« Blogging may be heavy today... | Main | Update On Kidnapped Fox News Team »

Jay and the giant imPeachment

As Lorie pointed out earlier, the "impeach Bush" movement is kicking back into high gear. This is betraying a lot of typical ignorance on the left, who seem to think that if they use the word "impeach" enough, President Bush and his entire administration will just disappear in a puff of good karmic smoke.

I went over the whole Constitutional process just a few months ago, but I'm going to recap it again for those too lazy or to dull-witted to read that again.

First of all, an impeached president is NOT automatically removed from office. (Just ask the Birthday Boy, who was only the second president in history to be impeached -- and neither was removed from office.) An impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment -- and with two presidential impeachments as precedent, no one should take seriously the potential argument that "Bush should step aside until the matter is settled."

The Constitution is extremely vague on what grounds for impeachment are. They say "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Technically, those could be most anything -- the next time President Bush works a rope line on a street, he could be impeached for jaywalking.

But historically and practically speaking, it takes a hell of a lot to bring about an impeachment. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the law governing how he manages his cabinet officers, and in the end the law was struck down for being an unconstitutional intrusion by the Congress into the Executive branch. Bill Clinton was impeached not for his extramarital liaisons, but for raising his hand, swearing to tell a United States court the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then lying through his teeth to save his miserable ass from public embarassment. And in the end, neither man was convicted and removed from office.

Richard Nixon was on his way to being impeached over his role in the Watergate scandal and coverup, but resigned before the process could reach that far. There is little doubt he would have been impeached and quite possibly convicted, but he circumvented the whole event. The corruption of his administration, however, set the bar of "impeachable offenses" at a very high level.

Anyway, let's dispense with the actual charges against Bush and just presume that at least one member of Congress files the appropriate paperwork. (Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich spring to mind as likely candidates.) And to make it simple, we'll say that the vote for impeachment goes strictly on party lines. It only takes a simple majority to impeach the president, so it would take 217 votes (there are currently two seats vacant) to successfully pass the impeachment.

Currently, the Republicans hold 231 seats, the Democrats 201, and 1 is an independent (but Vermont's Socialist Bernie Sanders might as well be a Democrat, so we'll move him into that column for this discussion). Right now, that impeachment ain't going anywhere.

So, how about after the mid-term elections? The Democrats would have to pick up a total of 16 seats to wrest the majority away from the Republicans. Assuming they win the two vacant seats, they would still have to take 14 seats from Republican hands to wrest power in the House and have a prayer of passing an impeachment.

Of course, that also presumes that the Republicans don't follow the lead the Democrats started over the matter of judges and pass on filibustering the impeachment process. If that happens, it's dead.

OK, so the Democrats pull off a miracle and win the House. Then they intimidate the Republicans and get their bill of impeachment passed. Then what?

Why, then it goes to the Senate, where they hold the trial.

The trial is a big deal. It is presided over by the Chief Justice, and the entire Senate sits as jury. And if the Senate votes for conviction, President Bush is removed from office.

That's the dry stuff. Here's where it gets juicy:

1) The Chief Justice, John Roberts, was appointed by President Bush. Even if people say he ought to recuse himself, there is no Constitutional provision for him to do so.

2) It takes a 2/3 vote by the Senate to convict. Currently, the Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 independent (who, again, is a Vermonter who tends to vote with the Democrats. And again, if we wait until after the November elections, it STILL won't help -- only 33 Senators are up for re-election, and only 15 are Democrats. Even if they take every single one of those seats (and 9 are considered "safe" for the Republicans), they'll only have 59 (plus the Vermont seat, possibly) -- still short of the 67 needed for conviction.

OK, setting aside all that, let's presume that the utterly impossible happens and President Bush is impeached and convicted. What happens next?

Why, he goes back to Crawford Texas, Cindy Sheehan sells her house, and President Cheney steps up to become president.

You know, I could almost go along with this impeachment silliness. The thought of the left devoting all that time and effort into removing Bush, then realizing that they've just handed the Oval Office to Dick Cheney, warms the cockles of my heart.

In the meantime, though, I hope they have a lot of fun with their little "impeach Bush" movement. While they're engaging in that particular form of political masturbation, they ought to be too busy to cause any real mischief.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jay and the giant imPeachment:

» Searchlight Crusade linked with Links and Minifeatures 08 20 Sunday

» bRight & Early linked with First Cup 08.21.06

Comments (76)

The impeachment thing is on... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The impeachment thing is one of the things that seals the deal the rabid pursuit of Bush is revenge for the Clinton Impeachment.

The reason is its greater than Clinton. Nixon was on the way to being impeached and the Democrats for 20+ years shaped their self-view and reputation based on Nixon's corruption, resignation and date with impeachment. It's where the Democrats claimed moral authority. For a while it did work, case in point was Jimmy Carter.

When Clinton was impeached, that partially tied up the score in terms of recent history. Republicans undermined Democrats sole claim to being the more moral party. It's also the reason for the 'culture or corruption' campaign. To try to replace with an ad campaign and talking points what they lost through the history books.

Jay, When did the ... (Below threshold)
Dawnsblood:

Jay,
When did the House change it's rules to allow a filibuster? I thought that was just a Senate thing.

I thought the Crats were ju... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

I thought the Crats were just trying to get even for Clinton's impeachment. Why don't they just sue in civil court?

As Lorie pointed out ear... (Below threshold)
Brian:

As Lorie pointed out earlier, the "impeach Bush" movement is kicking back into high gear. This is betraying a lot of typical ignorance on the left...

You sure spend a lot of time dissecting the rantings of a fringe, rather than dealing with the mainstream. Once again you search out unrealistic blather and attribute it to "the left". Of all the "participating sites" listed, I personally have heard of only one of them. And certainly none of them represent the mainstream liberal-center sites.

Next time some radical group calls for the extermination of gays, should we attribute that to "the right" as a whole?

Thanks for the civics lesson, but you should spend more time thinking about actual problems.

When the fringe is calling ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

When the fringe is calling the shots for the Democratic Party with moderates doing little to blunt or dethrone them, its fair to address them as in charge.

I would love to see a trial... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I would love to see a trial once and for all on the issue of "Bush lied about the intelligence" leading to the war.

I doubt the libs/dems want a straight up joining of the issues, since it would, ironically enough, expose their own lies in concocting the issue.

You see, in court, or a court of impeachment, you would actually need to show FACTS or EVIDENCE, and not just a loud rant about your conspiracy theories.

There is no requirement in ... (Below threshold)
Scott in CA:

There is no requirement in the Constitution that the members seeking to impeach have to prove any of the charges they make. They can trump up any charge they desire, and if have a vote to impeach, and that's it.

Fine. Let them try. The Senate's not going along with this madness, so it really means nothing. How many times have you heard the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter, bring up the fact that St Bill WAS impeached? Has it made any difference? He's till all over the place, getting a star's welcome wherever he goes.

The more radical Leftie sites are actually talking about not only impeaching Bush but Cheney as well. That leaves Miss Nancy as President.

I would be willing to start an armed revolution if that happens. We do not do coups in this country when upset with government, and that is what the Dems are setting out to do. Not over my dead body, thanks.

If the Dems, under Conyers, want to disrupt the business of our government for the next two years, in the middle of a war, to advance their particular agenda, then they should be forwarned that the Republican administration could find itself "too busy" to comply with the endless "hearings" that the Dems have in store.

What, exactly, are they going to do about it? Cut funding? Let's see how the country likes it when the budget is held up for months by the Dems trying to make political points with the left.

I'm sure everyone will understand, Nancy.

Go ahead and try. It'll make great political theater.

A bit ago, my buddy created... (Below threshold)
_Jon:

A bit ago, my buddy created a bumper sticker that reads:
"Impeach Bush
Let Cheney Run The US"

I think he still has the image here:
http://www.lifeinerror.com/archives/000226.html

(Both of his son's are stationed in Iraq right now, fyi.)

Right after Cheney is sworn... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Right after Cheney is sworn in, he announces his intention to run for "re-election." DC for Pres in'08. Go Dick!

Yeah, wouldn't Cheney be am... (Below threshold)
waddayaknow:

Yeah, wouldn't Cheney be amazing as President? Oh, how the pendulum swings. First it's bonehead Dummycrats then it's chickenhawk Briepublicans. Recently there was an impeachment because the President Dude lied about getting a blowjob from a 20 year old. Such low moral standards. So completely different from complaints from more than 60% of our national populace that the current path of lies regarding the secret curtailment of our Constitutional liberties are just wrong in so many ways. And, boys and girls, the deciding factors won't be chosen by those on the fringes but they will invariably be judged by the diverse "silent majority" who know better when it comes to promoting and living up to the Golden Rule (and I don't mean where the one with the gold makes the rules). You bozos on both sides can snivel all you want but until you learn that humility comes with no extra charge you will be locked in your emotional prisons of hatred, fear, and anger. And you don't look that good doing it, either.

Co sign with Brian. Where e... (Below threshold)

Co sign with Brian. Where exactly is this great groundswell to impeach frat boy in the democratic party that repubs are always talking about? I will tell you where. In the pages of KR's political playbook, that's where.

Scare the rest of the electorate with impeachment talk, and they will try to keep those dems out of office. Nice try Jay, and you are a good republican soldier, but it won't work. There are
just too many other issues to worry about, and a war that won't go away ;)

Co sign with Brian. Where e... (Below threshold)

Co sign with Brian. Where exactly is this great groundswell to impeach frat boy in the democratic party that repubs are always talking about? I will tell you where. In the pages of KR's political playbook, that's where.

Scare the rest of the electorate with impeachment talk, and they will try to keep those dems out of office. Nice try Jay, and you are a good republican soldier, but it won't work. There are
just too many other issues to worry about, and a war that won't go away ;)

fn, apparently you've misse... (Below threshold)

fn, apparently you've missed the 17 zillion times I've declared my independence from the Republican Party. In fact, last December I finally renounced my membership in the Democratic Party (although that was more carelessness than intent).

And fn... don't whine to others when the whacko wing of the Left -- which is gaining more and more and more power in the Democratic Party -- does something else stupid and pointless. After all, Pat Robertson has never been elected head of the RNC, and... damn, I can't think of a Michael Moore analog on the right, but he was given a place of honor at the last Democratic National Convention, right next to Jimmy Carter.

J.

So, fn, you know what's in ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

So, fn, you know what's in KR's "play book" and his head, I suppose. Wow, you should quit your law job in Phillie and take over your Dem Party.

They could use the help.

