It's Official: Bush Not To Get Impeached

[FranG]

Are you surprised? The game never changes, only the players. What kind of signal does this send to the rest of the world?

----------------

The House just voted by an overwhelming 368-31 (that's only 36 abstentions), not to impeach the president, not to cut off funding for the war, not even to endorse the findings of the Iraq Study Group, butto condemn the naming of a street in France after Pennsylvania death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal! Read more... (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12092006.html)

[garak]

"Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad." -- Henry Kissinger

[Ivy]

This makes me want to get that "No One Died When Clinton Lied" bumpersticker.

[AllAboutSoul]

Now ain't that a shame.

[Ymir]

Why are you guys complaining, you have the best politicians money can buy.

[songbird36]

Was he expected to be impeached? Because some working group made official what everyone has known for years?

*displays stunning ignorance of US political scene*

[FranG]

This makes me want to get that "No One Died When Clinton Lied" bumpersticker.

Yeah well Clinton is no saint either. He has the blood of many on his hands as well.


Was he expected to be impeached? Because some working group made official what everyone has known for years?

*displays stunning ignorance of US political scene*

Well people who know how the game goes wouldn't be surprised by this. But those who actually think the system works might. But even if people know,so what. No action is taken by the people. Hell most people don't even want to talk about it. Silence is implied acceptance.

[songbird36]

Hell most people don't even want to talk about it. Silence is implied acceptance.

That's hardly surprising - you have the most apathetic electorate in the Western world :)

[Ymir]

That's hardly surprising - you have the most apathetic electorate in the Western world :)
I don't blame them, the average joe has very little say in how the country is run. The real political power belongs to corporations, special interests groups and the burocracy.

[FranG]

That's hardly surprising - you have the most apathetic electorate in the Western world :)

Quite the contrary, they are very emotional; the most relevant fallacy is greed. They serve the dollar, not the public.

[songbird36]

Quite the contrary, they are very emotional; the most relevant fallacy is greed. They serve the dollar, not the public.

I meant in the sense that you have a very low voter turnout at Federal elections..something like 51%. That is *very* low.

[macr0]

I meant in the sense that you have a very low voter turnout at Federal elections..something like 51%. That is *very* low.

For most people over 30 in my world, the general consensus is "Fuck the government." Some vote. Some don't. All hate. Even the bright, shining stars of patriotism at least have a touch of cynicism and jadedness.

There are some idealistic 20-somethings. They learn sooner or later.

--

As far as Bush not getting impeached, the worst part is that they're not even going to have a minority report.

[FranG]

For most people over 30 in my world, the general consensus is "Fuck the government." Some vote. Some don't. All hate. Even the bright, shining stars of patriotism at least have a touch of cynicism and jadedness.

There are some idealistic 20-somethings. They learn sooner or later.

--

As far as Bush not getting impeached, the worst part is that they're not even going to have a minority report.

Right. It doesn't matter if everybody voted, as long as the principals (American people) hold their agents (U.S. Government) who are making decisions and acting on their behalf to account for mismanegment, misrepresentation, or fraud. As long as the people have no desire to do this, voter turnout is totally irrelevant.

[songbird36]

Well he was quoted as saying "I'll continue the war in Iraq even if Laura and the dog are the only people left supporting it".

Perhaps wife and dog control the Congress?

[FranG]

That's why the people have to be like "no your not." We have to be proactive. See we're all basically slaves; we're the fuel that drives the economy/government/culture/etc. Total detachment from the system will make them fall in line. Simply just don't play heir game. But that takes a great deal of courage and people just aren't willing to risk their freedom, lifestyle, or even their lives for justice.

[meshou]

It was the final week for the Republican Congress. Of course I'm not surprised. The new faces don't come in until January.

You did know that, right?

[Ferrus]

This makes me want to get that "No One Died When Clinton Lied" bumpersticker.
Although when he did this: http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/media_sudan.htm they did.

But of course to the media his having a blow job from an intern was far more important than the death of a few niggers.

[NoahFence]

Although when he did this: http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/media_sudan.htm they did.

But of course to the media his having a blow job from an intern was far more important than the death of a few niggers.

Sudan is BLACK PEOPLE!?! Holy crap!!! If I had known that I'd have cared a lot, I thought it was just a bunch of dirty ass towelheads we were killing! WTF is the world coming to...

The death of black people is IMPORTANT! Why, the OJ trial outshone the Lewinsky Incident by a country mile!

Sorry, you can go back to being serious now. I get a little light-headed when I think about this crap these days. Carry on.

[ajblaise]

Smart move by the Dems, woulda only created more problems for them.

[Jennywocky]

Are you surprised? The game never changes, only the players. What kind of signal does this send to the rest of the world?

Why would he be impeached, except as a petty gesture meant to make up for the Republicans making such a stink about Clinton?

There's no real way to pin anything on him -- everything can be blamed on one of his underlings. He can reasonably claim ignorance.

I wish that Bush had never been elected president (...twice... groan); but I don't want to see people waste the next year trying to impeach the guy. There are more important things to be doing. And I doubt an impeachment would change anyone's opinion of the U.S. at this point.

[C.J.Woolf]

To talk of impeachment before congressional investigations even begin is to put the cart before the horse.

Nixon resigned only after the Watergate investigations uncovered so much dirt on him that public opinion and even Republicans turned on him -- impeachment gained popular and bipartisan support.

