where impeachments begin. He will NOT be impeached.

Now, go out and get control of the House if you want Bush impeached.
posted by Postroad at 10:10 AM on January 13, 2006


If Bush were impeached it would leave the administration castrated and impotent, no matter who took his place.
posted by wsg at 10:11 AM on January 13, 2006


There is nothing that would help a democratic victory in 2008 more than the impeachment of GW. At the very least, it would mean thousands of hours of free air time all about how the Bush and the Republican party screwed up.
posted by joegester at 10:12 AM on January 13, 2006


There's nobody left on MeFi to defend him.

I imagine ParisParamus will be along any minute now.
posted by alumshubby at 10:15 AM on January 13, 2006


However, the thought of Cheney as President is a thought much more horrifying.

I really don't understand why. Even if you believe that George Bush is basically a well-meaning but dimwitted doofus, wouldn't it be preferable to have the power behind the throne front and center instead? At least Cheney would manage to articulate his policies and opinions (no matter how loathsome) instead of subjecting us to a few more years of stuttering illiterate gibberish.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:16 AM on January 13, 2006


Even if impeached, Bush won't get thrown out of office. Republicans control both houses, remember. Even if the dems win this year, they won't have the numbers required to do so.

Impeaching Bush now would only set precedent for every president to be impeached.
posted by b_thinky at 10:17 AM on January 13, 2006


Even if impeached, Bush won't get thrown out of office. Republicans control both houses, remember. Even if the dems win this year, they won't have the numbers required to do so.

Impeaching Bush now would only set precedent for every president to be impeached.
posted by b_thinky at 10:17 AM on January 13, 2006


That murderous chimp squatting in the White House probably won't be impeached (unless he somehow manages to get caught while fellating a prepubescent boy), but that in no way denies the fact that he should be impeached, indicted, convicted, and sentenced to the gravest punishment available.
posted by bshock at 10:18 AM on January 13, 2006


No thanks. We had that debate, and President Bush has won "again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again."
posted by ParisParamus at 10:18 AM on January 13, 2006


wow, President Bush came and debated on MeFi?
posted by rxrfrx at 10:20 AM on January 13, 2006


He posts as ParisParamus. Cheney posts as Dios. Ashcroft posts as Bevets too. I thought everyone knew this!
posted by Dantien at 10:25 AM on January 13, 2006


I’ll play:

1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.
2. The Dems don’t have the numbers, on the Hill or among the electorate.
3. He’s gone in a few years anyway, so who cares?
4. Our system of government needs a strong executive, not one who’s looking over his/her shoulder all the time.

The Dems shouldn’t waste their time with this. Makes them look mean and unpatriotic. (BTW: I didn’t vote for the guy, so don’t blame me).
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:25 AM on January 13, 2006


Paris' links are dead. Anyone have a mirror?
posted by spicynuts at 10:27 AM on January 13, 2006


I think Al Franken had the greatest idea ever on the Daily Show a few months back. It involved a Democratic takeover of the Congress in November 06 and doing a quickie impeachment in Jan `09, when Bush had 2 weeks left in office. This way the Dems could avoid the long drawn our impeachment procedure that grinds government to a halt, and would still hold Bush accountable.

Only bad thing with this plan is that it involves 3 more years of Dubya. Now that the wiretapping thing has occurred I don't think we can wait that long.

Of couse any impeachment proceedings could possibly include Cheney and Rove wunnit?

Dios, I figured someone would enjoy this post, just not that much....

There's nobody left on MeFi to defend him.
...
I imagine ParisParamus will be along any minute now.
...
posted by ParisParamus at 1:18 PM EST on January 13

...
hmm
posted by daHIFI at 10:27 AM on January 13, 2006


1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.
--------------------

Launching an illegal war of aggression on false pretenses and spying on american citizens in clear and open violation of the law of the land and the constitution doesn't rise to the standard of lying about a blow job?
posted by empath at 10:28 AM on January 13, 2006


That country you keep mentioning..... I do not think it wants what you think it wants.

I would very much like to see Bush impeached. I think that would be a minimum needed to have justice and defense of liberty prevail. But we live in a country that really, truly loves what Bush stands for. He got elected twice, and in no small part because people don't want to let gays get married. And his low poll numbers now have more to do with fiscal irresponsibility and failure to adequately blow up Iraq than they do with the abuses of power.

We don't live in an America that thinks Bush is anywhere near deserving of impeachment. We live in an America that loves the "Left Behind" books and sees them as prophetic, an America that thinks keeping gays from getting married is important enough to show up to the polls for the first time in decades, and America that *still* thinks the Iraq war is justified by 9/11, an America who nods in agreements to Bill O'Reilly, an America that is might be a witch burning mob if it wasn't so lazy and disinterested.

This is the America that will impeach Bush? I think not. In Bush, America has gotten what it wants.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:32 AM on January 13, 2006


Launching an illegal war of aggression on false pretenses and spying on american citizens in clear and open violation of the law of the land and the constitution doesn't rise to the standard of lying about a blow job?
posted by empath at 12:28 PM CST on January 13


1. It's not illegal. Not sure how you even define that. But it isn't illegal.

2. False pretenses? Bad intelligence? That doesn't make him a liar. It means the intellgence was bad.

3. Spying on American citizens is a "clear and open violation of the law of the land and the constitution?" Again, that is debatable. Some people have argued it is within.

Basically, you are listening things which are arguably ____ as being actually ____.

That is not the standard of impeachment; that is the standard of disagreement.

But, at least you were honest about it and gave us the real reason for this nonsense:

doesn't rise to the standard of lying about a blow job?
posted by empath at 12:28 PM CST on January 13


As if anyone could pretend otherwise, this is all about "you impeached my guy, and I'm not going to stop until I impeach your guy." Tit for tat.
posted by dios at 10:33 AM on January 13, 2006


See? It only took three minutes for me to clear my cookies and log in as...

...kidding, I'm kidding....
posted by alumshubby at 10:33 AM on January 13, 2006


Ok. Bush to be impeaced. And what are the charges? That he invaded Iraq with the support of Congress and both political parties? That he was given faulty intel aboutWMD and that was believed by both parties? That he gave massive tax breaks to the wealthy, and this approved by Congress. That he is bad for the environment? What, exactly, are the charges against him?
posted by Postroad at 10:34 AM on January 13, 2006


meh. impeachment is so 1972. i want to see angry mobs overrun the secret service and physically drag him and cheney etal out of the whitehouse for some good old american tar, feathers, rail riding, fruit pummeling, excrement smearing, bucket-standing-under-tarp-with-wires-hooked-to-batteries thumbs-uppin' genital-pointin' JUSTICE.

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 10:34 AM on January 13, 2006


There are 203 (two hundred and three) non-Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. It only takes one of them to introduce articles of impeachment for consideration. To date, none of them have done so. So you're discussing the possibility of passing something, with majority support, when you haven't even gotten to the starting line yet.

(Obviously there is no way he could be successfully impeached as long as a Republican majority exists. But putting the articles forward, and having the Republicans prevent a vote on them, would be the first step in a national debate about the issue.)

Don't you think you ought to build a chicken coop before counting your chickens? Why don't we talk about other potential legal occurrences that don't have the support of even one U.S. Representative, like a law bestowing one pony on every U.S. citizen (two ponies for girls under the age of 16)?
posted by jellicle at 10:35 AM on January 13, 2006


/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 1:10 PM EST on January 13

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 1:34 PM EST on January 13


My money's still on quonsar to finish first.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:06 AM on January 13, 2006


There's plenty of reason to impeach Bush--but these are long-term reasons--it could hurt the Democrats short term to do so. But if the votes to convict exist in the Senate, then it should be done in order to provide a political lesson to the future leaders of the country.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:13 AM on January 13, 2006


But if the votes to convict exist in the Senate
posted by Ironmouth at 1:13 PM CST on January 13


Not one single member of the 435 House of Representatives has even suggested bringing Articles of Impeachment. But since it only takes 67 votes out of 100 to convict in the Senate, I'm sure that is a done deal, so no worries there.
posted by dios at 11:17 AM on January 13, 2006


Please don't impeach Bush.

The very thought of Cheney in the President's seat is enough to make me fill my boots with liquid fear.
posted by illiad at 11:17 AM on January 13, 2006


It's not illegal. Not sure how you even define that. But it isn't illegal.

Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress has to declare war. This was never done. Thus Bush declared war without obtaining the necessary approval. There was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" bill, but many of its key provisions were ignored that were intended to stave off invasion as a last resort. This war is, by definition, illegal.

Apparently Cheney described the War Powers Resolution as an "infringement on the authority of the president." This is little surprise given Bush thinks the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" — an even more ironic joke given he claims to want to install justices who should interprete the Constitution as it is written.
posted by Rothko at 11:17 AM on January 13, 2006


1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.
--------------------


Yeah, to be impeached someone would have to blow him in the Oval office.

And who in their right mind would want to do that? Even LAURA doesn't want to do that.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 11:18 AM on January 13, 2006


I think it would be a bad idea to impeach Bush, even if i can't stand the f$%#*!. Two impeached presidents in a row wouldn't bode well for the executive, or American politics in general.
posted by matkline at 11:18 AM on January 13, 2006


I think it would be a bad idea to impeach Bush, even if i can't stand the f$%#*!. Two impeached presidents in a row wouldn't bode well for the executive, or American politics in general.

Can't you just impeach Bush, cancel the impeachment of that nice Mr Clinton and bring him back as president?
posted by ceri richard at 11:21 AM on January 13, 2006


3. He’s gone in a few years anyway, so who cares?

The mind boggles.
posted by Manhasset at 11:22 AM on January 13, 2006


Let's be honest, here. The Democrats don't have the votes to impeach Bush. It'd be nice if they did, but they don't. Wouldn't we better off trying for a goal that is actually achievable, like putting more Dems in Congress this year, and insuring that another Bush doesn't get elected in '08? We all want Bush to be impeached, but it's not going to happen, and the effort it would take could be better spent winning elections.
posted by unreason at 11:23 AM on January 13, 2006


/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 1:10 PM EST on January 13

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 1:34 PM EST on January 13

My money's still on quonsar to finish first.


Dios has to eat the ookie cookie!
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:24 AM on January 13, 2006


the democrats won't do it ... not even if they get a majority ... why?

no one wants to derail the gravy train ... no one wants to come up with things that will interfere with the distribution of pork and prize plums or endanger their roles in distributing them ... they want their safe seats and their safe pieces of pie

sure, they'll stand up and do some screaming about some things ... it plays well to the folks back home, but the thing is that they're careful not to over-encourage the general feeling of disgust and discontent the public has with its government ... something that is not just on the left, but on the right and most importantly, in the much neglected middle

impeach the president? ... get the american people riled up about what their government's doing? ... they're afraid that it won't stop with getting rid of bush ... that the anger, when finally expressed, will clean the whole lot of them out

an illegal war? ... the democrats failed to make any kind of effective resistance to it ... they didn't even try, for the most part

illegal wiretaps? ... probably so, but wasn't it the democrats who, like sheep, voted almost unaminously for the patriot act and helped create the atmosphere that made these kinds of actions more likely?

what charges could be made? ... at least one ... and congress, as i understand it, can not only impeach and judge the guilt, but define the specific violations it feels are "high crimes and misdemeanors" ... the only problem is, thanks to their unwillingness to confront the problems when they began, they will be implicating themselves in the process ... not legally, but in the eyes of the public

they won't do it ... there's a gravy train to run, you know?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:26 AM on January 13, 2006


Impeaching Bush now would only set precedent for every president to be impeached.

Sounds like a plan. let's do it!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:26 AM on January 13, 2006


I support a constitutional ammendment that mandates mandatory public execution for all politicians, when their term of service is over.
Every one is a martyr.
There will still be plenty with the thirst for power to take the job.
All executions will be public broadcast, and voted on by the public.
Which would you rather see? Torn apart by hungry hyenas? Launched into a turbine engine? Firehose up the rectum?
It's time to vote, people!
posted by Balisong at 11:27 AM on January 13, 2006


Make your own sign, take a picture and then publish it at the Impeachment Project:

posted by caddis at 11:29 AM on January 13, 2006


1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.

There have been only two presidential impeachments in over two hundred years of American history, so any "standards of previous impeachments" is pretty thin. If we restricted ourselves only to "standards of previous impeachments," no president would ever be impeached again, no matter what they did. ("President X ate babies for breakfast? Doesn't matter, since neither A. Johnson nor Clinton ate babies, President X can't be impeached because it doesn't measure up to the standard of previous impeachments.")

Fortunately, the "standard of previous impeachments" is an invention out of whole cloth by MarshallPoe and has no foundation in the law. The standard for impeachment is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What's a "high crime and misdemeanor?" Whatever the House of Representatives says it is. What is or is not an impeachable offense is entirely up to the House of Representatives, and they are not at all bound by any sort of "standard of previous impeachments."

That is not the standard of impeachment; that is the standard of disagreement.

See above. The standard of impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives says it is.

(Obviously there is no way he could be successfully impeached as long as a Republican majority exists. But putting the articles forward, and having the Republicans prevent a vote on them, would be the first step in a national debate about the issue.)

No, the first step in a national debate about the issue is articles in the original post and this very MetaFilter thread. Last time I checked, we didn't need Congressional approval to have a national debate on anything. Since articles of impeachment are not necessary to have a national debate on impeachment, and it is clear that impeachment would fail given the current composition of the House, there is no need for anyone to put forth such articles. Your inference that becuase no Representative has brought forth articles of impeachment, no Representative supports impeachment, is invalid.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:29 AM on January 13, 2006


Bush will NOT be impeached so long as the GOP controls the House, where impeachments begin. He will NOT be impeached.

This is the only comment here that matters.

I've said the same thing for three years. The Republicans OWN the fucking government and the Democrats have done next to nothing to get it back.

Sure. The inevitable would happen, IE: give the GOP enough rope and it would hang it self. So the democrats decided to cynically wait it out utill the opportunity arose when the presidents poll number fell. Look at the damage done in the mean time? And they will shut up when his number go back up mark my words. Because they will.

Poastroad is right. The Democrats in the Senate are un-principled swine nearly every fucking one of them. Hillary probably the worst. THEY backed regime change under Clinton. THEY backed sanctions. THEY pulled the rug out from under WMD inspections. THEY voted for the war the KNEW was bullshit. AND now they are saying we should get out... yet in the same breath NOT get out. I mean what the fuck? Total pussies.

And when a democrat talks about impeachment - after sitting there and allowing, hell, HELPING, this president rape this country - I want to puke.

Are there grounds to impeach this president. Legal grounds? I don't think so. Moral grounds? Sure. But evidentaly that doesn't matter.
posted by tkchrist at 11:33 AM on January 13, 2006


Now, go out and get control of the House if you want Bush impeached.
posted by Postroad at 10:10 AM PST on January 13 [!]


Okay.
posted by Mr T at 11:34 AM on January 13, 2006


I *heart* Quonsar.
posted by Dantien at 11:34 AM on January 13, 2006


I m peach?
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:40 AM on January 13, 2006


There is only one way to effect change. Get out there, find every reasonable non-batshit-insanse redstater, and calmly explain to him that his fears and prejudices were exploited in order to make politicians and their buddies rich. Basically, they were lied to, and they bought it.
posted by rzklkng at 11:40 AM on January 13, 2006


they won't do it ... there's a gravy train to run, you know?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:26 AM PST on January 13 [!]


Close the thread. The pyramid termite nailed it.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:40 AM on January 13, 2006


meh. impeachment is so 1972. i want to see angry mobs overrun the secret service and physically drag him and cheney etal out of the whitehouse for some good old american tar, feathers, rail riding, fruit pummeling, excrement smearing, bucket-standing-under-tarp-with-wires-hooked-to-batteries thumbs-uppin' genital-pointin' JUSTICE.

No shit. So. When do we do it? Like I've said before even the people who call Bush "E-V-I-L" don't seem to want to do much about it except whine.

I'm free in May. I vote we all meet in DC in May. Outdoor Intercourse Day - May 8th would be fitting.

I'll go if you go.

What? No takers?
posted by tkchrist at 11:41 AM on January 13, 2006


Clinton's impeachment effectively killed anything he wanted to accomplish during his second term. It was a grandstand on the part of Republicans that wasted millions of tax-payers' dollars. Justice came in the fact that Republican Congressional approval ratings dropped to an all-time low, while Clinton's popularity actually went up as people realized Republicans had no ideas in the face of unprecedented economic prosperity and generally peaceful foreign relations.

Impeaching Bush would of course not work, but even if it would--why bother? He's the lamest of lame duck presidents in the last 100 years. He's stuck in a unpopular, unwinnable war, and already his people are trying to hide the fact that America is in some deep trouble financially re: defecit spending and the debt. If the economy suddenly took off, it still wouldn't overcome the crushing financial burden that is the Iraqi occupation.

Long story short--every day Bush remains in office, another few tons of evidence that he is a morally bankrupt and politically challenged loser continue to mount. Let him hang himself for three more years--Republicans are already trying to spin his failures as "Trumanesque." Bullshit. Although both were failed businessmen, Truman made tough, unpopular decisions that were later seen as necessary. Bush has made tough, unpopular decisions (are there any Republicans that are actually happy with the health-care package disaster?) that have had no benefit for him or his party. Let 'em dangle.

Bob "Prince of Darkness" Novak on Medicare.
posted by bardic at 11:42 AM on January 13, 2006


The Democrats don't have the votes to impeach Bush. It'd be nice if they did, but they don't.

No. It'd be nice if people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, had done their jobs and acted as a check and balance on the Executive Branch during the entire Bush Administration so far. It'd be nice if people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, hadn't impeached President Clinton for conduct that was not an abuse of his powers as president, which devalued the significance of impeachment. It'd be nice if people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, impeached President Bush for abusing his powers as president because what he did was wrong and impeaching him was the right thing to do, and didn't refrain from impeaching him out of partisan politics or cowardice. That would be nice.

Nixon resigned after Republicans in the Senate told him his conduct was disgraceful and he didn't have the Republican votes in the Senate to survive impeachment. But that was when people cared more about their country than they did about their party.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:42 AM on January 13, 2006


There is only one way to effect change...

HAHAHA.

Oh. Your serious.

Yeah. Um. That has worked soooo well so far.
posted by tkchrist at 11:44 AM on January 13, 2006


But, at least you were honest about it and gave us the real reason for this nonsense:

doesn't rise to the standard of lying about a blow job?
posted by empath at 12:28 PM CST on January 13

As if anyone could pretend otherwise, this is all about "you impeached my guy, and I'm not going to stop until I impeach your guy." Tit for tat.

Dios, did you even read what he was responding to?:

1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.
posted by Stauf at 11:45 AM on January 13, 2006


What would we need to do to get a "Confidence Vote" on the 2006 ballots?
posted by rzklkng at 11:49 AM on January 13, 2006


What would we need to do to get a "Confidence Vote" on the 2006 ballots?

Vote out incumbent representatives in the House and Senate. Send a message.
posted by Rothko at 11:50 AM on January 13, 2006


They won't get the message.
posted by graventy at 11:58 AM on January 13, 2006


It's not illegal. Not sure how you even define that. But it isn't illegal.

Whatever you say, Mr Bolton.
posted by mr.marx at 12:02 PM on January 13, 2006


From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I don't know about you, but given this, I feel neither happy nor safe.
posted by rzklkng at 12:04 PM on January 13, 2006


Wikipedia's Movement to impeach Bush
posted by stbalbach at 12:08 PM on January 13, 2006


Feingold Won't Rule Out Bush Impeachment
posted by Otis at 12:17 PM on January 13, 2006


It's not illegal?

Article VI of the US Constitution says that treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land.

On October 24, 1945, the US signed a treaty called the "United Nations Charter", which created the United Nations. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter govern the settlement of disputes between countries. Without a United Nations mandate, a member state may only act in self-denfense, and then only if an armed attack occurs.

Did we meet that standard? Or is there something I'm missing here that makes what we did to Iraq legal?
posted by Laen at 12:18 PM on January 13, 2006


Is it time to summon bevets?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:25 PM on January 13, 2006


It's not illegal. Not sure how you even define that. But it isn't illegal.

depends on what the definition of is is.
posted by quonsar at 12:26 PM on January 13, 2006


It boggles the mind that people can try to claim that the warrent less wiretaps are not illegal. Its pure math. If Bush got the warrents his actions are legal. If he did not then they are illegal. Our President is still subject to the laws as written by the Legislature right?

The only thing that remains is to watch the spineless cowards on both sides of the aisles do nothing to protect the people.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 12:28 PM on January 13, 2006


It's all about the asterisks.

"Our system of government needs a strong executive, not one who’s looking over his/her shoulder all the time."

Your confusing your soviet civics with american.
posted by srboisvert at 12:30 PM on January 13, 2006


depends on what the definition of is is.

Traitor.
posted by Rothko at 12:34 PM on January 13, 2006


I actually think the problem goes back at least 25 years. The people in the current administration can always pull an Ollie North/Elliot Abrams and claim it was political persecution over legitimate differences of opinion regarding policy. Two decades later, North is a popular war journalist, and Abrams was appointed to a position to cover up American-sponsored terrorist activity.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:39 PM on January 13, 2006


If you gaze at the comments box, the one in which I am typing, for, say, 30 seconds, you can actually see Metafilter moving to the left! Try it, it's remarkable!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:43 PM on January 13, 2006


rzklkng FTW
posted by daHIFI at 12:43 PM on January 13, 2006


PP, if by left you mean actually following the true spirit and intent of the Founding Fathers and the grand notions on which the Republic was founded and not the cruel facade that we have, then yes, it is moving left.
posted by rzklkng at 12:49 PM on January 13, 2006


3. Spying on American citizens is a "clear and open violation of the law of the land and the constitution?" Again, that is debatable. Some people have argued it is within.

Wong Fei-hung, it shouldn't boggle the mind. At this point, there is absolutely no credible argument that the warrantless wiretaps are legal. All that's left to Bush's defenders now is the Big Lie.

The country is in a Constitutional crisis. You have a single branch using a intentionally incorrect, radical reinterpretation of the Constitution to seize extraordinary powers. It's a shame that most people really don't understand how serious the situation is. This focus on impeachment is an extraordinary mistake. What we need right now, the only thing we need, is a laser-like focus on the issue of warrantless wiretaps and the President's assumption of extraordinary war powers. Everything else can wait.
posted by nixerman at 12:49 PM on January 13, 2006


I loathe GWB and his whole cadre. They're done scads of illegal things. But impeachment is a waste of time and resources. Democrats need to focus on positive images and strong ideas. I think there's still a lot of resentment over Clinton getting injustly impeached, but doing it again just sets bad partisan precedent. If impeachment fails, Dems will look far worse... No, this is not what we need to do. We've got to focus on getting the best candidate in office in 08, and let history be the indictment of these brutes and cretins.
posted by moonbird at 12:56 PM on January 13, 2006


If you gaze at the comments box, the one in which I am typing, for, say, 30 seconds, you can actually see Metafilter moving to the left! Try it, it's remarkable!

Yeah. That happens sometimes. But you might want to consider a tiny, tiny detail called "frame of reference," and I've noticed recently that people who continue to unabashedly defend Bush aren't the ones with their feet on the ground.
posted by namespan at 12:59 PM on January 13, 2006


I imagine ParisParamus will be along any minute now.
posted by alumshubby at 10:15 AM PST on January 13 [!]


He's leading the impeachement charge!

If WMDs are not found in Iraq, ... the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:00 PM on January 13, 2006


Impeachment is too good, too nice. Bush & Co. really need to face international war crimes tribunals.
posted by yesster at 1:03 PM on January 13, 2006


right on, pyramid termite!
posted by tarantula at 1:07 PM on January 13, 2006


Focus! Impeachment is a pipe-dream. We need the legislature back and we need it now. 2006 is key. If we can get the purse strings out of Republican hands this year, we will go a long way toward solving the Bush problem.
posted by VMC at 1:11 PM on January 13, 2006


/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 1:10 PM EST on January 13

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 1:34 PM EST on January 13


What's furiously's MeFi user number? He/she seems very popular, and I'd like to know the secret.

As much as GWB deserves impeachment, it isn't going to happen. I just hope that a party comes along which is able to pull us out of these eternal wars against intangible concepts which are so popular. I mean, how many of these things can we fight at once? The Germans couldn't manage two fronts, and we're fighting wars on poverty, drugs, illiteracy, and terrorism all at the same time. How can we possibly win?
posted by mkhall at 1:14 PM on January 13, 2006


“Two impeached presidents in a row wouldn't bode well for the executive, or American politics in general.” - posted by matkline (and similar comments by others)

Either they fear the people or the people fear them. Which state of affairs would you rather live under?

Honestly, this “my side rocks!” thing is completely useless. Bush sucks. Oh, Metafilter is too left leaning boo-fucking-hoo.
It doesn’t change anything. Bush should be impeached on general principles. We should string up a high official every decade or so with a tarring and feathering at least annually. I’m with Jefferson on that. The tree of liberty needs some blood. I’m willing to spill mine, gimme a tyrant.

The simple fact of the matter is while we play partisan patty-cake things that really matter get glossed over and clouded and forgotten.
I could care less if you are a seed-eating birkenstock wearing long hair jody pinko, if you stand on principle I stand with you.

Of course impeachment ain’t gonna happen. But Bushco is wrong. People know it’s wrong. Call a spade a spade for God sakes.

...I’m going off the rails on the gravy train.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:30 PM on January 13, 2006




Impeachment has never been a serious tool used in the United States; we just don't impeach enough people to make impeaching Bush legitimate.

There have been two Presidents impeached, and both of those seem trumped up to many, if not most people. One Cabinet secretary was impeached, but not removed since he resigned before he was removed. One Senator was impeached, with similar results.

All the other impeachments(12) were of judges. That hardly seems like a long enough or legitimate enough history of impeachment to make it clear that impeachment is the appropriate course of action in this situation. Given the weight consequences of a decision to impeach, and remove, we need to be very sure that impeachment is the proper path before we start down it.

If you feel that impeachment is appropriate in this case you are making a claim that George W. Bush's actions are worse than any president before him, and I just don't feel that that is justified. There have been plenty of abuses by this administration, but I think we're flattering ourselves if we choose to believe that we live under a president who is worse than any our country has had before.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:36 PM on January 13, 2006


What's that? Paris is arguing his case with there's a bunch of lefties here and they're getting even more left?