"....when the whacko wing o... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

"....when the whacko wing of the Left -- which is gaining more and more and more power in the Democratic Party -- "

Here we go again. A whacko staement statement from someone crowing about whackos. Hmmm....who specifically are those whackos (in other words give us names) and specifically what "power" are they gaining? Please don't give the usual trite and banal answers like Michael Moore.

Like the right doesn't have loads and loads of whackos of its own. Lets see, Savage, Coulter, Santorum, Robertson, Limbaugh,Hannity, and The prince of Darkess himself, Mr. Cheyney, and on and on and on.

Hugh, your powers of observ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hugh, your powers of observation are pretty poor, I assume that's led you to the Dem. Party.

Here's your list: Conyers, Rangel, Lamont, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, McKinney, Waters, Kerry, Gore, McDermott, Carter, Kennedy, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Kerry actually said this weekend that Joe Lieberman was the new Cheney.

Your Party is a Party of whackos. Sorry, you just don't realize it.

Jay, Care to comme... (Below threshold)
Dawnsblood:

Jay,
Care to comment on my last comment?

My own sense is that the "I... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

My own sense is that the "Impeach Bush!" movement exists chiefly in the mind of the dozen or so lefties who are convinced Bush is the anti-Christ* and in the fever dreams of conservatives who want to believe that the majority of the left is a bunch of extremist wackos.**

A more accurate summary, I think, is that a number of Democrats resent being shut out of the policymaking process for the past six years, and the congressional power structure for the past 12, and President Bush is going to be their punching bag. Which means lots of obstructionism and a hefty dose of congressional investigations.

Or at least that's what I sincerely hope. I also thought that the Republicans wouldn't be foolish enough to impeach the president over a BJ in the 1990s, and look how that turned out.

--|PW|--


* When considering Evil, recall that the Horned One turns the Lord's works upside down, creating a mockery of this world. Therefore, one should examine seemingly good things from that point of view. The "W" in President Bush's name, when viewed upside down, is an "M." "M" is the first letter in "Mephistopheles," one of the names of the Devil. Coincidence? I think not.

** Kos and the Kosettes do little to dispel this perception.

Dawn, what are you, the hom... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Dawn, what are you, the home room teacher?

I don't think a filibuster is applicable, but they are allowed in the Senate, after the House votes the bill of impeachment.

So, Jay's statement is factually correct with his use of the term, "Congress."

But this is a pretty small point that misses the larger one: the futility and silliness of the modern Democratic Party.

Don't worry too much about ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Don't worry too much about the left wing whacko's. They started eating their own with Leiberman and now they're changing the dates and states of their primaries and 'making threats to any of the party members that buck them'. They will wipe themselves out in a month or so. Now the Republican evan has a chance against Leiberman, he's running his mouth and showing his a**. Leiberman will cut the throat of the other dimorat and the republicans will not vote for either since they have both proven they are nuts. Gonna be an interesting fall.

Hell, Dawn, I'll gladly con... (Below threshold)

Hell, Dawn, I'll gladly concede the point about the House and filibusters, if you'll concede the rest of my argument. It was a throwaway line anyway.

Hugh: I don't recall Robertson, Hannity, Savage, or Coulter EVER being elected to anything. Santorum ticked me off a while ago, and Cheney hasn't been elected to anything on his own for many years. But I think Cheney is all right, based on the "he pisses off the right people" principle.

J.

Like the right doesn't h... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Like the right doesn't have loads and loads of whackos of its own. Lets see, Savage, Coulter, Santorum, Robertson, Limbaugh,Hannity, and The prince of Darkess himself, Mr. Cheyney, and on and on and on.

Savage? Yup. Fucking nutjob.
Coulter? Also yup.
Santorum? Hardly. You may not agree with him, but whackjob?
Robertson? Yup.
Limbaugh? Feel free to cite.
Hannity? Ditto.
Cheney? Ditto as well.

You still have Rangel, Conyers, Durbin, Pelosi, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Dean...
-=Mike
...note I stuck to elected officials and left Moore, Air America Radio, Soros, Moveon.org, Kos, et al off my list?

Don't worry too much abo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Don't worry too much about the left wing whacko's. They started eating their own with Leiberman

Something that the right is not immune to, either. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_el_gu/alaska_primary

Hugh: I don't recall Robertson, Hannity, Savage, or Coulter EVER being elected to anything.

So? He didn't say they were. Neither was Michael Moore. So?

Apparently, losing a primar... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Apparently, losing a primary because you agree with every aspect of a party's platform but ONE thing is comparable to losing it because you annoyed voters by putting your daughter into Congress and buying a plane that the federal and state gov't asked you not to.

Got it.

So? He didn't say they were. Neither was Michael Moore. So?

The comment right after his --- and mine as well --- specifically mentioned elected officials only. Yours was almost exclusively entertainers.
-=Mike

Brian, you can't really fol... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Brian, you can't really follow an argument, can you? You'd make a fine Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Jay said, "whacko wing of the Left -- which is gaining more and more and more power in the Democratic Party" in reference to a volley from your crew.

So, he followed that up with the post your object to because he was speaking of whackos in the Party itself, and not the rest of you whackos everywhere else.

I think he's spot on. You guys have people in power in the Party who are absolutely irresponsible whackos, not jus the Air America crowd.

The Repubs. haven't the level of whackiness in so many levels of the Party, Congress, Judiciary.

The Party of Conyers, Kennedy, Waters, Gore, and Kerry has no equal for the level of whackiness, duplicity and poverty of ideas.