Investigate Bush, then act according to what they uncover. That way impeachment will not look like a Democratic vendetta (which would fail without Republican support).

[meshou]

Smart move by the Dems, woulda only created more problems for them.Except the dems weren't in power yet.

[FranG]

Smart move by the Dems, woulda only created more problems for them.

More like self-serving; which I guess you can argue is smart.


It was the final week for the Republican Congress. Of course I'm not surprised. The new faces don't come in until January.

You did know that, right?

I did know. But in Congress, you vote for your next vote (if that makes any sense). The vast majority of people who voted will be there when the new faces come in January. Vindictive Republicans (or Democrats) who are on their way out are few in number. Everybody else has to play the same old scratch my back I'll scratch yours game. Democrats could have started the image creation of they in fact having "balls" and the Republicans that they are bipartison. But of course this didn't happen; not even 10% of the electorate voted for impeachment and that's a crying shame. Again, neither Republicans nor Democrats have an incentive in exposing the game. They both want to win the game, but the game still needs to be protected at al costs.


Why would he be impeached, except as a petty gesture meant to make up for the Republicans making such a stink about Clinton?

There's no real way to pin anything on him -- everything can be blamed on one of his underlings. He can reasonably claim ignorance.



from www.impeachbush.tv
(http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html)
The information is known factual information that has been reported even in the mainstream media. The grounds for impeachment are definitely there, but it's their discretion whether they want to push forward with the actual legal proceedings. I'll just add (not included below) that a real independent investigation into 9/11 is warranted. We can't just write-off royal fuck-ups like that.

--------------

Grounds for Impeachment

There are many reasons for impeaching George Bush. The ones below are the most compelling and most easily prosecuted. (For a more complete list see "Bush should be impeached.")

Lying about the Rationale for the Iraq War

Bush and his team deliberately misled Congress and the American public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda and responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the evidence shows that Iraq was not involved. Bush said in his State of the Union Address that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to build nuclear weapons. But he had already been told by the CIA that the evidence was forged. Bush claimed to have hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the UN investigators could not verify any of these claims and searches of Iraq revealed no such weapons. The real reason we invaded Iraq may have more to do with the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and sits strategically in the center of the Middle East. Read More...

Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens

George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. Bush claims he has authority to wiretap anyone he wishes but a federal judge ruled that his actions are unconstitutional. Read more...

Torture of Prisoners

Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention. Read more...

Violation of International Law

According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". They are not something that can be ignored when they are inconvenient. Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses. Read more...

[ptGatsby]

There are more important things to be doing. And I doubt an impeachment would change anyone's opinion of the U.S. at this point.


I wonder if we should expand this theory into law. There are always more important things to be doing than prosecuting someone - that costs a whole lot of money.

Not that I disagree... just pointing out the rule of law is unconditional. If there is sufficient cause, you bring him to court and you find him innocent or guilty.

Problem is, the president is above the law, which is why he was able to act the way he was. The only fix to this that long term problem is to rip the entire administration to shreds and drag them through the courts. Put some in an actual jail and others might hesitate. Since they are all in the elitest social class, this probably won't happen, but it may be the only way to strip them of something they value.

[FranG]

^^^^
Basically what ptGatsby said

[Zergling]

Plus you'd just have Dick Cheney as president instead, which wouldn't be much different at all. (One of the standard responses against a Bush impeachment)

[FranG]

^^^
Not if you implicate him in the charges.

[meshou]

So we'd have Nancy Palosi as president? I'm not sure I know who the hell she is well enough to want her as president. And she seems a tad too gung ho on pulling us out without at least trying to not fuck the Iraqis over.

[Jasz]

Are you surprised? The game never changes, only the players. What kind of signal does this send to the rest of the world?

----------------

The House just voted by an overwhelming 368-31 (that's only 36 abstentions), not to impeach the president, not to cut off funding for the war, not even to endorse the findings of the Iraq Study Group, butto condemn the naming of a street in France after Pennsylvania death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal! Read more... (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12092006.html)

so where is the list with those who voted for impeachment?

[C.J.Woolf]

Plus you'd just have Dick Cheney as president instead, which wouldn't be much different at all. (One of the standard responses against a Bush impeachment)

^^^
Not if you implicate him in the charges.
To prevent a President Cheney, he would have to be removed separately before Bush is impeached. Unless it's possible to pre-emptively impeach Cheney!


So we'd have Nancy Palosi as president?
I expect we'd have the replacement VP instead -- who could run as the incumbent President in 2008.

One much-discussed scenario has Cheney and Bush resigining for the good of the party and John McCain coming in to win easy "re-election" in 2008 and make the sheeple forget Bush ever existed. (Given the narrow margin of the 2000 election, Al Gore probably would have won if he had been the incumbent President.)

But really, I doubt that the whole complex process of removing Cheney then Bush can be done in less than two years.

[Dom]

Yeah well Clinton is no saint either. He has the blood of many on his hands as well.


Yes perhaps a little blood, but are you seriously gonna try to convince me what Clinton did was by anyway, shape, or form in the same league of moral corruptness as that fecking cowboy Bush??

[Jennywocky]

One much-discussed scenario has Cheney and Bush resigining for the good of the party and John McCain coming in to win easy "re-election" in 2008 and make the sheeple forget Bush ever existed.

I'm still ticked that McCain was run out of the primary in 2000 due to all the mudslinging Bush's team did in North Carolina-- all the lies, rumors, and innuendo by the man who supposed was trying to "draw people together."

Also, