Political Crossfire Forums

[Heinz]

Quote: An impeachment doesn't remove a president from office anyway. But charging a president with a crime does.

An impeachment is pretty much when you accuse a government official of wrong doing and then charge them with a crime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeach

Quote: 1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuse

Quote: 1. to charge with the fault, offense, or crime (usually fol. by of): He accused him of murder.
2. to find fault with; blame.
–verb (used without object) 3. to make an accusation.

[Gaea]

Heinz wrote: Quote: An impeachment doesn't remove a president from office anyway. But charging a president with a crime does.

An impeachment is pretty much when you accuse a government official of wrong doing and then charge them with a crime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeach

Quote: 1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuse

Quote: 1. to charge with the fault, offense, or crime (usually fol. by of): He accused him of murder.
2. to find fault with; blame.
–verb (used without object) 3. to make an accusation.

Right. So why waste time impeaching Bush?

[Heinz]

Moot wrote: Right. So why waste time impeaching Bush?

Moot wrote: An impeachment doesn't remove a president from office anyway. But charging a president with a crime does.

You said impeaching Bush wouldn't do anything. You then said that only charging him with a crime would remove him from office. Impeachment IS charging him with a crime. So will it remove him from office or not?

[Chingu]

Akajjred wrote: I oppose their impeachment because they didn't do anything wrong. It'd be Andrew Johnson all over again. Just because I don't agree with the guy doesn't mean we should impeach him. The country voted for him, and although he has made some very bad policies (imo) that doesn't grant us the right to impeachment.

Good Lord - sanitiy amongst the masses. I applaud you for you very decent tone.

if the left were composed of folks like you - we wouldhave a reasonable national policy.

Cheers 8:)

[Cal-Pak]

Heinz wrote: Moot wrote: Right. So why waste time impeaching Bush?

Moot wrote: An impeachment doesn't remove a president from office anyway. But charging a president with a crime does.

You said impeaching Bush wouldn't do anything. You then said that only charging him with a crime would remove him from office. Impeachment IS charging him with a crime. So will it remove him from office or not?
We should let the political process take the natural course, as it was intended.
Congress should hold hearing to see if any improprieties occurred.
If they find any that warrant Impeachment, impeachment should commence.
Then the Senate should debate the evidence to see if removal from offices is the appropriate action.

You can not just dismiss all this stuff as if nothing ever happened.

As for the President lying to Congress and all.
This is the sort of thing that Congress would need to clear up, and all of America should see it live.
Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded
Quote: Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.
Quote: The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."
The problem is, the administration didn't press the reliable of the intelligence.
As we have come to discover most if not all was unreliable. And much of it was contradicted at the time, but any contradictions were dismissed.

[Angelicus]

I would oppose impeachement and removal, because there's not any evedince to show that the President or Vice President actually did any of those things listed as "charges".

As someone else has said, this list of "charges" is little more than horsedung.

[Heinz]

Quote: We should let the political process take the natural course, as it was intended. Congress should hold hearing to see if any improprieties occurred. If they find any that warrant Impeachment, impeachment should commence. Then the Senate should debate the evidence to see if removal from offices is the appropriate action.

Sounds good.

Quote: You can not just dismiss all this stuff as if nothing ever happened.

I didn't dismiss anything. I clarified what an impeachment is.

[Cal-Pak]

Heinz wrote: Quote: We should let the political process take the natural course, as it was intended. Congress should hold hearing to see if any improprieties occurred. If they find any that warrant Impeachment, impeachment should commence. Then the Senate should debate the evidence to see if removal from offices is the appropriate action.

Sounds good.

Quote: You can not just dismiss all this stuff as if nothing ever happened.

I didn't dismiss anything. I clarified what an impeachment is.
This was not directed toward you, it's just more likely to draw attention to a post if there is a quote in it. And yours was moving in the direction I was thinking.
Sorry for any confusion. :)

[bigstick61]

While I think there are suitable grounds for Bush's impeachment, I see absolutely none for Cheney. In any case, I feel that at this point, it would be rather pointless to do so. Bush has just over two years left in office and will be under more scrutiny and will not be able to do much, so all this will do is divide the nation further.

[AmericanJuggernaut]

Did you ever dream that there are people in America who believe that President Bush is on the right track. That war is a ever changing entity, and there are no concrete rules except the one. "Don't die". We don't prostrate ourselves at your Cleric's knee or cower under the covers.

[bigstick61]

However, going to war with everybody when covert ops will do the job is unneccessary and wasteful. There are times and places when you send in troops, such as Afghanistan, and also Iraq (based upon what was thought pre-war, although not otherwise). In most cases, military force is either unneccessary or inappropriate. Considering the shrinking of our armed forces, we need to have as many available ready to fight threats such as China, Russia, Iran, the DPRK, and such. Committing too many to theaters where it was unneccessary to do so is inherently a bad idea, considering our overall force size and the potential and existing threats.

[AmericanJuggernaut]

bigstick61 wrote: However, going to war with everybody when covert ops will do the job is unneccessary and wasteful. There are times and places when you send in troops, such as Afghanistan, and also Iraq (based upon what was thought pre-war, although not otherwise). In most cases, military force is either unneccessary or inappropriate. Considering the shrinking of our armed forces, we need to have as many available ready to fight threats such as China, Russia, Iran, the DPRK, and such. Committing too many to theaters where it was unneccessary to do so is inherently a bad idea, considering our overall force size and the potential and existing threats.

A fair assessment

[Zadoc]

Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too! go back and correct your spelling mistakes before getting high and mighty on others



The issue isn't your spelling. Everyone makes type-o's and spelling mistakes by default. The issue is your apparent inability to understand the language in which you're attempting to communicate in.

Concepts such as complete sentences, punctuation, contractions, capitalization, adjectives and adverbs, and prepositions (just to name a few) are seemingly alien to you.

You are a grown-up in a grown-up world and you communicate at less than a fourth grade level.

There is really no excuse for it. thats lovely.. next time address you concerns in a PM <----- were you able to comprehend that?...please let me know...i can make it crystal f***ing clear if you are still confused.

For a mod, you are the most immature person who I have ever encountered in over eight years on the internet. "f**k"is the best you can come up with? P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!

[The Newb]

Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: Zadoc wrote: Thrilla wrote: most of that list is horsedung....

I have serious doubts that you are even able to comprehend the concepts contained in the post that you are eliquently referring to as "horsedung," and as evidence of this, I submit the forum, publically, that you are unable to perform the following two tasks:

1. Identify which parts of the list are and are not "horsedung."

2. State why or why not they are "horesedung." assumtion is the mother of all f**k ups.



Did you mean: assumption? :lol:

*sigh* Thanks for the good laugh! Oh, and also thanks for making me right!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for my new sig too! go back and correct your spelling mistakes before getting high and mighty on others



The issue isn't your spelling. Everyone makes type-o's and spelling mistakes by default. The issue is your apparent inability to understand the language in which you're attempting to communicate in.

Concepts such as complete sentences, punctuation, contractions, capitalization, adjectives and adverbs, and prepositions (just to name a few) are seemingly alien to you.

You are a grown-up in a grown-up world and you communicate at less than a fourth grade level.

There is really no excuse for it. thats lovely.. next time address you concerns in a PM <----- were you able to comprehend that?...please let me know...i can make it crystal f***ing clear if you are still confused.

For a mod, you are the most immature person who I have ever encountered in over eight years on the internet. "f**k"is the best you can come up with? P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!

do you smell that? hmmm......


smells like a ban, i suggest you chill a bit before it happens

[veritas lux mea]

Mafioso wrote: All of these are frivolous charges. I could make up 50 things why we should impeach all of the presidents. Starting with FDR and his "illegal sending of Japs to camps." Or Woodrow Wilson's censoring of the media during WWI. Or even better Abe Lincoln's suspension of Habitues Corpus during the civil war. Or JFK's "illegal" bay of pigs operation, etc.

Wake up. It's weak minded people like this (appeasers) that will lose us the war on terror.

Is it possible to posthumously impeach presidents?

[Swampfox.f]

bigstick61 wrote: While I think there are suitable grounds for Bush's impeachment, I see absolutely none for Cheney. In any case, I feel that at this point, it would be rather pointless to do so. Bush has just over two years left in office and will be under more scrutiny and will not be able to do much, so all this will do is divide the nation further.

Cheney's financial ties to Halliburton and his relation to PNAC and the MIC.

[Dookiestix]

Swampfox.f wrote: bigstick61 wrote: While I think there are suitable grounds for Bush's impeachment, I see absolutely none for Cheney. In any case, I feel that at this point, it would be rather pointless to do so. Bush has just over two years left in office and will be under more scrutiny and will not be able to do much, so all this will do is divide the nation further.

Cheney's financial ties to Halliburton and his relation to PNAC and the MIC.
Cheney is the wizard behind the curtain when it comes to the Bush administration. If anything, he's probably more complicit than Bush is regarding many of these charges.

[sLiPpY]

Why stop with Bush and Cheney? i.e. It's now know, as it was suspected all along that Rumsfeld personally authorized what happened at prisons in Iraq.

There's also a book coming out, that presents evidence of high crimes for about eight individuals in the Bush Administration, that's written by an individual with a background in law, and the US Court system.

I'd hoped that US Presidents would have learned from the lessons of Nixon, they're not "above the law." I think it's high time the point is proven again.

[Dookiestix]

sLiPpY wrote: Why stop with Bush and Cheney? i.e. It's now know, as it was suspected all along that Rumsfeld personally authorized what happened at prisons in Iraq.

There's also a book coming out, that presents evidence of high crimes for about eight individuals in the Bush Administration, that's written by an individual with a background in law, and the US Court system.

I'd hoped that US Presidents would have learned from the lessons of Nixon, they're not "above the law." I think it's high time the point is proven again.
:clap:

[Clarino]

At first I thought that impeaching Bush would be a good way for the Democratic party to shoot itself in the foot. But then I remembered that I thought the Republican Party was shooting itself in the foot when it went after Clinton. So I guess I don't have a very good read on the thought process of the American voter.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that impeaching Bush and Cheney would be bad politics, because it would make the Dms look petty, just like the pubs did when they impeached Clinton for getting his end away. But would the American public see the Dems taking the high road, if they chose not to impeach Buch and Cheney? Or would they view the Dems as weak, not willing to stick the knife into their enemy?

Tough one to answer, and I wouldn't want to be a Democratic Congressman or Senator right now.

To be honest, I think impeachement would probably be bad for the US. But it might be good for the Dems. Whatever they do, it'll be interesting to see it play out.


Angelicus wrote: I would oppose impeachement and removal, because there's not any evedince to show that the President or Vice President actually did any of those things listed as "charges".


Isn't the point of Congressional hearings to determine the validity of any evidence that can be presented? Why would you state that there is no evidence to support the accusations, when some was provided in the OP? Evidence isn't neccessarily proof, but that is for Congress to decide, not you.