Sorry, I'm watching re-run ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Sorry, I'm watching re-run of "24" and it was kinda hairy there, what with Marwan and his nuclear missile. Trying to type and watch TV is difficult.

The lefties hate everyone l... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The lefties hate everyone like VP Chaney that has 'made' it on their own and are multi-millionaires while most of the college educated lefties can only say 'do you want fries with that'? None of the lefties want to work for anything, they want someone to give it to them. I guess a lifetime (some generation after generation) on welfare does that to people. 90% of them (that attended college, most have attended Detox several times) even attended college on welfare or Govt. loans which were and never will be paid back.

The simple fact is that put... (Below threshold)

The simple fact is that putatively "mainstream" Democratic candidates for House seats across the country are being forced to tiptoe the "impeachment issue." They are not willing, for the most part, to sign on with the insanity, but they are scared to death of the revenge of the moonbats if they just say, "What a nutty idea that is!"

Their latest redoubt is the position that some - nonspecified - "hearings" should be held. Into exactly what and with what possible results are details they meticulously avoid.

;-)

"OK, setting aside all t... (Below threshold)

"OK, setting aside all that, let's presume that the utterly impossible happens and President Bush is impeached and convicted. What happens next?"

Prison, you fucking shmuck, or at least having to share Noelle's ankle bracelet in South Florida -aside from living in Concord, which may suck just as much.

When you send 2500+ Americans to die overseas for a stockpile of antiquated mustard gas shells while giving jihadists another reason to get pissed off, then yes, thats the least the Squatter and Chief deserves.

Any questions? Or do you chairborne pissants want to change the goalposts again over what constitutes imeachment?

Pussies...

Unemployeddentist: sorry a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Unemployeddentist: sorry about your misfortune, but perhaps your time would be better spent looking for another job rather than posting about this crazy impeachment idea.

Ladies and Gents: we've had the wacko Demos, now meed UD, the angry Demo.

Sheesh.

Apparently, losing a pri... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Apparently, losing a primary because you agree with every aspect of a party's platform but ONE thing

Apparently, believing the right-wing spin makes you think you know what really happened. Got it.

The comment right after his --- and mine as well --- specifically mentioned elected officials only.

No, Jay didn't say that (and it included an entertainer), so Hugh's response didn't say that. That wasn't the point, so it was an odd response for Jay to make. And the comment after yours was mine, and I certainly didn't say that either.

So, he followed that up ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So, he followed that up with the post your object to because he was speaking of whackos in the Party itself

No, he was speaking of Michael Moore. Please try to have your facts right before posting indignant and false statements.

Given unemployeddentist's l... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

Given unemployeddentist's lack of understanding of what would happen after an impreachment, we may now have a better understanding of why he is unemployed.

red staters are pretty prac... (Below threshold)

red staters are pretty practical people, with little time to help someone else indulge eheir fantasies ... its not surprising to figure out why dentist is unemployed

When you send 2500+ Amer... (Below threshold)
yo:

When you send 2500+ Americans to die overseas for a stockpile of antiquated mustard gas shells while giving jihadists another reason to get pissed off, then yes, thats the least the Squatter and Chief deserves.

Um ... the same people that want to impeach Bush are the same people who authorized him to go to war.

It's not like the president can send troops into combat w/o the consent of Congress (w/o an emergency and the like .. let's not split civics hairs).

And that horseradish of faulty intelligence and the like doesn't hold water, either. The Dems choose to believe the WMD issue - many even touted it w/o investigating the veracity of the claims. Kerry even said that regardless of WMD or not, Saddam needed to be taken out.

And, let's also not forget about the Clinton policy of region change (which was approved, again, by the same numbnuts who want to push impeachment).

So ..., if you're gonna' impeach the president on those grounds (which are laughable to any rational person), then you need to call to task every member of Congress who voted to let him do it.

As for giving jihadists another reason to het pissed off .. as long as the sun continues to rise upon a land not enshrouded in shari'a law, as long as their are women learning, as long as oil rich regimes stand guard over the impoverished masses, as long as jihadists continue to dupe the media into believing bogus claims of muslim repression by the west .. etc etc etc ..., jihadists are going to be pissed off.

It's not that people are changing goalposts, it's just that you're trying to kick a field goal from the foul line, champ.

Oh, btw, Brian?Do ... (Below threshold)

Oh, btw, Brian?

Do please show us where a "right wing" celebrity was invited to the Republican Convention in a quasi-official status to sit in the box with Republican former presidents.

If you can't then stop snarling when someone points out the unprecedented fawning over al-Moore by Dems.

Of course, seating him next to the morally bankrupt Jhimmi Quisling Carter was choice.

I don't agree with the prem... (Below threshold)
ordi:

I don't agree with the premise that all house Dems would vote for in favor of adopting articles of impeachment against Bush. There are several moderate Dems in the House. I don't think all of them would vote in lock step with Conyers, Waters et al.

Just reading along and real... (Below threshold)
dickdee:

Just reading along and really enjoyed watching Mitchell thrash Brian with wit and verve. All the while I was visualizing that Brian was working up to some more of that 'political masturbation' the libs resort to. Most often under an office desk with some chubby intern.

UnemployedDentist: <p... (Below threshold)

UnemployedDentist:

Here's a suggestion you might take up in your copious free time: go read the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 3, Paragraph Seven:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Sure, you COULD go for a criminal prosecution after the impeachment, but it's hardly automatic.

I hope you're better at dentistry than you are at civics.

