|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: Impeach07 |
 |
|
| Quote: |
...impeachment is an idea. The reason is, impeachment is how a proud nation defends itself. Impeachment is... courage and optimism that unites a nation. People aren't perfect; we make mistakes and then we act to fix our mistakes. And when an honest person that's honestly mistaken learns the truth, they either stop being a mistake or they stop being honest.
It might not be easy and it's not pleasant, but it's cerainly not an option of luxury. It's a duty for people who've learned the truth. It's on the lips of millions of Americans. It's the manifestation of courage; it's steeled by moral clarity and it's focused into a call for justice. Impeachment is what a proud nation does when it is united to protect its honor. - Eric Oemig, April 25, 2007
George Bush has shredded, violated and absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons, and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law on the treatment of detainees... he launched an illegal war on Iraq on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. The president is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the crime of aggression. And if we, as citizens, do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we do not begin the process of impeachment, we will be omplicit in the codification of a new world order. One that will have terrifying consequences. for a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation - from a rogue nuclear state to great imperial power - will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This will... thrust us into a Hobbsian nightmare... The exercis3e of power without law is tyranny. ... ; the empowerment of states that will act on our lawless example if we do not impeach George Bush and return to a world of standards, demands [impeachment]...
- Chris Hedges, April 25, 2007 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bibbitybop
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree Bush should e impeached, but Pelosi already said Congress won't do it. I think she's weak, but tactically, if the Dems impeach Bush, it will alienate the moderate Repubs they need to get a Democratic President in office in 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed.
I'm not an expert on Yank constitutional law, but I assume that if Clinton could get impeached cause he lied about getting his cack sucked that Bushy could legally be thrown to the dustbin for his far more numerous and serious crimes.
BUT, it is my opinion that if the Dems do impeach him it is less likely a Democrat will win the presidency. That is the larger picture.
EFL, what if the real choice is between 1) 19 more months of bush and 8 years (allah willing) of Gore, Clinton or Obama OR 2) Bush gone now and Rudy or McCain for 4-8 years?
I know what I choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your premise is based on what? Laying bare the many instances of theft, lying, law-breaking are going to weaken the Democratic party? Perhaps you are drawing your conclusions from the Clinton trial? Doesn't apply. Everyone but a neo-con knew the impeachment was bull. It made Clinton more popular because it was a partisan hit job.
The Nixon impeachment is the example you are looking for. The man was guilty, and it was obvious. The push to impeach him did not come from the congress, it came from a groundswell around the nation. Like this one.
In January, people here were calling me a wild-eyed lunatic for supporting the Constitution and impeachment. They all said it was going nowhere. Well, here we are now with the movement growing rapidly and articles introduced in the House.
And, do you really believe this (impeachment) is about politics? Do you think that is why we are for it?
Is the right thing to do only the possible thing to do? Have you no guts?
I was right about Bush from before he was "elected." I was right about Iraq down the line. I was right about the '06 elections.
What have you been right about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look! everyone: BLT has created yet another thread calling for impeachment.
I wager you have likely produed -- at a minimum -- three-dozen threads calling for W. Bush's impeachment over the last year or so.
You despise W. Bush and want us to denounce him as the Antichrist, throw him out of office, waterboard him, shoot him with silver bullets, hang him just long enough to inflict brain damage on the man, draw-and-quarter him, cremate what remains while still partially alive, and then, finally, you yourself will appear to solemnly drive a wooden stake through his heart.
We get it. But how many of these haranguing, bombastic threads do you plan on starting between now and January 2009...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Nixon impeachment is the example you are looking for. The man was guilty, and it was obvious. The push to impeach him did not come from the congress, it came from a groundswell around the nation. Like this one. |
Nixon was impeached? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Look! everyone: BLT has created yet another thread calling for impeachment.
I wager you have likely produed -- at a minimum -- three-dozen threads calling for W. Bush's impeachment over the last year or so.
You despise W. Bush and want us to denounce him as the Antichrist, throw him out of office, waterboard him, shoot him with silver bullets, hang him just long enough to inflict brain damage on the man, draw-and-quarter him, cremate what remains while still partially alive, and then, finally, you yourself will appear to solemnly drive a wooden stake through his heart.
We get it. But how many of these haranguing, bombastic threads do you plan on starting between now and January 2009...? |
How many asinine responses are you going to produce? Lying and misrepresenting... ah... that's right... you're a republican.
Three dozen? And you call me bombastic, boy? Go slap your tweedle. It misses you, not doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Agreed.
I'm not an expert on Yank constitutional law, but I assume that if Clinton could get impeached cause he lied about getting his cack sucked that Bushy could legally be thrown to the dustbin for his far more numerous and serious crimes.
BUT, it is my opinion that if the Dems do impeach him it is less likely a Democrat will win the presidency. That is the larger picture.
EFL, what if the real choice is between 1) 19 more months of bush and 8 years (allah willing) of Gore, Clinton or Obama OR 2) Bush gone now and Rudy or McCain for 4-8 years?
I know what I choose. |
The corruption under the Clinton Administration was so minor in comparison to what has been seen under Bush. Clinton had a respect for qualified technocrats in places like FEMA. Bush was more for affirmative action for his cronies rather than efficiency. Billions have been lost and are missing in Iraq. Halliburton has fleeced the tax payer, Bush bungled.
However, what I listed is not really grounds for impeachment except maybe the FEMA debaucle, the death.
What I would have Bush impeached for is taking the country to war while claiming that he didn't want to go to war and after first saying Iraq should allow the WMD inspectors in and then not giving them much time to be there, the fact that his administration was claiming that Al Qaeda and
Saddam were linked. He has betrayed his country and the constitution.
The grounds for impeachment are there, but it would be pointless.
The Republicans should have done it, and it would look partisan if the Democrats do the job they should have done, and he only has one year left in office and the country is at war. The grounds for impeachment relate to the war and that same war is helping stop him from being impeached. It might do more harm for him to be impeached rather than to be impeached. It would seem like a vendetta after what was done to Clinton. I don't blame the Democrats for not going through such a thing.
It would be too divisive and there isn't certainty of success, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What I would have Bush impeached for is taking the country to war while claiming that he didn't want to go to war and after first saying Iraq should allow the WMD inspectors in and then not giving them much time to be there, the fact that his administration was claiming that Al Qaeda and
Saddam were linked. He has betrayed his country and the constitution.
The grounds for impeachment are there, but it would be pointless.
The Republicans should have done it, and it would look partisan if the Democrats do the job they should have done, and he only has one year left in office and the country is at war. The grounds for impeachment relate to the war and that same war is helping stop him from being impeached. It might do more harm for him to be impeached rather than to be impeached. It would seem like a vendetta after what was done to Clinton. I don't blame the Democrats for not going through such a thing.
It would be too divisive and there isn't certainty of success, either |
You are aware that the only reason the inspectors were in Iraq is cause the US put soldiers in Saddam's face. And when the soliders were gone Saddam would kick out the inspectors again.
Saddam then would at some point try to rearm and threaten Kuwait and it would go on and on and on.
No solution.
anyway the Saudis were going to kick the US out of Saudi Arabia cause the US was pressuring them about AQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Agreed.
I'm not an expert on Yank constitutional law, but I assume that if Clinton could get impeached cause he lied about getting his cack sucked that Bushy could legally be thrown to the dustbin for his far more numerous and serious crimes.
BUT, it is my opinion that if the Dems do impeach him it is less likely a Democrat will win the presidency. That is the larger picture.
EFL, what if the real choice is between 1) 19 more months of bush and 8 years (allah willing) of Gore, Clinton or Obama OR 2) Bush gone now and Rudy or McCain for 4-8 years?
I know what I choose. |
Rudy or McCain.
They are both much better candidates than Bush was in 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
What I would have Bush impeached for is taking the country to war while claiming that he didn't want to go to war and after first saying Iraq should allow the WMD inspectors in and then not giving them much time to be there, the fact that his administration was claiming that Al Qaeda and
Saddam were linked. He has betrayed his country and the constitution.
The grounds for impeachment are there, but it would be pointless.
The Republicans should have done it, and it would look partisan if the Democrats do the job they should have done, and he only has one year left in office and the country is at war. The grounds for impeachment relate to the war and that same war is helping stop him from being impeached. It might do more harm for him to be impeached rather than to be impeached. It would seem like a vendetta after what was done to Clinton. I don't blame the Democrats for not going through such a thing.
It would be too divisive and there isn't certainty of success, either |
You are aware that the only reason the inspectors were in Iraq is cause the US put soldiers in Saddam's face. And when the soliders were gone Saddam would kick out the inspectors again.
Saddam then would at some point try to rearm and threaten Kuwait and it would go on and on and on.
No solution.
anyway the Saudis were going to kick the US out of Saudi Arabia cause the US was pressuring them about AQ. |
Joo, as usual, your post reflects not at all the actual situation at the time of the war. For the previous ten years your description would be fair, but not in the Spring of 2003. The inspectors had given Bush a 95% certainty of there being nothing in Iraq and had requested a further three months to get to 100%.
Three months and 5% in exchange for 3300+ American soldier's lives, various other Americans' lives, 300,000 - 700,000 Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars in debt and deficit.... etc., etc.
Only a madman or a neo-con would consider that a good trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
