Impeachment, anyone?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Maybe because this thread is about impeachment and he was the last President impeached?

I knew somebody would state this abc answer.
However you stopped with only that. Then why make the comparison?
No, IMO your post implied guilt , the same guilt ..
As if Bush had perjured himself as Clinton did.
Dont be shy ,if that was your intent say it...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by 7960

they say "lying to congress about the reasons for going to war"

........even though congress looked at the same evidence and came to the same conclusion

Exactly. You hit the nail dead on the head....

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 7960

they say "lying to congress about the reasons for going to war"

........even though congress looked at the same evidence and came to the same conclusion

Oh yeah, Joe Biden got briefs from the head of the CIA everyday...they all got the exact same level of intelligence reports that Bush did

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Oh yeah, Joe Biden got briefs from the head of the CIA everyday...they all got the exact same level of intelligence reports that Bush did

don't make me pull out the quote list

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

don't make me pull out the quote list

The "quote list" is a bunch of people who didn't have the 2002-2003 intelligence briefs in the level GW Bush did

The buck stops there, where is your sense of personal responsibility?

If you say "apply it to the Senators" their was a call by the Ameircan people after 9/11 to be bipartisan, can you imagine if all the Democrats called Bush a liar right after 9/11? Senators have a duty to represent their state, not to distrust every word the president says...if they did our government would collapse

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The "quote list" is a bunch of people who didn't have the 2002-2003 intelligence briefs in the level GW Bush did

The buck stops there, where is your sense of personal responsibility?

If you say "apply it to the Senators" their was a call by the Ameircan people after 9/11 to be bipartisan, can you imagine if all the Democrats called Bush a liar right after 9/11? Senators have a duty to represent their state, not to distrust every word the president says...if they did our government would collapse

so they had no intel?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so they had no intel?

False dichotomy

They had non-optimal intelligence brief levels

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

False dichotomy

They had non-optimal intelligence brief levels

U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

< President's daily intelligence briefs added up over years, and all his national security meetings

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

< President's daily intelligence briefs added up over years, and all his national security meetings

so the intel provided was less than what was required to make the decision?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so the intel provided was less than what was required to make the decision?

The intel was looked at and the pieces that supported the administrations opinion were presented.

[motivez]

I wish they would, he's obviously guilty of many impeachable offenses..

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I wish they would, he's obviously guilty of many impeachable offenses..

please list them

[motivez]

he's violated the law with many programs

torture, illegal wiretapping, secret prisons, denying due process and legal rights to American citizens.. not to mention sidestepping congressional intent with signing statements that he then follows as if they're law

he's shit all over the constitution and deserves to be impeached. Cheney too.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by motivez

he's violated the law with many programs

torture, illegal wiretapping, secret prisons, denying due process and legal rights to American citizens.. not to mention sidestepping congressional intent with signing statements that he then follows as if they're law

he's shit all over the constitution and deserves to be impeached. Cheney too.

Yes, but if Bush has set up a fascist, unconstitutional infrastructure, then impeachment wont' fix that.

From the perspective of someone on the left:

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE HAS JUST BEGUN - Yahoo! News

[Donkey®]

"But Congress approved it" is the lamest excuse ever. Indict congress too then...but if you think they were given all the necessary information, I think you need to re-think that.

[motivez]

Hmm, maybe I'm being a bit too pessimistic:

The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.

There's the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of war profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

"I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."

Waxman, who's in his 16th term representing West Los Angeles, had plenty of experience leading congressional investigations before the Democrats lost control of the House to Republicans in 1994.

That was the year when, as chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, he presided over dramatic hearings he convened where the heads of leading tobacco companies testified that they didn't believe nicotine was addictive.

The scene made it into the movie "The Insider," but Waxman noted Friday that no subpoenas were issued to produce that testimony.

Republicans have speculated that a Democratic congressional majority will mean a flurry of subpoenas and investigations into everything under the sun as retaliation against the GOP and President Bush.

Not so, Waxman said.

"A lot of people have said to me, `Are you going to now go out and issue a lot of subpoenas and go on a wild payback time?' Well, payback is unworthy," he said. "Doing oversight doesn't mean issuing subpoenas. It means trying to get information."

Subpoenas would be used only as a last result, Waxman said, taking a jab at a previous committee chairman, GOP Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who led the committee during part of the Clinton administration.

"He issued a subpoena like most people write a letter," Waxman said.

Waxman complained that Republicans, while in power, shut Democrats out of decision-making and abdicated oversight responsibilities, focusing only on maintaining their own power.

In contrast to the many investigations the GOP launched of the Clinton administration, "when Bush came into power there wasn't a scandal too big for them to ignore," Waxman said.

Among the issues that should have been investigated but weren't, Waxman contended, were the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the controversy over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, and the pre-Iraq war use of intelligence.

He said Congress must restore accountability and function as an independent branch of government. "It's our obligation not to be repeating with the Republicans have done," Waxman said.

[Diamond Cross]

Then that should mean going after the Democrats who supported President Bush as well. It takes two to tango.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Then that should mean going after the Democrats who supported President Bush as well. It takes two to tango.

I love how the value of personal responsibility completely goes out the window whenever its convenient

must be nice

[Diamond Cross]

I really like it how the Democrats say it's only President bush's fault. If he did not have the support he needed he could not have done those things. How could he have done those things without help and support?

Things like the USA Patriot Act could no0t have been passed without support from both parties.

But Democrats, just like RRepublicans, refuse to see their own responsibility. You talk a lot about repsonsibility but this is nothing more than another witch hunt from partisan politics. If it weren't then there be recognition of their own support of President Bush's alledged criminal activities and take full responsibility for it.

But you don't see that happening.