J.

If he was, he probably woul... (Below threshold)

If he was, he probably wouldn't be unemployed.

Nah nah na nah na. You have... (Below threshold)
Linda:

Nah nah na nah na. You have more kooks than we do. No we don't. Yes you do. NO WE DON'T. YES YOU DO.

My husband is a left of center demo. I am an independant. Both sides -left and right - sound like brats in a schoolyard.

Co sign with Brian. Wher... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Co sign with Brian. Where exactly is this great groundswell to impeach frat boy in the democratic party that repubs are always talking about? I will tell you where. In the pages of KR's political playbook, that's where.

So Rep. John Conyers(D) is playing by Karl Rove's play book ? What about Sen. Boxer ? etc... They are numerous ranking Democrats that have been throwing around impeachment.

The fact of the matter is that Jay's right. What more is that the Democrats know that there's zero chance for impeachment. But it doesn't matter because it's a smear campaign. It's Democrats S.O.P.: Repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it. It's dirty and it's devisive and it's the Democrats.

- MikeB

This isn't about impeachmen... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

This isn't about impeachment; it's about posturing. The Democrats can't argue much on the points of the issue because they are on record as believeing the same intelligence that the President did and giving him permission to fight the war. Their only hope is to distract the people's attention with a little demagoguery. You just scream and yell about something loud enough that people start to listen just a little. You hope that, come November, people think that you have a good point. Once you gain power, you don't actually do anything because you know that you will get your hat handed to you based on your own actions surrounding the issue. By then, it doesn't matter because you are in power.

yo,"Um ...... (Below threshold)
StephieJanna29:

yo,

"Um ... the same people that want to impeach Bush are the same people who authorized him to go to war."

This has always been an ingenuous argument. The crux of the whole argument is this: Yes, almost an entire congress voted to let the President use force - but it was based on manipulated - and sometimes false - information. Should the politicians have known better? Sure, I believe there were alot of Democrats who had suspicions about the truthfullness of what they were given, but for political expediency they voted for it. Now they're in present day trying to have it both ways.

But had the argument been presented honestly - that they wanted to go in and re-structure the Middle East starting with Iraq - of course nobody would have voted for that - nor would the general public have supported it. And anyone who REALLY still believes they went in there to: free the Iraqi people, create a democrating society, etc. - is very gullible. Governments are far more cynical and self-serving than that, especially this one.

This is really not about the congress in that sense (they'll get theirs soon enough, both parties) - it's about the administration deliberately manipulating them and the american people. They did this - not the congress, not the senate - not anyone else in this world.

In simple terms, should the President be impeached for lying to the country about something as important as our national security? Yes. Any President. This is not a republican or democratic issue.

Nixon committed crimes, he got what he deserved. Clinton lied in front of a grand jury, he got what he deserved. This man's lies have caused thousands of deaths. Surely, he should be as responsible as anyone else would in the same position. And it will always be better for this country anytime anyone in power is reigned in by our laws and the constitution. Exceptions to the rule lead down a dark hole.

I sit here in amazement as ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I sit here in amazement as I read posts that claim that Bush lied. I just hope the authors exhibit the same ignorance on the penis-vagina thing ensuring that reproduction "takes a holiday" for them.

Stephie, see, there you guy... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Stephie, see, there you guys go again.

You say the intelligence was "manipulated" and "sometimes false," yet never show the proof. You can make bald conclusory statements all day long, such as, "the sky is pink," "carrots are purple," "Bill Clinton is black," but you have to actually prove such a thing with some documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.

This is the lie that gets repeated without a fact to back it up. And if there are facts, they're misconstrued or mis-alleged.

dickdee, glad you enjoyed my jabs at Brian. He never answered, did he? Heh.

Yo: right on, brother.

There is lots of posturing ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

There is lots of posturing going on and there is a smear campaign...by the Repub neocon noise/misinformation machine. I think it is only a vocal minority who would proceed with impeachment should push come to shove. This is classic Rovian political gamesmanship; create the fear that impeachment is inevitable if the Dems win in Nov and a certain number of sheeple will buy into it and come out and vote. Think about it, fear of something has been the chief rallying cry of the Repubs for the last 6 years, along with personal destruction, of course. It's actually something they're quite good at. If only they were as capable of governing.

There you go again, Groucho... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

There you go again, Groucho. No proof.

What is your Rovian Conspiracy proof.

You have none. That is the Dem. problem from the outset: no ideas, nothing but name-calling.

Your email reads like the typical angry, confused ultra-lib. Dem. who has no clue.

Quite honestly, Mitchell, I... (Below threshold)
StephieJanna29:

Quite honestly, Mitchell, I'm not going to connect the dots for you in this posting since the evidence of wrongdoing is legion. And if I pointed out the Downing Street Memo or motivations of trashing the Wilsons, you'd still refut it all. Doesn't really matter anyway. Someone who's so willing to believe nothing is askew in this White House would be completely unwilling to accept anything as evidence.

When Bill Clinton claimed he didn't have anything to do with Lewinsky, anybody with half a brain and some sense of the human animal could tell he was lying. There's patterns and motives in everything people do. You don't have to look too far to find the real truth behind anything.

Face it. These people lied to you - and deep down I'm sure you know it.

My husband and I were passing a museum recently and when I said we should go in and check it out. He told me, "Hon, the museums closed." We both knew it wasn't, and, in the end, he had no good argument for not going there, so he just bald-faced lied to get the debatable advantage. We both started laughing at what a completely lame - and ridiculously false - argument that was.

