Impeachment is the only way!

[eagler]

God bless your family.

[Monkeyman]

1. I agree I said enough I mean enough Jail Time for all of them

[Deep13]

2. Impeachment on means removal from office, not jail time.

Even without impeachment, any criminal acts can be indicted and tied after the term expires.

[Nederland]

3. Indeed

It is the only way the Americans will vote Republican again. Did you learn nothing from the Clinton impeachment fiasco?

[Monkeyman]

4. How many more must die or be wounded before you come around

[Nederland]

6. Question

Do you honestly think that having Dick Cheney as President is going to end the war sooner?

[TexasProgresive]

8. I believe they can both be impeached by the House and

tried by the Senate at the same time- since the articles of impeachment will be essentially the same.

That said, impeachment is only a real option if it comes from the grassroots. That is really what got Nixon and turned his supporters in the Congress. The investigation must come first and if they fire up the imaginations of the people then and only then can the impeachment machinery roll.

[Nederland]

10. Another Question

Do you honestly think you can get 67 votes in the Senate to impeach both Bush and Cheney?

[Monkeyman]

11. Both will have to go! I know that will be hard

But we can no longer set by and let this go on. I saw this in Vietnam its only going to get worse. I had enough of going to the VA and smelling the smell of burned bodies and seening men and omen with no leg arms and broken minds. Bush is going to make a statement on his new Iraq policy which he now will send more into the killing fields. Congress has two ways to stop this cut off funding which will hurt our troops. Or impeach and end this

[Nederland]

13. What would you impeach him for?

I ask because there are so many opinions on what the specific charges would be.

[Independent_Liberal]

16. What I'd impeach him for:

1. Lying to Congress
2. Abuse of Power
3. Obstruction of Justice
4. War Crimes
5. Conspiracy
6. Endangering the Security of the Nation
7. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against the People
8. Bribery, Fraud, Theft and Embezzlement
9. Biological Weapons
10. Criminal Negligence
11. Reckless Endangerment and Negligent Homicide
12. Defrauding the Government
13. Misuse of Government Funds
14. Military Action Without Approval from Congress

There you have it. My case for impeachment.

[Nederland]

20. If that is your case for impeachment you'd lose

That's simply a list, not a case full of facts and evidence.

[Monkeyman]

17. Ok here just a few

Lies to take us to war
Signing statements to cover up
Taken away American Rights
Under the oath of office he said I will protect America how is he doing that in your opinion
Cover ups in Iraq and other places of what we are doing and have done

This is being all look into right now by the Democrats in the House and Senate. There is a article on Veterans For America that gives details of how and why we need to impeach good read

[Nederland]

21. Let's start with the Lies

Remember, inorder to prove that someone lied you have to prove not only that they said something that was false (fairly easy in this case) but also something that they KNEW was false at the time. How are you going to do that?

Look, its not as if we disagree on the issues, those of us opposed to impeachment just don;t see it as practival. Shit, if OJ Simpson can't get convicted of murder how in the world do you think you can convict Bush of lying, especially with 49 Republicans sitting in the Senate?

[chknltl]

23. For this:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm
The bfee bastards have used WMD against the Middle East...would you have them at some point return the favor? Or should we just ignore what we have done until they DO return the favor. Look there are a lot of fine and jim dandy arguments for and against impeachment rampant here in the DU but if we do not try, impeach and convict the bfee it will be apparent to those who suffer from these crimes over in the M.E that WE THE PEOPLE condone such crimes. Then where will all these fine debates get us while we scramble to figure out why we are getting hit with multiple 9-11 attacks. I am not trying to debate here...I am just scared for all of us my fellow DUer. Quite frankly letting bush continue to stir shit up over in the M.E. only magnifies my worries

[Nederland]

30. That tribunal was not conducted in accordance with US law

heck, it isn't even in accordance with Japanese or international law.

[chknltl]

32. Glad you read it. DID we or DIDN'T we use WMD in the ME?

Of course we did so which messege do you propose we send to those folks suffering under the effects?
I for one want them to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Americans DO NOT condone this AND are willing to try the criminals who DID condone it. If not trial and conviction then EXACTLY how would you resolve this?

[Nederland]

34. Depends

If you consider DU ammunition to be a WMD, then yes, we used WMD in Iraq. However, Congress has never passed a law that classified DU ammunition to be a WMD, and even if you did you couldn't prosecute Bush for its use before the law was passed. And if you made the law retroactive, you'd have to prosecute Clinton as well because DU ammunition was used in Bosnia too.

[chknltl]

41. And THIS is the message you would send to those who suffer?

Do you believe they will understand the nuances and say to themselves "OH well if thats the case then it is all ok?" Think about it here...the world is watching my friend, I am arguing in public that we need to send a STRONG message to the ME that we do NOT condone these acts. Do you choose to appear to condone them? Do you really want to paint that target on me and you and all we hold dear here in America? Have you so soon forgotten 9-11? I know you have not. I know you do not condone bushco's crimes... I say to you: It is NOT me that you need to convince here! It is my hope that those who committed these crimes as well as their supporters should be made to clean up the mess. I wanted you to read that linc so you could see for yourself what others are seeing...what others have known for years. What we have done may damn us all here and no arguments by you or I will change that. Actions clearly speak louder than words and I strongly believe that we shall be judged by our actions...or lack thereof.

[Nederland]

42. Yes

The message I would send to those that suffer is that impeachment would never suceed and therefore would be a waste of time and money. I believe that they would much rather see the Democratic Congress work to help them in other, more successful ways, rather than to try and fail to impeach Bush. Just my opinion.

[chknltl]

5. Yes. Precisely

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. No.... No It Isn't. Sorry To Disappoint You. But God Bless Your Family As Well.

[wryter2000]

9. So,

If the House impeaches and the Senate fails to convict, what then?

I've asked this question before and received the following answers.

"I don't know what then, but I want to start the process."

"Then, that proves this is a monarchy, not a democracy."

What's your answer to the question?

[Monkeyman]

12. We have to let Nancy and others look into what has happen

Once we have the proof they will convict

[Auggie]

15. Exactly. Investigations have to come first.

[wryter2000]

25. Agreed

Thank you both.

I'm for impeachment once the case has been made to the general public and once we have a hope of getting Bush and Cheney out of office.

Frankly, there's much more to expose than Bush and Cheney or we'll end up fighting this battle again and soon.

[Senator]

18. If so ... then ...

... We The People still have a better result than not impeaching at all.

The American People are relieved of culpabilty for the crimes committed in their names, but without their consent. They are finally stood up for, with the simple message to history "We Object" (J'Accuse).

We at least begin to Redeem Our National Soul.

And if the first/only article of impeachment is for Geneva violations, the Dem members of Congress avoid becoming war criminals themselves through active complicity. They become The Gov't of the US on Jan. 3rd -- with both the power AND the responsibilities.

And you know "what else" happens then?

We impeach on a different charge.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[wryter2000]

27. Or Bush is seen as a victim

Unless the case has been made to the folks who haven't been paying attention, we'll only look vindictive, as if this is no more than revenge for the impeachment of Clinton. Once all the crimes have come out, the general public will cry for them to be tossed out and the Republicans in the Senate will vote for it to save their own hides.

[Senator]

43. That's the Big Fear ?!?

That Dems will "look vindictive?"

To whom, exactly? The virtually irrelevant Euphemedia with Cueball Carville nodding in agreement? With thousands of dead American soldiers and Marines, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, hundreds of torture victims, thousands of American citizens illegally spied on, the entire city of New Orleans wiped out, you think they can make bushcheney look like the victim of something?

The crimes are all out. The public already wants impeachment as a priority. There is nothing to investigate. There is no fence to sit upon.

That's where we are, yet the LieberDems continue to fear fear itself. On Jan 3rd they no longer have that luxury. They become war criminals through their inaction. And we become a War Criminal Nation through their failed leadership.

Now that's something real to fear.

--

[Monkeyman]

14. Here what I want you to do

Go to a Military Hospital or a VA see the truth smell the truth and then tell me we cannot or must not impeach. The cost of this war based on lies is there see for your selves

[Nederland]

19. Look

You are missing the point. Nobody is denying that all those kids dying is horrible. What those of us that disagree with you are trying to say is that we don't see how impeachment is help the problem. Now maybe you are right or maybe we are right; but it is a disagreement about impeachment, not the war. So please stop bringing up these straw man arguments about death and dying because that's not where our disagreement with you lies. It's almost if you are trying to use the emotions attached to the horrors of this war to win a political argument, and THAT, quite frankly, is wrong.

[Monkeyman]

22. Its not a Political reason Go there see then tell me what you think

I see it everyday. How many times have you seen the real cost of his lies. Political Argument no the real cost of lies. That is my point here. Maybe is you see it you will then understand why I am so for impeachment. Not that in 2008 we can lose. We are losing human beings right now on lies

[Nederland]

28. Okay

It's clear to me that because you see those things everyday that you are far too close to the effects of this war to be rational about the issue of impeachment. Obviously it's a very emotional issue for you and further discussion would therefore be pointless. Suffice to say that you can I disagree on the subject and leave it at that. Cheers and God Bless.

[Iwasthere]

24. Using emotions attached to the horrors of this war is NOT wrong!

eMOTIONS ARE WHAT WE NEED NOW. This WAS an illegal war (THERE IS DECISIVE PROOF OF THAT!) Also, Never in the history of our country have we struck first till Iraq, and what war exatly is it? Who are we fighting in Iraq? They want to keep the war machine moving forward as long as possible (war is peace). STOP THE MADNESS!!!

[Nederland]

26. Well you are just wrong on that point

It is not an "illegal war". I challenge you to give me the specific part of Federal Law that Bush broke by sending troops to Iraq. Not a generic statement or some wishy-washy speach about how evil Bush is, but an actual reference to the specific title, part and chapter that he is guilty of. For example, if a person is guilty of first degree murder, they are guilty of Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51 of the US criminal code.

[Iwasthere]

29. okay

the Iraq War violated Articles 51 and 39 of the United Nations Charter and other international laws.

Bush - rather than advocate for "preemptive war" against an immediate threat - developed a doctrine of "preventive war" for a country supposedly considered a long term term threat. The concept of "preventive war" is illegal under Section 51

The second article justifying water under the U.N. Charter is Article 39, that provides the three circumstances for the use of force: (1) a threat to peace, (2) a breach of peace and (3) an act of aggression.

"Bush kept insisting on Article 39, that there would be serious consequences against Iraq if they didn't comply with the Security Council's wishes, but most of the Council didn't buy into it," said Weston.

U.N. Resolution 1441 didn't authorize the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. "The war wasn't authorized by Article 39, so it was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair," said Weston.

Under the standards of the Nuremberg trials, the war in Iraq is considered a crime against peace. "If the regime engages in war crimes, the architects of the war are considered war criminals. Therefore Bush and his entourage are war criminals under international law," concluded Weston.

[Nederland]

31. Your reasoning is suspect

If a President could be impeached for violating article Article 39 you'd have to argue that every President since FDR should have been impeached. Ever single President since FDR has sent US troops abroad to places where there was no threat to peace, no breach of peace, and no acts of aggression. Every single one. The fact that you are for prosecuting Bush but not (presumably) Carter and Clinton will make the whole process seem rather partisan, don't you think?

[Iwasthere]

33. no

Bush claimed that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and this warrented an strike. Also I forgot to mention that he asked Saddam to comply. Saddam did and inspections continued and were growing. Bush then pulled the inspectors... yes HE pulled the inspectors before they were done!!!!!!!! So he could start his war machine up and ever since has manged to keep the world snowed. he sure has you snowed. WAKE UP! The president is a madman that thinks he is doing Gods work. "Thou shalt not kill!" What part of that commandment does Bush feel justifys preemtion?

[Nederland]

37. Yes he did claim Iraq was a threat

Bush claimed that Saddam was a threat to the US, and you know what? So did the House by a vote of 296-133, and so did the Senate by a vote of 77-23. Case closed.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

[Iwasthere]

39. They did that beacuse......

... they were given misinformation. They were told untruths! No case NOT closed!!!!

