Let's impeach the president.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The Democrats could end this war tomorrow by cutting off the money. They won't, though, because it's good politics for them. They need the war to go on through next fall. They won't impeach the President for the same reason. Their plan is to keep the current political atmosphere, which is toxic for Republicans, frozen in place until they can get a Democratic President elected. At that point Iraq will drop off the media radar regardless of the situation on the ground and we will get their full on domestic agenda shoved down our throats. We are moving into an activist, Liberal cycle after thirty years of conservative domination. If I weren't such an optimist I would say that it will be difficult for the country to survive this. Turning and turning in the widening gyre..

Oh yeah, I meant to address Gtripp's post. An impeachable offense is whatever the house says it is. There is only the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is subjective. One of the impeachment articles against Nixon was over his bombing of Cambodia which may have been morally wrong but was not a crime in any meaningful sense of the word. It was impeachable because it got enough votes.

Also for those who are too young to remember the last impeachment extraveganza, "impeachment" refers to the formal charges brought to the floor of the house by the judiciary committee and passed by simple majority vote. It's like an indictment. Removal from office is a seprate proceeding that takes place after a trial in the Senate and requires a two-thirds majority. Often people say impeachment when they mean removal. Three Presidents have been impeached. None has ever been removed, although surely Nixon would have been. Johnson, Andrew was "acquitted" by one vote if memory serves. My point is, it's alot easier just to wait for the next election which is how the founders wanted it.

Now that I think about it, I believe that the Judiciary Committe voted articles of impeachment against Nixon but I don't know that the full house had the chance, so I suppose you could say that Nixon was not truly impeached. Maybe someone else here knows.

Only two presidents have been impeached Bill Clinton and Andrew. Nixon steped down which stopped the impeachment process.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Bill Clinton was impeached.

No, they tried to impeach him but didn't get the votes.

[KLHJ2]

I have read every post and have a little to say about everything.
Crazyhorse, why is it silly for Bush to denounce Iran?
Smootsmack, I agree.
Robbh4413, I second that.
Gtripp, you're onto something.
Sadden you are correct, but should have elaborated a little bit more.
Dblanche66, wars have been started over many stupid things throughout the years. The Cold war was a competition between Capitalism and Communism. The crusades were over religion and possible riches.
70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by angryssg

70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.

I disagree. No money no war. The troops would have to come home. No President could leave soldiers in the field without food. The Pentagon would revolt.

The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.

And if she does win you can count on her keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for most of her first term. Anyone who thinks she will pull out hasn't been paying attention. She would love the idea of flying into Bagdhad to visit the troops. Great photo-op. Florence of Arabia. I pity the anti-war types. They have given the Democrats power and the Democrats have thanked them by taking a great big dump on their front porch. Oh that stinks.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.

What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?

I'm not sure I have a good feel for who they would take votes from. They are both anti-war, so in a Hillary/Rudy race, for example, you would think that it would hurt Hillary. The question is would an anti-war activist, who hates the Republican Party and hates corporations and who normally would revile Bloomberg, vote for him in spite of all that because of Iraq? I don't have a good feel for that. It's hard for me to figure out if these people really hate the war or Bush. Is Iraq merely a device that gives expression to a feeling that would still be just as strong without the war? Bush was plenty hated in those circles before March of 2003. If it's not really about the war, but about hating Bush, then Bloomberg can save his money. They will hold their nose and vote Democratic.

Bloomberg and Hagel have no traction among Republicans. I can't see them stealing a lot of votes there. Support for the President continues to be strong among his base. There is no anti-war constituency among conservatives.

Immigration is another matter. I think what Hillary would like to see is a viable 3rd party candidate like Tom Tancredo who is a hardliner on immigration. This could appeal to enough of the good old boys in a state like my own to (amazingly) throw Virginia to the Democrats for the forst time since LBJ in 1964. She wins here and it's a skate. A revolt over the illegals would be a disater for the GOP up and down the ticket.

In short, I'm not sure I see a rationale for Bloomberg/Hagel beyond the hard core, single issue anti-war folks.

But, politics rarely proceeds down a straight line that is in any way predictable. That's why there is an inherent danger in the Democratic strategy of stall-ball. That's what it is. It's the four corners. The zeitgest could shift against them and they'll be left out there hanging with their dicks in the wind. The do-nothing Dems. It's not likely to happen because the NYT etc has their backs, but major events can alter history and perceptions, as we know from 9/11. The Republicans need a turnover and they need one bad.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I have read every post and have a little to say about everything.
Crazyhorse, why is it silly for Bush to denounce Iran?
Smootsmack, I agree.
Robbh4413, I second that.
Gtripp, you're onto something.
Sadden you are correct, but should have elaborated a little bit more.
Dblanche66, wars have been started over many stupid things throughout the years. The Cold war was a competition between Capitalism and Communism. The crusades were over religion and possible riches.
70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.

Bush is denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges. Very few of the people Bush has detained in Gitmo, at Abu Grab, in the Salt Pit of Afghanistan, or in secret prisons in Europe have been charged with anything even after years of detention. Pot calling the kettle black.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Bush is denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges. Very few of the people Bush has detained in Gitmo, at Abu Grab, in the Salt Pit of Afghanistan, or in secret prisons in Europe have been charged with anything even after years of detention. Pot calling the kettle black.

Could you provide a link of his denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges, and of people being detained by US with no charges brought against them?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Could you provide a link of his denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges, and of people being detained by US with no charges brought against them?

Not to quote myself. But I need to clarify "no charges" I mean no valid reason to consider bringing charges

[dmek25]

i think Bush is a moron. and very incompetent. with that out of the way, the sad thing about this administration is i really think that they think they are doing the right things for our country. the democrats cried and cried about all the changes that would take place if they took control of Congress. what has changed? little to nothing. it would be political suicide to cut of the funding.

[Daseal]

I think what crazyhorse was referring to was the laughable hypocrisy this brings. We're allowed to hold all sorts of people without charges then get upset when someone does it to us? Sorry, doesn't work like that. If we don't play by the rules we shouldn't expect other countries to do it for us.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think what crazyhorse was referring to was the laughable hypocrisy this brings. We're allowed to hold all sorts of people without charges then get upset when someone does it to us? Sorry, doesn't work like that. If we don't play by the rules we shouldn't expect other countries to do it for us.

Exactly, I think he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy within the administration.

That being said, there is talk the Chair of House Judiciary Committee is going to start stirring a debate, more or less, to impeach Bush.

I highly doubt that it will get off the ground, however.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Exactly, I think he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy within the administration.

That being said, there is talk the Chair of House Judiciary Committee is going to start stirring a debate, more or less, to impeach Bush.

I highly doubt that it will get off the ground, however.

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when comes to matters of foreign policy.

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?