|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is There Sufficient Evidence to Impeach W. Bush? |
| Yes |
|
55% |
[ 38 ] |
| No |
|
33% |
[ 23 ] |
| Unsure |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
| Other (Please be specific below) |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Njord wrote: |
Here are some reasonable charges (worth a serious congressional investigation at least) in order from strongest to weakest:
1. President Bush violated FISA by ordering illegal wiretaps. Unless you agree with the Unitary Executive Theory (the view of a radical fringe in the legal community) then Bush has already admitted that he violated the law.
2. President Bush violated the law by authorizing torture. This is not as strong since it is more difficult to tie to Bush personally on current evidence. Also, a stronger argument could be made on the grounds of national security. Still, I think this would provide sufficient grounds for impeachment.
3. President Bush knowingly made false statements to Congress. Perjury is difficult to prove, but this is a fairly strong case.
4. President Bush violated the Constitution by routinely withholding information from Congress. The level of obstruction by this Administration is truely shocking, particularly considering they should have little to fear from a Republican controlled congress. Still, this charge is a bit vague for impeachment. |
1. Okay fair point, but let's wait for the results of an inquiry or probe if any. If there are no probes, it's not a very strong charge is it.
2. No evidence ties Bush PERSONALLY to torture. Rumsfield is as high as it goes and I think HE should resign
3. No. There is NO evidence that proves Bush knowingly lied. TIME, Newsweek, and The Economist all have made this point in recent issues. The Economist (which is not pro_Bush, and indeed said he should not be re-elected) called charges that Bush knowingly lied "A farango of nonsense".
4. Again fairly vague. And a defense can be raised on grounds of National Security (whether it is merited or not). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Njord
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
1. Okay fair point, but let's wait for the results of an inquiry or probe if any. If there are no probes, it's not a very strong charge is it.
2. No evidence ties Bush PERSONALLY to torture. Rumsfield is as high as it goes and I think HE should resign
3. No. There is NO evidence that proves Bush knowingly lied. TIME, Newsweek, and The Economist all have made this point in recent issues. The Economist (which is not pro_Bush, and indeed said he should not be re-elected) called charges that Bush knowingly lied "A farango of nonsense".
4. Again fairly vague. And a defense can be raised on grounds of National Security (whether it is merited or not). |
1. The lack of probes does not prove anything except the reluctance of this Republic Congress to investigate any wrongdoing by the Bush Administration. Indeed, one might expect the strongest charges to be resisted most fiercely.
2. Yes, Rumsfeld is partly responsible. He even offered to resign, and Bush declined. Then why didn't Bush fire him? The legal cover for torture was developed by Alberto Gonzales and others. Instead of being fired, he was actually promoted! I think it stretches credibility to suggest that Bush was not aware of the torture policies. No, there is not enough publicly available evidence to prove this. However, it is not unreasonable to suspect that such evidence might be found in a full investigation.
3. "Lied" is not the right word, although it may turn out to be appropriate. But was there a consistant pattern of statements intended to mislead Congress? In my view, the Downing Street Memos provide enough evidence to warrent further investigation.
4. Perhaps you don't realize just how widespread this practice has been. Here's a quote from USA Today (2002) talking about the frustrations of Republicans on this issue:
| Quote: |
House Government Reform Chairman Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, angrily complained recently, "This is not a monarchy." He was upset that Bush blocked the committee's probe of alleged FBI abuses in Boston. Burton warned of a potential "war" with the White House unless attitudes change.
The festering anger from both parties could prompt lawmakers to block some of the money Bush wants for anti-terrorism programs and his domestic priorities.
"There's a lot of arrogance of power here," says James Dyer, the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. "If we are going to pay the bills, and if we're going to defend their programs, we've got to be told what they're doing." Appropriations Chairman C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., plans to drive home that point today, when White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels appears before the panel.
Complaints about Bush's penchant for secrecy also are mounting beyond Capitol Hill. "We're very concerned about it," says Larry Klayman, executive director of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that was a nemesis of Democrat Bill Clinton when he was president. "This is a case where left and right agree. ... True conservatives don't act this way.
"We see an unprecedented secrecy in this White House that ... we find very troubling," he says. |
By the way, the FBI abuses that Dan Burton was mad about happened fourty years ago! Yes, this is a bit vague, which is why it is #4 on my list.
In any case, impeachment is political. I do not believe in a million years that it could happen in a Republican controlled congress, but I suspect that impeachment is actually probable if Democrats win control of the House in November. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You have previously stated you think there is NO evidence for impeachment. What, then, is your motivation for this thread, Sir Troll?