[Nederland]

40. Congratulations

You just proved that Bush and a few hundred Congressmen (including many, many Democrats) were wrong about Iraq. Big Fucking Deal. You can't impeach a President for being wrong. Case closed.

[Iwasthere]

36. more proof

Kai Annan declares Iraq war illegal

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm

Law professors declare war illegal

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

[Nederland]

38. None of those people's opinions matter

They don't sit in the US Senate.

[Xenotime]

35. It should be on the 2007 agenda

[onenote]

44. then why wasn't it an issue in the 2006 election

what should be on the 2007 agenda are the issues that Democrats ran on -- and won -- during the Nov. elections. Impeachment emphatically was not one of those issues.

[Greg Helmsley]

45. Lets be absolutely 100% realistic.

Impeachment is never going to happen. As much as we want it, cry for it, and beg for it, it won't happen. And if it did, which is a snowball's chance in hell, he won't be convicted as we don't have the 2/3 majority needed to convict him. As well as putting criminal charges against you know who when he leaves office, not going to happen. Otherwise, Reagan would've died in prison if they brought criminal charges against him. It sucks, but life goes on. :-(

[Independent_Liberal]

47. Then it will happen again in the future.

That's the reason why were stuck in the situation we're in now. Because we let Reagan and Bush Sr. off the hook. These abuses of power will become a normal part of the way we govern our country. It will all become legitimized, condoned and made permanent. Don't you realize that?

And don't be so pessimisitic about the 2/3 Senate requirement for conviction. Once investigations go forward and drag out all the evidence in the House and Senate and we dig up all the dirt on those Republicans and all their corruption, the impact will be devastating and they'll all be scrambling to throw one another under the bus to save their hides. Eventually, they won't have any choice but to vote with the Dems on impeachment. They'll see the writing on the wall and they'll know what type of consequences they'll be facing.

Remember Watergate? We did it before. We can do it again. They said it couldn't be done, but we proved them wrong.

Or would you rather be remembered as one of the "Good Germans" who sat back and did nothing while they're country faded into fascism?

[Greg Helmsley]

48. Understand you concerns

And I agree, but as I said, we have to be realistic. If we need to equate this to Watergate, it took 2 years to get the evidence to impeach Nixon, which I feel will be the length of time the investigation will take on Bush. The only exception, with Nixon, he was just elected to a second term, but Bush will be out by the time everything is out. It'll be so dragged out we may never get the facts.

I wasn't being pessimistic about the 2/3 majority in the senate. You gotta think like a politician, which is what they all are. They don't want another Watergate or Clinton BJ trials. Many of the Senators need moderate and or conservative votes to hold office. Because of the Clinton impeachment, the House republicans lost numbers, though squeeked by to retain the majority, and for a time Democrats had the Senate. This could cost Demos should they go through with it and they know it. It's all politics.

[Independent_Liberal]

49. Okay, you bring up some points, but...

You have to keep in mind all the investigations by the Justice Department, the FBI, Federal Prosecutors and grand juries that have been going on for the past two years (and longer). I'm talking about stuff like Fitzgerald's Plame investigation, the FBI investigation into Niger forgeries, the Abramoff investigation, the Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate investigation, the New Hampshire phone jamming investigation, the AIPAC investigation, the SEC investigations into Halliburton-KBR, investigations by the GAO into government propaganda and the Energy Task Force, etc. It would be wrong to say that investigations haven't been going on. Just not Congressional investigations. That means the U.S. Attorneys and Federal Investigators who were investigating all this stuff can show us their findings and witnesses who had testified before the grand juries can come forward with their allegations. So maybe Congressional investigations won't take that long.

[Greg Helmsley]

50. Key word: Maybe.

Good summary. :)

[cigsandcoffee]

46. If we tried to remove both Bush and Cheney...

...so that Pelosi was left as President, a very large percentage of America (and the world) might see the move as something akin to a coup. People will rebel against that kind of instability in our government, and I think we'd end up with the shortest majority in US history.

I think we'd do far more good for the country focusing on building our majority in '08, and adding a Democratic President.