Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
The Strongest Count of Impeachment
For those clamoring for impeachment, please give the strongest count (accusation) against Bush for impeachment (that has ANY chance of flying in the Senate). Don't give a long list of possible wrongs i.e. incompetence etc...: this is just confusing and not persuasive. If it is to hard to pick 1 then pick the top three most serious and strongest counts for impeachment
George Bush is impeached for
Count 1 ______________________
Count 2 ________________________
Count 3 __________________________
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Ralpheh, how long have you followed the acts...
of this bunch of criminals? It really doesn't appear that you know very much from the tone of all your posts.
You do realize don't you, that the Constitution mandates impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush and Co have committed so many of these...that the problem is not seeing which is viable, but choosing from the cornicopia of crimes--all impeachment level crimes.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Count 1
Count 1 _____He______________
Count 2 ________LIED________
Count 3 __to congress under oath___
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
One count of perjury?
Clinton was accused of perjury as well...
And what, exactly, did Bush say before Congress that was a lie?? To be clear etc... are you talking about the State of the Union speech in 2003?
I will give you 2 to get started
Do you remember Bush's speech about yellow cake? That was a direct lie. He knew that Saddam did not buy or try to buy yellow cake from Niger. That was a well documented direct lie to congress and to the American people.
Did you hear Bush tell us that he was only wiretapping those that he knew had ties to al Quaeda and that he had to get a warrant, before he could wire tap? That is known to be a lie.
Here is a very brief legal mention of things that are impeachable offences that Bush has committed
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
Better Yet...
There are so many counts to name here but I'll go ahead and name FIVE:
Count One = Suppression of the First Amendment
Article II, Section 1 of the Constition says the following: "Before (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The First Amendment of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I now urge you to research a term known as "Free Speech Zones", created by the BOOsh Regime. Also research this Regime's policies of paying journalists to report "favorable news".
Count Two = Domestic Surveillance Program
The Fourth Amendment Reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Not to mention the constitutional requirement mentioned in mentioned in Article VI which clearly states that all elected officials must uphold and protect all laws and treaties passed by Comgress. (Article will be quoted shortly)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that BOOsh's stamp of approval on the NSA's Program constitutes not only an unconstitutional act, but an overall disregard for the law in general. The fact is that Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act officially creating the FISC in the 1970s which clearly layed out the rules instructing exactly how any and all communications of this nature should be handled. BOOsh showed just how much he cared - and still shows it to this day - about the rule of law by approving this program in 2001. Convinced yet?
Count Three = Overreaching Executive Authority
Art. I, Section 7 says: "(Every bill shall) be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it." And, Art. I, Sec. 1 says: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."
Then, the combination of Art. II, Sec. 1 as well as the above mentioned Art. VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. - The Senators and Representatives…and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Two words, "Signing Statements." Research just how BOOsh has misused this "right." (I also cite the Ninth Amendment to back my case up here)
Count Four = The War and the Lies Surrounding it.
Art. I, Sect. 8: "The Congress shall have Power To declare War." This was not the first time Congress has relinquished this constitutional power (I.E. L.B.Johnson), but the case of perjury is so strong here, just do a little research regarding BOOsh's quotes throughout the runup to the war in contrast to what was going on behind closed doors.
Count Five = TREASON
Art. III, Sect. 3 says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
It has been reported that - as political retaliation for Joseph Wilson's article regarding BOOsh's misleading 2003 Dictation to the Nation speech - BOOsh and Cheney both authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame-Wilson's Identity WHILE she was on a COVERT mission in IRAN regarding the proliferation of WMDs. How is that not aiding our "enemies"?
Still convinced that this is a waste of time? If you are, then I honestly can't understand your logic.
"As a Christian, I believe that Separation of Church and State is Vital, not only for the People's Protection from an overzealous Theocratic Regime, but also for the protection of Religion from suppression."
They are a bunch of liars... but
give me and others, one or two crimes committed by Bush, i.e. ACTIONS
How about the murder of
How about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the destruction of a country, and the maiming and murder of around 50,000 American citizen-soldiers brought about by an illegal invasion which was supported by the presentation of proven lies and "fact fixing" to the Congress and the American people? Kind of makes Charles Manson look like a Boy Scout doesn't it...?
How about illegally spying on American citizens in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights?
How about defying and nullifying legitimate laws passed by the Congress with the use of illegal "signing statements?"
And, if you believe that Abramoff and DeLay acted without the tactit approval of the BA, I've got a line on some property in Baghdad I'd like to show you...
The bottom line is, that Congress needs to investigate all of these things and determine if impeachable offenses have been committed. The impeachment process is NOT a "criminal" proceeding, but a Constitutional one. Your defense of Dubya and the BA is just as meaningless as this entire thread has become.
It is obvious to not only the members of the Democrats.com community, but to many legal scholars, statesmen, Congress persons, and the voting public in general, that Dubya and company have overstepped their Constitutional bounds, and may have committed impeachable offenses and other crimes in the process.
The only way to determine that, is through Congressional investigations and the impeachment process. Whether the Senate "convicts," or not, is inconsequential to the process of determining facts, uncovering the truth, and re-asserting the Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities of the Congress.
This bothers me the most too...
I have not compared the actual statistics, so if someone has them, that would be great, but I am pretty confident that Bush's War has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein could ever hope to boast about. For what??? I'm still not understanding why we are there...
"How about the kids and I kick your ass around the block and then we'll see how well you FOCUS ON THE FAMILY." -- Tracy Mahoney
I'm talking about investigations
and grand juries, and testifying under oath. That's what I'm talking about. It's how impeachment is done. Don't put the cart before the horsie and think you've got something going...if that bastard is investigated like he should be he will shame Nixon, IMHO.
One more thing. This isn't about Clinton. He hasn't been president for more than six years now.
You asked a question and I answered it. Whether or not you like the answer does not change its truth nor does it negate your discomfort.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Waste of time
A link to the debate was offered which is more than you have offered. If you're here to debate, fine but if you're here to stir the pot and distract us from screaming for the impeachment of someone Nixon could have learned from, you're not going to be comfortable here.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Lootie, I'm gone - Senate won't convict.....
Impeachment is a waste of time and you haven't thought it out...
adios..
I think you are being
I think you are being disingenuous.
There are plenty of replies here that you must work through.
Even if the Senate Republicans
Even if the Senate Republicans are not shamed into voting to "convict," who do you believe should be held responsible for this little slice of Nazi-like treatment of a US citizen? Where does the buck stop? How do YOU define morality?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/us/04detain.html
I didn't ask you to leave
I wasn't discussing whether or not the senate would impeach. I was telling you that it's their sworn duty to investigate, and if substantial cause is found, to impeach. I would be among the first to tell you that, judging from the jobs they're going/have done, most of the senate couldn't care less about fulfilling the sworn oaths they took when they became servants of the people and started drawing paychecks (and quality health insurance most of us only dream of having) thanks to taxpayers.
This is about right and wrong. We have a Constitution and there is a remedy. We also have officers sworn to uphold that Constitution. It's pretty clear that Bush isn't the only official that lied through his teeth when he took his oath. I don't, however, have to be complicit in what's going on by shouting 'The Senate won't convict, so it's a waste of time!' at the top of my lungs.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
No one asked you to leave Ralpheh...
We have never had a poster was able to bore us all to the same level of unconsciousness before. You have been a new experience.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
mis·de·mean·or
The reckless endangerment of our Nation constitutes a Constitutional misdemeanor.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Bush did not even have ORDINARY evidence for his invasion of Canada to free flying spies.
I rewrite the "invasion of Iraq" as above because we are forgetting just how retarded all intellectuals in the land saw an invasion of Iraq to be.
The strongest cause for impeachment
Is, IMHO, failure to uphold his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It was the GOP agenda that stripped it to allow for wiretapping, torture, and secrecy. Any president who cannot/will not fulfill his sworn oath of office needs to be impeached.
I know that's not as sexy as telling lies (which he's also done on numerous occasions, IMHO) but it's the best case for impeachment from this citizen's POV. There is a remedy and it's called impeachment.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
James G Williams
That's the right question. But it's the Senators themselves we need answers from. Unfortunately, 'minor' stuff such as the following just doesn't seem to be working for most of them:
Count 2 Wholesale abrogation of inalienable human rights (state-sponsored torture of innocents, violating citizens' right to privacy, suspension of habeus corpus, suppression of free speech, etc.)
Count 3 Wholesale violation of Separation of Powers (legislating from the Oval Office via hundreds of Presidential "signing statements," illegally witholding evidence, etc.)
So, to get the Senators talking, we should first demand a for-the-record answer, from each and every Senator, as to what crimes, in their opinion, could ever justify impeachment proceedings against a president of the United States?
Of course, there's no harm helping them find the right answers by first asking all Americans these same two questions. We could start with a Democrats.com poll that uses the same mechanics as the highly informative first 100 days poll.
Great suggestion, Jim Williams!
But I really like the way you've categorized them under broad headings above because it frames the general item and then gives concrete examples below. It allows the legislators to see the patterns.
Impeachment
As much as I would love to see impeachment proceed, I think it moe likely that all (or at least a few key) Dems in the House and Senate would be declared enemy combatants and spirited away to GTMO, or meet with unfortunate criminal activity, before we will see Bush removed from office. He has already said many times that to criticize (or investigate) his policies provides material support to the terrorists.