Essentially, that's what your President did. He had no acceptable argument for invading Iraq, so they created the one they knew would get irrefutable support.

My husband's motive was he didn't want to go to the museum. The President wanted a reason to go after Iraq.

What they're supposed to do is present their argument and let the people decide. He didn't trust the people. Didn't trust the constitution. Didn't trust the government.

Still, Mitchell, it all doesn't matter because you'd never concede to any fault of this President, obviously. And that, in and of itself, dismantles your argument.

From WSJ:"Al Gore'... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

From WSJ:

"Al Gore's unimpressive academic record, which included sophomore grades at Harvard that were "lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale," the media yawned.

They had a similar reaction to the news that Mr. Bush's SAT scores were higher than both those of John Kerry."

No Steph, you don't get it.... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

No Steph, you don't get it.

I, as many conservatives, have found fault with the Pres. on a whole host of issues, from immigration to the budget to veto nonuse to the problems with the aftermath of the war. But this would interfere with your tightly held views. Tight as a tick.

No sense arguing facts with you since you have preemptively decided I would "refut" it. It's your fear of being refuted on the facts, and what that would do to your conclusory arguments, that makes the debate difficult.

Anyway, here's another interesting nugget from WSJ:

"Linda Gottfredson, a co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International columnist Steve Sailer in 2004 that when she converted Mr. Bush's SAT score to an IQ, "I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." A study in the latest issue of the academic journal Political Psychology concludes that "Bush is definitely intelligent . . . in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect."

Mitch, just for clarificati... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Mitch, just for clarification, I'm not suggesting a "Rovian Conspiracy", merely a lifelong political technique that stops at nothing to achieve victory. Since college Rove has made hi reputation with dirty tricks, smears, personal attacks and outright lies. This is pretty well documented stuff, known by many on both sides, The Repubs just don't make a big deal of it because he's their cheater. I reread my post and couldn't see where I called anybody a name. My poit was that Rove used fear (e.g. impeachment) as a political tool. BTW, I'm not an "ultra-lib" (whatever that is, and I'm not a Democrat. I am angry, though, about what's happening to this country.

On a related note, at a press conference this AM, Bush was asked directly what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks. His answer: nothing. Kind of adds a little credibility to the Bush lied view, don't you think?

Actually, groucho, it kind ... (Below threshold)

Actually, groucho, it kind of puts a huge damper on YOUR argument. Bush has consistently said that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The notion that he did has been a classic example of the "big lie" technique -- his detractors have repeated and repeated and repeated it so much, they now seem to believe their own bullshit.

J.

Mitchell,Let me re... (Below threshold)
StephieJanna29:

Mitchell,

Let me restate: Rather than claiming you would not find "fault" of any sort with this President, moreover you would not admit that he lied to you. It's easy to debate issues like immigration, budgets etc. It's not so easy for some to claim there's been deception and they've been fooled.

I'm an independent, but I'm sure most independent's and democrats can agree Clinton lied to them. There was enough evidence before all of it came out to conclude that, just as there is enough evidence now to conclude we've been had by this administration.

And I'm not "fearful" of being refutted on anything in an argument. I'm not that sensitive. I can just tell with your previous posts that it's an argument that would not be fruitful and go nowhere. You're too hardheaded and you don't really debate - you lecture - and just because you do that doesn't mean you're always right. It's like talking to a brick wall.

I can claim wrongdoing on both ends of the political spectrum. That's why I'm neither a democrat or a republican. I wouldn't want to be that ingenuous to myself. I've voted both ways. I'm just not a true believer with any of these guys enough to buy their arguments when they say their "not" lying to me.

JayOn Mar 19 of '0... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Jay

On Mar 19 of '03 Bush said, in justifying the Iraq invasion, something about taking necessary actionas against all terrorist factions, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Cheney and others were saying similar things at the time. There was a concerted effort to connect the two and polls showed the effort was, initially anyway, successful. To blow this off as crackpot conspiracy stuff is intellectualy dishonest. We were mislesd. Period. Personally, I'm prepared to get over it and elect people with a solution other than "Stay and Die" current plan, but that doesn't change reality, no matter how hard you spin it.

Groucho and Steph, are you ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Groucho and Steph, are you the same person?

If there were credible evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, but made the statements he did that led up to the war, he'd have been impeached by now, and dare I say, quite a few of us old-fashioned
Republicans would have supported the impeachment.

But you have nothing more than these inferences you pull out of inapplicable facts to make the point, like groucho did, that doesn't correspond at all: in fact, I do remember throughout the period that the Pres. made no assertion of a tie to 9/11, although Iraq had clear ties to terrorism, and to an intimidation of the entire region, as well as putting our U.N. overflights at risk of being shot down.

In this new 9/11 world, some will be so afraid, and will crave going back to the time before, that they will invent in their minds all sorts of things as a kind of balm to that fear.

It reminds me of what happened in the '80's with Reagan, and all the lefties railed at him for standing up to the Soviet aggression and threat. Same thing this time, just different threat.

free the Iraqi people, c... (Below threshold)
yo:

free the Iraqi people, create a democrating society, etc. - is very gullible. Governments are far more cynical and self-serving than that, especially this one.

Posted by: StephieJanna29 at August 21, 2006 12:24 PM

http://www.milnet.com/public-law-105-235.htm

... you were saying?


