Newsweek: Most Americans support impeachment, GOP numbers continue to crumble - Page 3

garbagemanlb · 10-23-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

even pelosi says they won't try to impeach bush if they win......... wonder why.

....because it'll fail, that's why.

You can be damned sure that there'll be investigations at the very least.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

You can be damned sure that there'll be investigations at the very least.

every party has investigated the other party at some point during their "reign".......... good luck.

avsp · 10-23-2006, 09:55 AM

Depending on how you define 'siezed' i think a case can be made that Cheney & Rumsfeld 'seized power' to wage war, because they didnt campaign on the issue despite having declared their desire beforehand

17 is a very very big reach IMO

Impeachment attempts would be a bad idea coz it would further divide America.

Plus the fact that the admin was re-elected has already largely condemned you in the eyes of many worldwide. Even so the publicity of a failed impeachment attempts would really bang the nails into the credibility of democracy.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

Depending on how you define 'siezed' i think a case can be made that Cheney & Rumsfeld 'seized power' to wage war, because they didnt campaign on the issue despite having declared their desire beforehand

how can you say they "seized power" when congress looked at the exact same information and came to the same conclusion and voted to back the president's actions?

avsp · 10-23-2006, 10:25 AM

I'm saying that Cheney et al got onto the 'ticket' in order to wage war against Iraq for geo-political reasons even before 9/11.

The campaign in 2000 hardly mentioned their desire to invade Iraq at all (i may be wrong on this last specific BTW. Bush himself brought it up, sort of, in a TV debate but i've struggled to find any other mention of it in the mainstrean media)

It was they (PNAC) & their appointees who removed the caveats from the intell assessments prior to providing them to others. The creation of the OPS (OSP? my memory is failing), is perhaps the most obvious example of such behaviour. Either way the behaviour of congress is irrelevent to my point

It does admittedly hinge on a very particular definition of 'sieze' that I doubt would stand up in court, ..., basically they were, (seemingly), largely, dishonest in their public manifesto in 2000 election campaign.

Either way impeachment seems to have zero chance of success & thus shouldnt be attempted, (although personally i'd like to see Rumsfeld & cohorts swinging from lampposts for gross stupidity if nothing else, but thats just my ire & is best left unserved IMO)

Donkey® · 10-23-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

even pelosi says they won't try to impeach bush if they win......... wonder why.

....because it'll fail, that's why.

Can't hurt to try.

Donkey® · 10-23-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

how can you say they "seized power" when congress looked at the exact same information and came to the same conclusion and voted to back the president's actions?

The problem with this is the possibility that they KNEW better before they presented their "intelligence" as fact. If that's not the case, then the other problem would be the sheer incompetence of their leadership to allow totally wrong and completely fabricated information to be used as "intelligence."

Diesel66 · 10-23-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Pick one

Well since every single one of those was backed by Congress, I dont see how they can impeach him.

Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

(katrina)

that's one of my favorites as well, seeing as if he *did* send feds there a different group would be trying to impeach him for doing *that*!!

nbiggershaft · 10-23-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

how can you say they "seized power" when congress looked at the exact same information and came to the same conclusion and voted to back the president's actions?

Now comon, thats just the admin's mouthpiece. The president had a great deal of influence on what information was presented.

nbiggershaft · 10-23-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Well since every single one of those was backed by Congress, I dont see how they can impeach him.

congress doesn't(or perhaps just shouldn't) have the right to clear him of violating constitutional rights without an amendement. IMO I'd like to see him hung out to dry in some way for influence on illegal investigation procedures; wiretaps, suspension of habues corpus, collecting private consumer data ect.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Now comon, thats just the admin's mouthpiece. The president had a great deal of influence on what information was presented.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

they saw the evidence presented by the president's people *and* evidence from other intelligence groups from other countries and other evidence they thought appropriate and came to their own conclusion.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

IMO I'd like to see him hung out to dry in some way for influence on illegal investigation procedures; wiretaps, suspension of habues corpus, collecting private consumer data ect.

show me what he did and how it's illegal, please.

nbiggershaft · 10-23-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

they saw the evidence presented by the president's people *and* evidence from other intelligence groups from other countries and other evidence they thought appropriate and came to their own conclusion.

Well fuck me, if the whitehouse official document says so, guess it has to be true. Comon you didn't have blinders on while all this was going on, you saw the amount of bullying and bullshit. All the interviews coming out of the whitehouse said the same thing. Bush's crew wanted one type of investigation and one type of info and nothing else.

7960 · 10-23-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Well fuck me, if the whitehouse official document says so, guess it has to be true. Comon you didn't have blinders on while all this was going on, you saw the amount of bullying and bullshit. All the interviews coming out of the whitehouse said the same thing. Bush's crew wanted one type of investigation and one type of info and nothing else.

So the evidence that was presented by other intelligence agencies...that was all crap, too?

Diesel66 · 10-23-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

congress doesn't(or perhaps just shouldn't) have the right to clear him of violating constitutional rights without an amendement. IMO I'd like to see him hung out to dry in some way for influence on illegal investigation procedures; wiretaps, suspension of habues corpus, collecting private consumer data ect.

missing the point. If they impeach him, they are just admitting the acts they supported were illegal.

nbiggershaft · 10-23-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

missing the point. If they impeach him, they are just admitting the acts they supported were illegal.

Suppose what should and could happen are a bit different. Believe me, I find the impotence of our current congressional body to be more shameful than anything the president did.

nbiggershaft · 10-23-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

So the evidence that was presented by other intelligence agencies...that was all crap, too?

I've only ever seen the case out of our intelligence agencies, so I can't speak for other internation sources. I do remember the body that was in officially in charge of the matter, the UN weapons inspectors saying they had no evidence of wmd's.

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 06:28 PM

This spawned from a very popular DailyKos diary that was on the aired on radio news and was criticized even by the Kos users.

I agree with this person's assessment:

Originally Posted by Green Reflex: Before you all spout this number:

I would decide for yourself whether you think this diary accurately reflects the content of the Newsweek article. This is the relevant passage.

Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done.

In my opinion it is putting words in Newsweeks's mouth to say that means most Americans support impeachment. (Newsweeks never draws that inference, so it is putting words into their mouth.)

I agree. I think this is putting words in Newsweek's mouth. I think if you asked the poll with a yes or no question you would get different results. This was actually one of the highest rated responses on the diary with 25 positive clicks and 0 negative.