Why who would've thunk.

I can't make sense of it whatsoever. This is relevant how? Anyone else?
posted by juiceCake at 1:42 PM on January 13, 2006


If WMDs are not found in Iraq, ... the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

The weak spot of people who talk too much - their own words. Metafilter must be a gold mine of waffle quotes like that, but good god, searching for them is like cleaning the bathroom, praise to those who do the dirty work.
posted by stbalbach at 1:49 PM on January 13, 2006


“...but I think we're flattering ourselves if we choose to believe that we live under a president who is worse than any our country has had before.” - posted by Bulgaroktonos

Indeed. We also had slavery. So we should probably STFU about any problems short of that.
*wanders off in disbelief*

*wanders back*
It’s not that form a certain perspective you don’t have a point. Clearly - Grant was a horrible president. Harding as well. But times have changed. You can’t get away with what you used to be able to get away with. Not only has society become more compex, the stakes have been raised. We have nuclear weapons. We have - manifestly - the technology to oppress people to a greater degree than any of the most brutal dictatorships in the past.
That requires not only a higher standard for leaders, but a much greater vigilance on the part of the people.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:50 PM on January 13, 2006


Smedleyman, my point wasn't that we should hold Bush to the same standard we held, say, Grant. It was that we have no reasonable experience with impeachment to determine whether or not it is a reasonable response in this situation.

Impeaching a president is the most serious decision the Congress can make, I'm just not comfortable doing it unless I know for a fact that it is the only option that will prevent disaster. We're not talking about that, we're talking about impeaching him for policy decisions with which we disagree. It might be that his policy choices are horrible, indeed, they might be unconstitutional(the NSA thing probably is), but we have other, better tested ways of dealing with that problem. If he ignores those attempts, then we might have to fall back on impeachment, but it shouldn't be a first resort.

It is also important to understand what we're talking about here. We are not talking about "the people" rising up and throwing out an administration. We are talking about one party using a constitutional power to achieve certain political ends. They might be the right ends, but make sure you know what you're doing before you do it.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:02 PM on January 13, 2006


Exactly Bulgaroktonos. And that is the same argument that I (among others) made in opposition to the Clinton impeachment. It wasn't a good use of political will. Nor is it here.

But, again, this entire issue, at its core, is a tit for tat mindset. People have been talking about impeaching Bush since the day he was elected. The people proposing this are just short-sighted individuals of the mindset "You impeached my guy, and now I am not going to stop until I impeach yours."

The process of impeachment should not in the past, in the present, or the future be used as a means to air political disagreements.

Which is why this whole issue has no basis in any sort of reality and is merely a topic on which Bush haters can have a good ol' circle jerk with.
posted by dios at 2:07 PM on January 13, 2006


We're not talking about that, we're talking about impeaching him for policy decisions with which we disagree.

Tell'n lies that cost taxpayers lottsa money and break'n various laws SHOULD be 'policy decisions with which we disagree.'

Otherwise, why have laws, elections et la?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:09 PM on January 13, 2006


Not only has society become more compex, the stakes have been raised. We have nuclear weapons. We have - manifestly - the technology to oppress people to a greater degree than any of the most brutal dictatorships in the past.
That requires not only a higher standard for leaders, but a much greater vigilance on the part of the people.
-----------------------------------
And that's the crux of the matter, higher destructive capability requires equally high standards. The days of allowing greedy robber barons to run rampant and weapons contractors to have fat pork pie sandwiches really, really has to come to an end once and for all.
I can understand the need for a strong military and all that, but what the hell do 'Rods from God' have to do with fighting people on the ground that have nothing more powerful than rocket propeled grenades and AK-47's?
The money from pie in the sky projects could go to much more logical and responsible investments like, for instance, making sure everyone all over the world has a decent living wage and working conditions, free education and medical care, cradle to grave care, etc. What the *hell* is wrong with that? Instead it's kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, rob, rob, rob, greed, greed, greed, take, take, take.
And these people think they're chosen by *God*? More like damned to hell for all eternity for sins against humanity. . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:15 PM on January 13, 2006


rough ashlar, I disagree with most of the policies of this administration as well. The problem is, impeachment is not a legitimate way to achieve a policy decision. We have elections, and Bush was elected. If he was responsible for fixing that election, or if he refuses to abide by the constitution and the law, then impeachment might be justified.

What we have now are a few policy choices that many find to be illegal or possibly unconstitutional. This doesn't automatically mean that impeachment is immediately justified. If the judiciary were to rule that a Bush administration decision violated the law or the constitution, and he were to refuse to abide by that ruling, then the non-impeachment options might be exhausted and it might be reasonable to impeach him. Right now, however, that is not the case.

As long as there is reasonable debate over the legality of what he has done, then impeachment will merely be an attempt to impose one policy choice in place of another.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:21 PM on January 13, 2006


People have been talking about impeaching Bush since the day he was elected.

Some people have, yes. The number of people who are talking about impeaching Bush today are far larger than those who wanted to impeach him the day he was elected.

The people proposing this are just short-sighted individuals of the mindset "You impeached my guy, and now I am not going to stop until I impeach yours."

I'll grant you that for the people who wanted to impeach Bush the day he was elected. It doesn't seem to fit for the people who were fine with him when he is elected, but have since come to believe he should be impeached.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:21 PM on January 13, 2006


Impeach Bush? Sho'nuff! Impeach Cheney? You got it! Now then, looking down the succession chart, meet President Hastert.

That's Dennis A lot of New Orleans could be bulldozed Hastert. Also known as Dennis Al Qaida wants you to vote for Kerry Hastert. A lot of us rabid right-wingers are getting tired of W because, well, he's just not loony enough. Hastert's our guy. My button says Impeach.

Want to get to know your new President better? Here's all Hastert all the time.
posted by jfuller at 2:23 PM on January 13, 2006


/masturbates furiously
posted by dios at 1:10 PM EST on January 13

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 1:34 PM EST on January 13


From this I am to gather that quonsar likes the porn stars whereas dios prefers slash?
posted by Sparx at 2:31 PM on January 13, 2006


This thread needs that funky beat!
posted by bonefish at 2:34 PM on January 13, 2006


impeachment is not a legitimate way to achieve a policy decision.

It does offer accountability. After an election, how do YOU propose accountability? Esp. when the 'policy decisions' taken ARE against 'the laws of the land'.

Look, the only way there will be impeachment is if the gears of the global economy see actions of political officials as challenging their wads of cash/power, then impeachment documents will sprout like flowers after a spring rain.

What we have now are a few policy choices that many find to be illegal or possibly unconstitutional. This doesn't automatically mean that impeachment is immediately justified.

Then the laws of the land do not apply equally, do they?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:43 PM on January 13, 2006


Accountability is built into our system: regular elections.

You don't like someone who is elected? Vote them out.
posted by dios at 2:45 PM on January 13, 2006


But that was when people cared more about their country than they did about their party.
posted by kirkaracha


Absolutely. Corporate whoredom and the culture of corruption (also known as the K Street project) have removed your dad's
GOP statesmen and replaced them with selfish, partisan, lying bastards that care nothing about their country. They would drown it in their bathtubs (after robbing it.)
posted by nofundy at 2:47 PM on January 13, 2006


Accountability is built into our system: regular elections.

You don't like someone who is elected? Vote them out.


The Founding Fathers may have given us an impeachment process, but they certainly didn't intend for us to ever actually use it!
posted by EarBucket at 2:54 PM on January 13, 2006


The Founding Fathers may have given us an impeachment process, but they certainly didn't intend for us to ever actually use it!
posted by EarBucket at 4:54 PM CST on January 13


I didn't say that. There is a time and place for it. This isn't it.

The reason that this issue has little traction with Democrats in Congress is because the primary argument against the impeachment of Bill Clinton was that impeachment was improper and a grave thing that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. (An opinion I shared at the time and share now). There is a long record for Democrats in which they argued it and got all of their legal friends to write briefs on it.

Now, 8 years later, they are suppose to change their position?

They can't. Because they know damn well that it will be seen for what it actaully is... as I have said several times... a tit for tat response for the impeachment of Clinton.

The power to impeach a president should not be casually used to remove a president and overturn an election simply because we don't like him or his policies.

- Maxine Waters

posted by dios at 3:05 PM on January 13, 2006


dios, ignoring the rule of law is not a "policy." How does this jibe with your libertarian authoritarian leanings?
posted by bardic at 3:08 PM on January 13, 2006


Impeach Bush? Sho'nuff! Impeach Cheney? You got it! Now then, looking down the succession chart, meet President Hastert.
posted by jfuller at 4:23 PM CST on January 13


See? It can always get worse.
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on January 13, 2006


Accountability is built into our system: regular elections.

You don't like someone who is elected? Vote them out.
posted by dios at 2:45 PM PST on January 13 [!]


So once in some office, they have no accountability 'till the next appointment round.

And if they want to violate laws, that's fine. Just wait 'till the next election is your position?


Don't bother responding if that is your position.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:35 PM on January 13, 2006


Serious question: we've had two impeachments; how many times has it been officially proposed? Was a movement to impeach made before Nixon resigned? What other presidents have battled impeachment attempts?
posted by b_thinky at 4:42 PM on January 13, 2006


I've never been impeached, and, to my knowledge, no one has tried...
posted by ParisParamus at 4:44 PM on January 13, 2006


Impeach?

Try indict.

Then try execute as a traitor to the Republic.

Then how's about some frame his entrails next to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives as a warning to future traitors?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:53 PM on January 13, 2006


(Uh, not you, Paris.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:54 PM on January 13, 2006


I've never been impeached, and, to my knowledge, no one has tried...

PP, well, you did write that Bush should be impeached if no WMDs were found, you know...
posted by Rothko at 4:55 PM on January 13, 2006


The problem is that i really don't see that impeachment goes far enough and it would only affect the president himself. The demonstrable disdain that this entire administration has shown for the people of this country is astonishing. i didn't particularly like Clinton but i am in awe of how bad these people are.

i say we do what ever is necessary to put these people behind bars. i'm with yesster on the whole international war crimes tribunals thing.

and on preview what Civil_Disobedient is saying as well.
posted by quin at 5:01 PM on January 13, 2006


“They might be the right ends, but make sure you know what you're doing before you do it.”
I can’t argue with that Bulgaroktonos. I will say however I believe there has been no redress of greivances and there have been a litany of issues - lying to congress about Iraq among others.

That we have policy differences is - for me - not the issue. That there have been illegalities and unconstitutional behavior is only part of the issue. The heart of the matter is those other better tested ways have failed.

Failed obviously failed in light of the current circumstances. There is no opposition party at all. There is very little check on what this administration is doing. And what has been done has been - albeit debatably - illegal.
But that is exactly the problem - there is no debate and no possibility of it. (Indeed, the president himself has said we should restrict our debate on policy in Iraq as it might give comfort to our adversaries)

I would be appaled by the situation we’re in even if this current incarnation of the party was one with which I was ideologically identical.
It’s not merely objection to policy. In this case - given the fact of 9/11, given the manifest detrimental effects on liberty and security - it’s a clear and present danger.

Although in many ways I’m tempted to cede the point and say we shouldn’t impeach.
That we do need to allow things to hit the wall and get much worse and have a revolution. But I’ve been getting fat, dumb and happy for a bit and I’d rather avoid bloodshed and chaos if it means embarrassing one incompetant rich guy.

And let me stress - I’m a conservative. My criticism of the Bush administration is that it is they that have not been playing ball. That it is they that have upset the enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity. We have institutions that are in place that are supposed to be doing what the Bushco wing of the Republican party has duplicated, politicising the mechanisms of government.

Either this is a temporary state of affairs or it is permanent. If it is temporary than Bushco is aligned with the radicals and the (in the perjorative sense) liberals who believe the “now” is the only order and that the material demands supercede the moral order and the duties toward that which endures.

If it’s permanent than those people are oligarchial despots and we’re most likely in all truth going to have to have a revolution to get them out. If indeed it’s possible.

A little ass kicking of one guy now might stem the tide - much like an early course correction on a spacecraft uses less energy and is more efficient than a later one.

“...Which is why this whole issue has no basis in any sort of reality...” - dios

I’ll cede that there may be people who feel that way. As it is I felt Clinton should have been impeached for other things he had done. I was strongly against his impeachment on the fellatio issue, but I would have been in favor of it were it predicated on charges with substance.

“There is a time and place for it. This isn't it.” - dios

Your opinion. I have a lower tolerance for mendacity. (Probably for democrats as well).
If that’s your bottom line, then we can agree to disagree on this.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:14 PM on January 13, 2006


I've never been impeached, and, to my knowledge, no one has tried...

If WMDs are not found in Iraq, ... the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
posted by quonsar at 6:51 PM on January 13, 2006


Maybe we can take this up again in November.
posted by warbaby at 7:20 PM on January 13, 2006


WMDs were found. Moreover, until we invade and or do a coup in Damascus, there are even more to find. Stay tuned!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:26 PM on January 13, 2006


WMDs were found? ARe you insane?
posted by caddis at 7:28 PM on January 13, 2006


No I am not. But I suspect the motherland is in Syria.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:32 PM on January 13, 2006




Motherload. Darn spellcheck!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:41 PM on January 13, 2006


Paris, there were no WMDs. If you think otherwise you are like the fools who believe the Earth to be flat. If you really want to push the point you had better come up with some evidence, otherwise I suggest you take some foil from your kitchen drawer and line your hats with it. Saddam pipe dreams don't count, only real weapons. Got any? Remember, if you cite the carcasses of ancient old stuff, or other straws at which were clutched to prove he actually had them you will only weaken your argument. Were there weapons of mass destruction that posed a serious threat to the US (or even to Israel)? Read this (U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks) prior to responding.
posted by caddis at 7:53 PM on January 13, 2006


By the way, do you know how stupid it sounds to say "WMDs were found" and then backtrack and say "I suspect they are in Syria?"
posted by caddis at 7:57 PM on January 13, 2006


Sorry, small amounts were found. And the "ingredients" were found. Give it up.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:58 PM on January 13, 2006


A hand grenade is not a WMD. Let's see some proof pal. Come on, cough it up. You got bubkes and you know it.
posted by caddis at 8:00 PM on January 13, 2006


I will admit, however, that less/fewer than expected were found. I will also admit that my famous quote is/was stupid. Hussein had used WMDs, and he acted like he had something to hide before the war. And given that, nothing more was necessary to justify going to war. I don't think my comment was intended to be taken as seriously as it has been here, but I will stand by it in the sense that WMDs, were found, and its too early to conclude no more will be found.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:01 PM on January 13, 2006


Syria has'm. And by the way, that WSJ piece puts the lie to the whole "Saddam was secular" crap. There was a trade and arms triangle running from Baghdad to Damascus to Tehran. Now it's just an axis. i'm thinking that Syria is going to be taken out, for its own evil, and to isolate Iran, which is the real, global danger now.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:05 PM on January 13, 2006


Goodnight all...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:05 PM on January 13, 2006


By the way, no one disputes that Saddam had an active WMD program back in the days of the first Gulf war. Some ancient relics of this massive program do not count. That certainly is not what we went to war over. Real active weapons today, got any? Thought not.

On preview: This is the smartest thing you have ever said about that silly quote. Keep it up and you will silence some critics.

You still haven't shown what was found. I submit it was nothing but fossils from ancient history. Nothing to be concerned about.
posted by caddis at 8:07 PM on January 13, 2006


i say we do what ever is necessary to put these people behind bars. i'm with yesster on the whole international war crimes tribunals thing.

If it’s permanent than those people are oligarchial despots and we’re most likely in all truth going to have to have a revolution to get them out. If indeed it’s possible.


It all boils down to money. (and a bit of power)

If international monied interests wanted Bush and Co gone, a simple "We won't accept the FRN/USD for trade till he's gone" - the speed applied to throwing WHATEVER to the wolfs will deafen you all with the resulting sonic boom.

The people in power are at the top of the pyramind need the bottom to support them. If the bottom stops working to feed the top, its all over for 'em. Now, I have no actual idea what it would take for the bottom to stop feeding the top, but if no one feeds the various beasts of the world, the beasts will starve. (Pick whatever beasts you want and whatever food source you want. If you want to be literal - imagine the people "at the top" - if no one provided them with actual food - what would they eat? Could they grow their own food....literally?)

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going back to being a wage slave, feeding the upper parts of the pyramid.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:07 PM on January 13, 2006


Good piece on what a lousy job the Bush Administration has done on getting the word out on various "finds" in Iraq.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:36 PM PST on January 13 [!]


Yea, in opinion journal.

VS the statements of the Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:18 PM on January 13, 2006


But, again, this entire issue, at its core, is a tit for tat mindset. People have been talking about impeaching Bush since the day he was elected. The people proposing this are just short-sighted individuals of the mindset "You impeached my guy, and now I am not going to stop until I impeach yours."

The process of impeachment should not in the past, in the present, or the future be used as a means to air political disagreements.

Which is why this whole issue has no basis in any sort of reality and is merely a topic on which Bush haters can have a good ol' circle jerk with.



What an utter load of horseshit Dios, even by your standards. Nice strawman you whupped.

This has nothing to do with the impeachment of Clinton, other than to serve as a textbook case for reasons a sitting president actually deserves to be impeached.

Further, as more and more of these GOP scumbags start getting indicted, the whole house of cards will crumble, revealing that above and beyond being liars, cheats, war profiteers, torturers, and general scumbags, Cheney, Bush, and company are also mass murderers, responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans on 9/11, and countless more deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since and continuing.
posted by stenseng at 8:20 PM on January 13, 2006


I will also admit that my famous quote is/was stupid.

Because it shows you are not willing to stand behind your words.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:23 PM on January 13, 2006


Boxcars filled with denial, shuttled away to the next warzone when disapproval levels get too low.
posted by eatitlive at 8:40 PM on January 13, 2006


high, whatever.
posted by eatitlive at 8:41 PM on January 13, 2006


Any argument which hinges on the opponent being liberal/conservative/left/right is entirely meaningless and serves mainly to show its creator's absolute lack of intelectual or political honesty.
posted by signal at 9:32 PM on January 13, 2006


There was a trade and arms triangle running from Baghdad to Damascus to Tehran...

...to the United States.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:38 PM on January 13, 2006


Paris is an asshat.
End of transmission.
posted by Balisong at 9:45 PM on January 13, 2006


ChImpeach. There is no substitute for the public humiliation this man must receive to set our nation's karma back to just to the left of awful. I do rest secure in the sure knowledge that history will judge the Bush administration as among the most corrupt, venal, and incompetent ever, if there are still historians and academic freedom enough when these thugs are through with their Khmer Rouge-style war on intellectuals and academia. But in the meantime, nothing less than a huge public shaming would satisfy me. Whether it happens or not, it would be the right thing to do.
posted by spitbull at 9:47 PM on January 13, 2006



posted by sporb at 9:51 PM on January 13, 2006


<sigh>
posted by sporb at 9:52 PM on January 13, 2006


Not one single member of the 435 House of Representatives has even suggested bringing Articles of Impeachment.

dios, you obviously don't care to know that Rep. John Conyers introduced -- with 7 cosponsors -- a resolution calling for a Select Committee to consider charges that could lead to impeachment. The Republican majority perfunctorily referred it to committee.

I'm sure you consider them the usual suspects, but your statement is flat wrong.
posted by dhartung at 12:06 AM on January 14, 2006


Cry me a river.
posted by HTuttle at 12:15 AM on January 14, 2006


1. He’s done nothing that is impeachable by the standard of previous impeachments.

That's not clear. He did the wiretaps (and admited too it). And cheney was involved as well. If there's a risk I think he'll dump cheney and put condi in as VP
posted by delmoi at 6:06 AM on January 14, 2006


dios, you obviously don't care to know that Rep. John Conyers introduced -- with 7 cosponsors -- a resolution calling for a Select Committee to consider charges that could lead to impeachment. The Republican majority perfunctorily referred it to committee.

Well, there's a difference between issuing a call for an impeachment and issuing a call for committee to look and see if maybe he should be impeached.

Dios argument that because Clinton got impeached, and that didn't work out overall, Bush shouldn't be impeached either is rather stupid. What bush did with this wiretapping BS may be a serious crime. And they're still doing it. The only way to get him to stop might be to impeach.

That's like saying because Jim-bob had sex with a hooker and no one cared Buba-joe shouldn't be arrested for secretly taping his Ex-wife's phone calls. It's a pretty weak argument. Both are crimes, and both need to be delt with appropriately. My personal feeling is that illegally wiretapping potentially millions of Americans is much worse then lying about a blowjob in a deposition for a politically motivated sexual harassment suit.

I don't see how any rational person could feel differently.

Dios' second argument is that we're not sure if it was a crime or not. Well, we should figure that out, don't you think? It's not like there's a body of case law on this, and an impeachment hearing is a good place to have such a debate.

Dios' evidence of the second argument is that some people are arguing, however, in my experience they do not seem to be doing so in good faith, and have not put forward any credible arguments.
posted by delmoi at 6:48 AM on January 14, 2006




If you want to resort to that level of douchebaggery, peepee,



Yet another reputable politician who agrees that Bush is an honest and ethical leader.
posted by stenseng at 10:36 AM on January 14, 2006


yet another reputable journalist who agrees that Bush is an honest and ethical leader.


posted by quonsar at 10:59 AM on January 14, 2006


quonsar, why did you black out PeePee?
posted by Balisong at 11:14 AM on January 14, 2006


I have more hair than that...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:18 AM on January 14, 2006


Meow.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:18 AM on January 14, 2006


So showing what a dick an anti-Bush politician is is over the line?
posted by ParisParamus at 11:24 AM on January 14, 2006


Guess what, Delay is Evil, but President Bush is a Good. Got it?
posted by ParisParamus at 11:25 AM on January 14, 2006


Nope not over the line. Just childish and irrelevant. It's the equivalent of saying "Hitler was a vegetarian, so anyone who doesn't eat meat is a nazi."
posted by stenseng at 11:26 AM on January 14, 2006


Sorry, but when one of the most outspoken critics of the President shows himself to be an even larger fool than previously though, it's newsworthy.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:36 AM on January 14, 2006


thoughT!
posted by ParisParamus at 11:37 AM on January 14, 2006


What sort of prison time would someone get if they were to punch George W Bush in his stupid smug face? How much money would someone need to donate to the GOP to get the opportunity?
posted by longbaugh at 11:51 AM on January 14, 2006


Sorry, but when one of the most outspoken supporters of the President shows himself to be an even larger fool than previously though(t), it's newsworthy.
posted by Balisong at 12:16 PM on January 14, 2006


And Longbaugh, I'm sure there is a price.
posted by Balisong at 12:17 PM on January 14, 2006


Didn't Bush himself admit there were no WMD's?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 12:39 PM on January 14, 2006


Good piece on what a lousy job the Bush Administration has done on getting the word out on various "finds" in Iraq. - posted by ParisParamus

Do you even read your own sources?

Ok. I personally know Hans Blix and Saddam Hussein. They both told me there are no WMDs. Also Bush called me just now when he saw my post here to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:51 PM on January 14, 2006


Oh, forgot: the article referred to in your source post.

You are a stupid, stupid, egotist. Or you have no interest in even attempting to dialogue.

But I prefer to take you at your word.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:28 PM on January 14, 2006


MeTa

Is seems we gotta squeeze them in nowadays..
posted by Balisong at 4:36 PM on January 14, 2006


very strong NY Times Editorial for Sunday: The Imperial Presidency at Work --...Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.
The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

posted by amberglow at 10:50 PM on January 14, 2006




For the non-link clicking - the core of the Hayes article cited by the Op-Ed piece in the WSJ posted by ParisParamus who insinuated that WMDs were found but because of the "lousy job the Bush Administration has done on getting the word out on various "finds" in Iraq."posted by ParisParamus at 7:36 PM PST on January 13 " - we don't know about them:
"How many of those unexploited documents might help us better understand the role of Iraq in supporting transregional terrorists?"
posted by Smedleyman at 11:02 PM on January 14, 2006


amberglow, uh....er...democrats.com?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 AM on January 15, 2006


It won't happen as long as there are people with money who support him.

Politics and religion are pointless discussions for people who shout at the TV during sports games. But people love to constantly do the dance, over and over.

Allow me to repeat.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THE WHITE UPPER CLASS REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IS IN POWER AND THEY WILL DO WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO DO TO STAY THERE. And as long as they can find holes in your arguments, they're right and you're not.

In order for Bush to be removed from office, there would have to be a painstakingly orchestrated series of procedures that no legal loopholes could be found in, by a tightly-knit group of representatives. And I really don't believe that there's anyone capable of doing that anymore, because there aren't enough people that qualify to form a group.

Our parents were so gung-ho for us to practice law and be well-paid upstanding citizens. Now we have a bunch of lawyers and attorneys and the documents that held this nation together are in shreds, thanks to hundreds of legal precedents put in place through technicalities and loopholes.

Let me ask you this: How many of you have actually done something about it? Called a representative? Staged a protest? Organized a march? Online debates are cute, but you don't oust elected officials that way. You have to do something, and you have to do it as a group or it doesn't work.

Me...I just got sick of arguing. I'm just sitting around screwing up a Bachelor's Degree and waiting to die.
posted by deusdiabolus at 2:17 AM on January 15, 2006


Note the stream of ParisParamus posts trying to defend the WMD were found position.

Looks like someone's ego got rubbed the wrong way.

Poor ParisParamus. Wonder what she'd do if she found out The President was homosexual?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:53 AM on January 15, 2006


rough, I would have no problems with a gay President. And I'm a he--thoroughly!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:21 AM on January 15, 2006


Just for the record, folks, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. As the Repos demonstrated with Clinton, there is no limit to how low you can go. That being said, count the votes and we'll take this up again in November.

Oh, and PP: there's no UN sanction on Syria over WMD -- nor Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea which have 'em also -- so if BushBum tangles with that tarbaby, it's without a figleaf. Possession of WMD is not a causus belli.

And there was nothing found in Iraq other than evidence that Clinton and the UN sucessfully disarmed Iraq, completely, utterly and beyond any possible interpretation. So save your dicta.
posted by warbaby at 9:29 AM on January 17, 2006


« Older 1421: The Year China Discovered Your Mom   |   Graphs Maps Trees Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post