Groucho: "On Mar 19 of '03 Bush said, in justifying the Iraq invasion, something about taking necessary actionas against all terrorist factions, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

Terrorist factions AND those responsible for 911 are not necessarily an inclusive lot.

Connect the dots as you may, and I'm sure Bush believes that Iraq has some nacient connection, but he never once - not ever - stated clearly, specifically and publicly that Saddam and 911 were connected.

I challenge you to find one (1) direct quote from Bush which counters that statement.

And how would this incredib... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

And how would this incredible evidence come to the fore if it existed, Mitchell? Maybe an investigation. We have no way of putting any of what we know together in once place since no republican is willing to have THAT investigation. (They do have the deciding vote in these things, you know).

And as far as being "afraid", I don't need to be lectured by anyone about that. I live in NJ and have a husband who trains into the city (NYC) every day. The reality of what's been happening in the world is not just something I see on TV. Yet I can still discern truth from fiction.

And 80's Russia? A completely different animal from Islamic fundamentalists - one of the reasons we're in this mess. Wars are NOT all the same and you can't compare - and the solutions aren't all the same.

These people in office you adore - they're not a baseball team to root for. They are elected officials who are being paid out of money from your pocket and mine. They're not Superman or any other kind of hero that is protecting you from all the evils of the world. They work for us, and they're human and, to a great degree, faulty. When they're too faulty, a re-assessment needs to happen and that's what's happening now.

Yes, we do live in a post-9/11 world, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should become Gattaca - and no amount of macho rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you're scared. If you weren't, you wouldn't have so little finesse in your argument.

Also, don't be so fooled. These folks in office don't think concretely in the way they filter information to you, so you shouldn't be concretely believing the direct translation of what they tell you.

And, insofar as Iraq was concerned, they've always been a spoiled little brat, but were contained ones as well. There was a bit of shooting in the no fly zone in early 2001, but that had been going on for years. The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD's and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That's the reality of it.

There's a million different ways to run a government. The solutions of these people in office are not the only way to go about this, and just because I disagree with their methods, doesn't mean I'm "with" the terrorists, and it doesn't mean I'm 100% for the democrats. Not everything is so black and white, and we'll see what comes up in '08.

And how would this incredib... (Below threshold)
StephieJanna29:

And how would this incredible evidence come to the fore if it existed, Mitchell? Maybe an investigation. We have no way of putting any of what we know together in once place since no republican is willing to have THAT investigation. (They do have the deciding vote in these things, you know).

And as far as being "afraid", I don't need to be lectured by anyone about that. I live in NJ and have a husband who trains into the city every day. The reality of what's been happening in the world is not just something I see on TV. Yet I can still discern truth from fiction.

And 80's Russia? A completely different animal from Islamic fundamentalists - one of the reasons we're in this mess. Wars are NOT all the same and you can't compare - and the solutions aren't all the same.

These people in office you adore - they're not a baseball team to root for. They are elected officials who are being paid out of money from your pocket and mine. They're not Superman or any other kind of hero that is protecting you from all the evils of the world. They work for us, and they're human and, to a great degree, faulty. When they're too faulty, a re-assessment needs to happen and that's what's happening now.

Yes, we do live in a post-9/11 world, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should become Gattaca - and no amount of macho rhetoric is going to hide the fact that you're scared. If you weren't, you wouldn't have so little finesse in your argument.

Also, don't be so fooled. These folks in office don't think concretely in the way they filter information to you, so you shouldn't be concretely believing the direct translation of what they tell you.

And, insofar as Iraq was concerned, they've always been a spoiled little brat, but were contained ones as well. There was a bit of shooting in the no fly zone in early 2001, but that had been going on for years. The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD's and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That's the reality of it.

There's a million different ways to run a government. The solutions of these people in office are not the only way to go about this, and just because I disagree with their methods, doesn't mean I'm "with" the terrorists, and it doesn't mean I'm 100% for the democrats. Not everything is so black and white, and we'll see what comes up in '08.

"The reason we were pulled ... (Below threshold)
yo:

"The reason we were pulled into war was the WMD's and the link to al qaeda. Both were lies, no matter how you slice it. That's the reality of it."

-- Stephanie

No. No we weren't, and no it isn't.

You forget about the extensive list of UNSC resolutions that were ignored, the Gulf Ware Cease-Fire which was breached.

You overlook the murder of 10,000 Kurds.

You overlook Oil-for-Food.

You overlook Saddam's sponsorship of Palestinian suicide bombers.

You overlook the terrorist training camps in NE Iraq.

You overlook the terrorist Who's Who located in Bahgdad.

You definitely overlook PL 105-235, and you completely ignore the text of Senate Bill 114.

WMD was an easily digested morsel that the administration and democrats all fed to the american public; but not at all the end all beat all reason that we went into Iraq.

If this is not a balck and white world, why are you using such black and white terms?

yo,I know the reso... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

yo,

I know the resolution. It was drafted because their was a perceived threat to the country. Nothing in there is new- but it's also not complete in terms of the information our government had.

And it still doesn't exonerate the government from lying to us.

If we're both playing cards together and you lie about your hand and take my money - then I see your hand and tell you you cheated - you're acting as if "showing me that you currently have the money" is the same as you winning it legitimately. Having the money means nothing. You received it illegitimately.

No, I don't you do know the... (Below threshold)
yo:

No, I don't you do know the resolution, or you wouldn't have made some of the comments that you did. WMD is only PART of the reason. To state otherwise is to show that you are not as familiar with those laws as you claim.

Also, just because the american people, by and large, are either too lazy, or too ignorant to understand all of the issues at stake doesn't mean the government lied to us.

Same logic applies to the fact that just because I don't see the connection in your analogy doesn't mean the analogy is irrelevent based on the fact that it's your responsibility to ask to see my cards before you let me take your money.

Ante' up.

"WMD was an easily digested... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

"WMD was an easily digested morsel that the administration and democrats all fed to the american public; but not at all the end all beat all reason that we went into Iraq."

You, too, are the American public. And there's a process. Digestible or not, it was false, so our ability to make a judgement on the evidence was compromised. You can't tell me you want to be force fed only what the government deems "digestible" to you? You're not a child, or so I assume.

Neither are the taxpayers and voters.

"No, I don't THINK ..."... (Below threshold)
yo:

"No, I don't THINK ..."

sorry ... can't type

"I don't see the connection... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

"I don't see the connection in your analogy doesn't mean the analogy is irrelevent based on the fact that it's your responsibility to ask to see my cards before you let me take your money."

You won't show me your cards. That's the point.

Our government didn't show us all the evidence. They cherry picked. It's like you showing me an Ace and saying you won when you have a hand full of nothing.

"You won't show me your car... (Below threshold)
yo:

"You won't show me your cards. That's the point." - stephanie

No, the point is that it's your fault for letting me take your money.

And, as far "digestable" ... I don't stop at what I'm told. I take my responsibilities as an American citizen, seriously. I research.

If the "digestable" and the research don't match, then I need to do something about it.

I don't just sit back and accept that someone says they have the winning hand, and let them take my dough.

The 9/11 Commission said th... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

The 9/11 Commission said there was no cherry picking, and no intimidation of our intel services. The services were just plain off, but there was no there there.

Logically, it is possible to have flawed intel., and that intel., not the President's use of it, be the main factor in the perrenial issues over the WMD in Iraq.

Your assertion of "cherry picked," again, is only an assertion. Especially in light of the investigation by the 9/11 Commission.

So, you may have your delusions, but don't try to fob them off on the rest of us who tend to stay in the here and now.

I find it unbelievable that... (Below threshold)
groucho:

I find it unbelievable that clear thinking people can look at the whole Iraq issue, going all the way back to Gulf War I and not see a long string of dots begging to be connected. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others formulate a new Manifest Destiny vision for the 21st century, using political and military force to bend the world into a unipolar America-centric monopoly determined to leverage whatever petroleum and other resources left on the planet into US based corporate control. The Project for A New American Century forms in 1997, with much talk and planning already underway regarding a pre-emptive into, most likely, Iraq. Coincidently, virtually all of the top level people in PNAC somehow find themselves in the highest level policy making positions in the new Bush gov. Amazing! The terrorist threat looms larger and the time is deemed appropriate to sell the plan to America. Steph has referenced the Downing Street Memo, I would add the Plame/Wilson fiasco, all the prewar planners who were shown the door when they wouldn't sell the company line to display this whole thing was planned and executed with total premeditation, not as a response to an iminent threat.

This has been one of the biggest con jobs in history, and I'm sure it will be exposed as such in time. I give grudging credit to this bunch of soulless non-patriots that they were so successful in convincing so many Americans of their noble intentions

Yes, Grouch, it is all a co... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, Grouch, it is all a conspiracy, Karl Rove is a monster, yes, yes, you are so right.

We will probably find that GWB was the son of an alien creature sent to earth to infect us all and make rational thought impossible.

Looks like they've infected quite a few so far . . .

Only time will tell.... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Only time will tell.

Am I the only one who think... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Am I the only one who thinks that "high crimes" is an appropriate standard for impeachment, but that "misdemeanors" is not? I mean, should the president be impeached if he, say, commits an act of vandalism? That would be bad behavior, I grant you, but...

Does the phrase mean "high ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Does the phrase mean "high misdemeanors?" I don't know; it's pretty 18th Century. Interesting question you have there . . .

Impeachment for "rolling" the White House lawn would be silly.

The author is not very fami... (Below threshold)
Phil:

The author is not very familiar with the impeachment movement that he criticizes. He seems to think the only relevant issue is whether there are enough Democrats to vote for impeachment. But I think a more important issue is whether deliberately misleading Congress about Iraq and violating the Geneva Convention and FISA laws are impeachable offenses. If they are then Republicans who respect the Constitution might also vote for impeachment.

By the way, most impeachment resolutions also call for Cheny to be impeached along with Bush. More details here:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

www.kucinich.com... (Below threshold)

www.kucinich.com

No one wants Cheney either.... (Below threshold)
Deborah:

No one wants Cheney either. As a matter of fact, the first motion would be to impeach Cheney since he's the bigger criminal (Plamegate, anyone?) After Cheney's out on his ear, then Bush goes.

Personally, I'm for ousting the entire line of succesion all the way down to the lying AG.

Jay,You're so cute... (Below threshold)
Jefferson:

Jay,

You're so cute and adorable in your mockery of the dedicated Americans who actually care about democracy and the constitution.

Kudos to Phil (8/22 post) for clarifying that the the Impeach Bush-Cheney movement has solid legal and moral grounds - Geneva Convention, War Crimes Act, FISA act, lying to congress.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy