Would Dickhead Cheney and the Chimp be impeached if they murdered someone?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
obviously, your definition of proof and evidence isn't the same as mine. i'm talking about legal evidence; stuff that you can actually bring a case against, whether it's in the hague, an impeachment proceeding or traffic court.

you're talking about supposition. the fact that bush was wrong, does not inherently mean that he lied. he definitely might've lied. but again, there's no LEGAL proof.

i mean, really, don't you think, that if you're actually correct, and it's 100% clear and definitive that bush and his administration committed massive crimes, that somebody would've mentioned it, outside of a few fringe bloggers? why hasn't the democratic congress made an issue of it?



who said they had my support? just because i believe in the rule of law doesn't mean i support the bush administration. but it does mean i support justice, and however much you, i or anybody else hates the bush administration, without actual LEGAL evidence, justice says you don't bring them up on charges.

Is what our country done any different than what we fought Iraq for in 91? The case to liberate Kuwait was made only after Saudi Arabia asked us, then paid for it.
Think about that-Invading any nation for a fabricated reason,if not already against international law, should be. Maybe W's sovereignty has already been stripped.

These buffoons will stonewall to the end as not to reveal too much of the truth, you're seeing that now. Had Libby not been pardoned, I could see a whole lot of singing going on against his former employers. It's not a Dem-Rep. issue, it's a world issue, and they're watching all of this, too. Our credibility is shot. We're no longer heads above the free world in terms of integrity. Our word means nothing. Any case for future action will draw criticism, and any "coalition" or diplomacy will be out of the question.

I scratched my head when the invasion was announced. I thought, "what the fuck for? Didn't Powell even say months before that Iraq was,"no longer a threat, even to it's neighbors"? Something didn't seem right then, and it appears even more wrong now, to everyone.

But we're talking about impeachment. The stonewall is always up and boy George has little time left on the clock. But when he's gone, this should not be swept under the rug and forgotten. The Dems don't have the collective testicles to do it. Too worried about keeping up with appearances and promoting the dogs they have in the race, probably.
It's a big can of shit stew, and we're eating it.

[steve]

For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached (source, WIKIPEDIA…put that in your pipe and smoke it college boys!). So as much as we would like “maladministration” to be an impeachable offence (as George Mason wanted to) it is not – so we ended up with what James Madison desired.

However…

Between the
1. YellowCake/Centrifuges info and the British refutation and Rice claiming she “didn’t read” that part (when it was short and clear)
2. Cheney visiting the CIA and pushing analysts to publish reports his way
3. Colin Powell presenting the “mobile labs” info (he later claimed he doubted) to the UN
4. The “Downing Street Memo” stuff…
5. Valerie Plame

There WAS enough hard, written, documented information for smartboy/girl lawyer types to legally pursue impeachment of both Cheney and Rice.

But, has the Statute of limitations passed???????????

The question is Mr. Bush…the problem is, the man never says ANYTHING of substance.

So I both disagree and emphatically agree with yours thoughts Knuckleboner.

[knuckleboner]

well then, both fuck you and thank you, steve!

(though, i'm pretty sure the only statute of limitations for impeachment is how long you're in office. as long as you're in, you can be removed. once you're out, moot.)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Is what our country done any different than what we fought Iraq for in 91? The case to liberate Kuwait was made only after Saudi Arabia asked us, then paid for it.

yeah, a little different. iraq tried to annex kuwait. technically, the U.S. did not have designs on full control of the country. it's not exactly the beacon of democracy that was hoped for, but the current iraqi government is not completely subbordinate to the U.S.

Think about that-Invading any nation for a fabricated reason,if not already against international law, should be. Maybe W's sovereignty has already been stripped.

well, again, fabicated is the key point; it HAS been established the reason was wrong, it hasn't yet been established that it was fabricated.

These buffoons will stonewall to the end as not to reveal too much of the truth, you're seeing that now. Had Libby not been pardoned, I could see a whole lot of singing going on against his former employers.

well, libby wasn't pardoned (not yet); he'll still pay $250,000 fine and have the conviction on his record. although, point taken. avoiding 30 months in jail is certainly a benefit that bush gave him.

It's not a Dem-Rep. issue, it's a world issue, and they're watching all of this, too. Our credibility is shot. We're no longer heads above the free world in terms of integrity. Our word means nothing. Any case for future action will draw criticism, and any "coalition" or diplomacy will be out of the question.

i agree. to me that's one of the reasons it's a bad administration. i still don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. but yeah, no question our credibility has been harmed.

I scratched my head when the invasion was announced. I thought, "what the fuck for? Didn't Powell even say months before that Iraq was,"no longer a threat, even to it's neighbors"? Something didn't seem right then, and it appears even more wrong now, to everyone.

eh, i don't think powell said that before the war, though he's definitely saying it now.

and i agree again, i thought the same thing pre-march 2003. i'm not 100% opposed to pre-emptive strikes, but i'm very wary of them. and even assuming that what the administration was alleging at the time was true, i still did not feel that the case was made that we, or anyone else was in such imminent danger of iraqi attack that we had to pre-emptively strike them.

But we're talking about impeachment. The stonewall is always up and boy George has little time left on the clock. But when he's gone, this should not be swept under the rug and forgotten. The Dems don't have the collective testicles to do it. Too worried about keeping up with appearances and promoting the dogs they have in the race, probably.
It's a big can of shit stew, and we're eating it.

i'm not sure how helpful that would be. i'm ok with a little investigation into the pre-war intelligence. but devoting TOO much of congress' time to reliving and attacking past mistakes can also lead to people getting upset with the current congress for not focusing on current problems.

at this point, whether we impeach bush or not, we still have to deal with the iraqi situation the same. (and social security, and immigration, and education, and the environment.)

personally, i'd rather congress at least try to focus on getting something done, than grandstanding about the past. or steroids...

[Nickdfresh]

But what about the illegal domestic spying program that violates the FISA law?

[blonddgirl777]

Re: Would Dickhead Cheney and the Chimp be impeached if they murdered someone?

Originally posted by Little Texan
... I'm beginning to think they (Congress and the Bush Admin)...

Let me tell you one thing... I saw it coming from up here!

[blonddgirl777]

Re: Would Dickhead Cheney and the Chimp be impeached if they murdered someone?

Originally posted by Little Texan
What is it going to take ...

I don't mean to be negative and all but, I'd hate to think that you guys are going to have to wait until the next elections and IF... the wrong party gets ellected again; Damn, you are screwed!!!

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
so i'll assume you have proof that he lied?

you see, i like playing the speculating game as much as the next guy, but without actual evidence, it might as well be 2 people bitching on a message board; it's meaningless.

don't you think there's a reason that the democratic congress hasn't even really considered an impeachment? sure, you've got like 10 of 230 some congressmen mentioning that. but 2% doesn't really count. the majority of them haven't because they don't have evidence. and, unless there's evidence, there's not an impeachable offense.

so, was that too stupid, or do you understand?

The fucking CIA has since stated many times they advised there was NO "attempted purchase of uranium by Saddam from Africa". They fucking basically said your hero Bush was FULL OF SHIT.

And Mr. Colin Powell has insinuated it was all a fucking sham. At least he had the manhood to refuse re-appointment by that fucking asshole Bush.

Should I go on or have I owned you enough yet?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But what about the illegal domestic spying program that violates the FISA law?

from what i saw, i definitely agree with the courts that it violated the law.

however, i think the administration's interpretation was, while a loser, just enough to avoid criminal wrongdoing. the administration is entitled to its opinions, so long as it abides by the eventual court rulings. now, had there been memoradums stating that the administration's lawyers KNEW their argument was a clear loser, prior to their enacting the spying program, then it's probably a different story.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
The fucking CIA has since stated many times they advised there was NO "attempted purchase of uranium by Saddam from Africa".

really? you mean like this U.S. intelligence report detailing CIA intelligence?:

"Reporting on the uranium transaction did not surface again until February 5, 2002 when the CIA's DO issued a second intelligence report [redacted] which again cited the source as a '[foreign] government service.' Although not identified in the report, this source was also from the foreign service. The second report provided more details about the previously reported Iraq-Niger uranium agreement and provided what was said to be 'verbatim text' of the accord." p. 37

On March i, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, 'Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely.'...The assessment added that 'some officials may have conspired for individual gain to arrange a uranium sale,' but considered President Tandja's government unlikely to risk relations with the U.S. and other key aid donors." p. 42

"The language cleared by the CIA said, 'Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantites of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake...The regime was caught trying to purchase 500 metric tons of this material.'...The text was identical to the text proposed by the White House except that the CIA had suggested adding, 'up to' before 500 metric tons." p. 49

now, the report DID state that most of the rest of the pre-war intelligence was incorrect. however, and this is important: being wrong is not always the same as lying. the uranium evidence was shoddy at best and definitely not fully corroborated. but it hasn't yet been shown to be a clear case of a lie.

They fucking basically said your hero Bush was FULL OF SHIT.

(yeah, for your sake, let's just ignore this part.)

And Mr. Colin Powell has insinuated it was all a fucking sham. At least he had the manhood to refuse re-appointment by that fucking asshole Bush.

depends on your definition of sham. powell knows now, and has said that it was faulty intelligence and that he's sorry he participated in it. and good for him. but he didn't exactly come out and damn the administration, either. if he really thought that the administration had committed crimes/impeachable offenses in the intelligence presentations, he probably would've said so. powell says prewar intelligence was "unreliable."

Should I go on or have I owned you enough yet?

your 2nd response was definitely an improvement over your previous one. and gold star for you for trying to include actual evidence this time. unfortunately, like i've said, i don't believe that evidence has a chance of carrying much legal weight in any trial/impeachment proceeding. but, it's not an easy task, as the near-complete lack of action by the congressional democrats indicates, so i definitely encourage you to keep searching.

[Angel]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Do I have relatives in Canada?....

Emigrating to Canada, Step by Step:

http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationissuescanada/ss/ImmiCanada.htm

[Hyman Roth]

Damn nice shooting, knuckleboner.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
really? you mean like this U.S. intelligence report detailing CIA intelligence?:



now, the report DID state that most of the rest of the pre-war intelligence was incorrect. however, and this is important: being wrong is not always the same as lying. the uranium evidence was shoddy at best and definitely not fully corroborated. but it hasn't yet been shown to be a clear case of a lie.



(yeah, for your sake, let's just ignore this part.)



depends on your definition of sham. powell knows now, and has said that it was faulty intelligence and that he's sorry he participated in it. and good for him. but he didn't exactly come out and damn the administration, either. if he really thought that the administration had committed crimes/impeachable offenses in the intelligence presentations, he probably would've said so. powell says prewar intelligence was "unreliable."



your 2nd response was definitely an improvement over your previous one. and gold star for you for trying to include actual evidence this time. unfortunately, like i've said, i don't believe that evidence has a chance of carrying much legal weight in any trial/impeachment proceeding. but, it's not an easy task, as the near-complete lack of action by the congressional democrats indicates, so i definitely encourage you to keep searching.

Leave it to kb to argue with facts. Damn him. :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
from what i saw, i definitely agree with the courts that it violated the law.

however, i think the administration's interpretation was, while a loser, just enough to avoid criminal wrongdoing. the administration is entitled to its opinions, so long as it abides by the eventual court rulings. now, had there been memoradums stating that the administration's lawyers KNEW their argument was a clear loser, prior to their enacting the spying program, then it's probably a different story.

I don't totally agree. I think the Justice Dept. essentially "backed down" and gave into allowing the FISA Court to review cases and grant warrants almost to the second Democrats took Congress. Regardless, there is no definition of what "is is" when it comes to the law. By their habitual and flagrant disregard of American civil liberties, and by their ironically giving into the terrorists that "hate, and want to destroy, our freedoms," the Bush Admin is in fact guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The only question is one of political will. Could the Democrats get enough votes to overthrow Bush? Do they want to bring the country into an impeachment battle every ten years? Doubtful.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't totally agree. I think the Justice Dept. essentially "backed down" and gave into allowing the FISA Court to review cases and grant warrants almost to the second Democrats took Congress. Regardless, there is no definition of what "is is" when it comes to the law. By their habitual and flagrant disregard of American civil liberties, and by their ironically giving into the terrorists that "hate, and want to destroy, our freedoms," the Bush Admin is in fact guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

i don't know, i really don't see any impeachable laws broken in regards to civil liberties. shit like the illegal wiretaps were not done maliciously, but after an interpretation was made that stated it was within the law. yes, definitely a poor interpretation. but there's some danger when we start viewing courts overturning administrative interpretations as criminal offenses. governments get overturned by courts all the time, whether it's a misinterpretation of a law that very government passed, to a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

i mean, do we really want to throw in jail the people who passed the (definitely against the Constitution) anti-flag descecration law that the phelps' kid is charged with when the courts overturn the conviction?

i view the same problems that you see, i just think that they add up to a very poor administation, not up to crimes/impeachment.

The only question is one of political will. Could the Democrats get enough votes to overthrow Bush? Do they want to bring the country into an impeachment battle every ten years? Doubtful.

without a compelling case, i agree, they'd never chance it; the average citizen doesn't want to see congress waste time on stunts.

however, if there was better evidence, i do believe we'd hear a lot more clamoring for something. censure, at least. perhaps even veiled threats. "we're considering impeachment, now, what was your vote on the war funding timetable bill again?"



but, unless they're holding back evidence that i haven't seen, then i think bush is simply a poor president.