Donkey. |
To find out what other people think about the issue?
Do I win the prize?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alas, not quite that easy...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Njord wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
1. Okay fair point, but let's wait for the results of an inquiry or probe if any. If there are no probes, it's not a very strong charge is it.
2. No evidence ties Bush PERSONALLY to torture. Rumsfield is as high as it goes and I think HE should resign
3. No. There is NO evidence that proves Bush knowingly lied. TIME, Newsweek, and The Economist all have made this point in recent issues. The Economist (which is not pro_Bush, and indeed said he should not be re-elected) called charges that Bush knowingly lied "A farango of nonsense".
4. Again fairly vague. And a defense can be raised on grounds of National Security (whether it is merited or not). |
1. The lack of probes does not prove anything except the reluctance of this Republic Congress to investigate any wrongdoing by the Bush Administration. Indeed, one might expect the strongest charges to be resisted most fiercely.
2. Yes, Rumsfeld is partly responsible. He even offered to resign, and Bush declined. Then why didn't Bush fire him? The legal cover for torture was developed by Alberto Gonzales and others. Instead of being fired, he was actually promoted! I think it stretches credibility to suggest that Bush was not aware of the torture policies. No, there is not enough publicly available evidence to prove this. However, it is not unreasonable to suspect that such evidence might be found in a full investigation.
3. "Lied" is not the right word, although it may turn out to be appropriate. But was there a consistant pattern of statements intended to mislead Congress? In my view, the Downing Street Memos provide enough evidence to warrent further investigation.
4. Perhaps you don't realize just how widespread this practice has been. Here's a quote from USA Today (2002) talking about the frustrations of Republicans on this issue:
| Quote: |
House Government Reform Chairman Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, angrily complained recently, "This is not a monarchy." He was upset that Bush blocked the committee's probe of alleged FBI abuses in Boston. Burton warned of a potential "war" with the White House unless attitudes change.
The festering anger from both parties could prompt lawmakers to block some of the money Bush wants for anti-terrorism programs and his domestic priorities.
"There's a lot of arrogance of power here," says James Dyer, the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. "If we are going to pay the bills, and if we're going to defend their programs, we've got to be told what they're doing." Appropriations Chairman C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., plans to drive home that point today, when White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels appears before the panel.
Complaints about Bush's penchant for secrecy also are mounting beyond Capitol Hill. "We're very concerned about it," says Larry Klayman, executive director of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that was a nemesis of Democrat Bill Clinton when he was president. "This is a case where left and right agree. ... True conservatives don't act this way.
"We see an unprecedented secrecy in this White House that ... we find very troubling," he says. |
By the way, the FBI abuses that Dan Burton was mad about happened fourty years ago! Yes, this is a bit vague, which is why it is #4 on my list.
In any case, impeachment is political. I do not believe in a million years that it could happen in a Republican controlled congress, but I suspect that impeachment is actually probable if Democrats win control of the House in November. |
Comes down to one thing: The Buck Stops Here. Either it do, or it don't. A president should not be able to hide behind this lie. If you give your underlings the authority to act, even if trying to hide behind braod statements and then say, well, I didn't think they'd do THAT!" or do nothing once you have found them acting without that authority, you are guilty. Simple as that. And if you truly knew nothing, then you are already *not in control of the country* and have *given that power over to people who were not elected to office* and are incompetent.
Too much slack for too many presidents. Time to end this new kind of kingship. Bush has shown just how dangerous it is. His complete lack of respect for the institutions that created the office he occupies allows him to do this. His ideology trumps all, which is exactly why the checks and balances exist. Time to strengthen them again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did Bush commit impeachable offenses? I believe so, yes. There is enough evidence and suspicion to begin an investigation.
Do we have the evidence, at present, needed to impeach? No.
As others have compared this to Clinton:
Was there enough evidence to impeach, convict and imprison Clinton?
Yes. Not for sex. For bribery, selling the office of Governor in Arkansas and the office of President, for millions of dollars. The evidence was there, but Ken Star and the Republicans were and are more concerned about imposing their "common" moral values (ie communism) on the people. So, they got bogged down in a sex scandal and missed the impeachable offenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: Blair backed war 'before U.N. vote' |
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/03/blair.bush.ap/index.html
| Quote: |
Blair backed war 'before U.N. vote'
Friday, February 3, 2006 Posted: 1326 GMT (2126 HKT)
Blair and Bush pictured at the White House in January 2003.
LONDON, England (AP) -- Britain's prime minister told U.S. President George W. Bush he backed the invasion of Iraq while he was still seeking a second U.N. resolution on the military action, according to British media reports.
Tony Blair is alleged to have told Bush in January 2003 he was "solidly behind" U.S. plans for military action, despite the continuing negotiations...
The newspaper, which published the report on its Web site, and Channel 4 News claim to have seen a memo recording a meeting between Blair and Bush at the White House on January 31, 2003.
During the talks, it is claimed Bush told Blair the "diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning."
The reports claim Blair said he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."
He said the decision was taken "only after other routes to disarm Iraq had failed" and that "during this time there were frequent discussions" between Britain and the United States about Iraq.
The book claims that the memo undermines Blair's speech to British lawmakers in February 2003, when he said he was giving Saddam Hussein a final chance to disarm voluntarily.
The news organizations claim the memo records Bush as saying the U.S. would "put its full weight" behind efforts to secure a second U.N. resolution, but that "military action would follow anyway." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Was there enough evidence to impeach, convict and imprison Clinton?
Yes. Not for sex. For bribery, selling the office of Governor in Arkansas and the office of President, for millions of dollars. |
Do tell!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Was there enough evidence to impeach, convict and imprison Clinton?
Yes. Not for sex. For bribery, selling the office of Governor in Arkansas and the office of President, for millions of dollars. |
Do tell!! |
You left out murder, money laundering & widespread complicity in cocaine smugging.
Never heard of MENA? Ron Brown? Barry Seal?
Bush's 'Gulf Of Tonkin'
Underlines Criminal Desperation For War
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/PrisonPlanet.com | February 4 2006
This week's revelations that George W. Bush and Tony Blair considered staging a war provocation by painting a US spy plane in UN colors and flying it over Iraq, in the hope that Saddam would order it shot down, illustrates a desperate depth of criminality only rivaled by previous notorious historical examples.
Philippe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London, unearthed documents that shadow even the Downing Street memo in terms of direct and unequivocal confirmation that the war was deliberate and planned from the very start and that any pretext to garner international support for it would be considered and utilized.
The US government considered staging an act of provocation that would fool the world into supporting an unpopular war.
This tactic is by no means new. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war, was a staged event that never actually took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.
Operation Northwoods, Pearl Harbor and the attack on the USS Liberty are other historical examples where the same method of staged provocation was either considered or directly used in an attempt to start a conflict.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/040206criminaldesperation.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
[Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/PrisonPlanet.com | February 4 2006
This week's revelations that George W. Bush and Tony Blair considered staging a war provocation by painting a US spy plane in UN colors and flying it over Iraq, in the hope that Saddam would order it shot down, illustrates a desperate depth of criminality only rivaled by previous notorious historical examples.
[ |
So now thinking and talking about a plan (which was never implemented) is a criminal offense?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gee, Urby, way to ignore the obvious:
| Quote: |
| The news organizations claim the memo records Bush as saying the U.S. would "put its full weight" behind efforts to secure a second U.N. resolution, but that "military action would follow anyway." |
That, my friend, is an impeachable offense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At least as impeachable as BJs in the oval office at any rate, and they certainly tried to impeach on those grounds.
I haven't been following any real US political news, is there a serious 'impeach Bush' movement going on? I mean, Hillary nor any other prominent democrats past and present are making this case, are they?
[honest question here because I haven't been keeping up on the issue] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Getting closer: Lied about knowing Abramoff and Cheney authorized Libby leak, it seems. Hmmm...
Maybe people are forgetting that impeachment is an investigative *process* and not an up and down vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Getting closer: Lied about knowing Abramoff and Cheney authorized Libby leak, it seems. Hmmm...
Maybe people are forgetting that impeachment is an investigative *process* and not an up and down vote. |
Hmmmmmm ... yes ... can't a President be impeached if they're "caught" lying?
Abramoff says he met Bush "almost a dozen" times
By Andy Sullivan
Thu Feb 9, 6:54 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public on Thursday that President Bush met him "almost a dozen" times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.
"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows," Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.
Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch.
The messages were made public by the American Progress Action Fund, a liberal activist group. Eisler confirmed their accuracy to Reuters but said he did not intend them to become public.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/pl_nm/crime_abramoff_dc;_ylt=AtbMsfDVKc1q5e9hp_elG2wGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5 |
|
| 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
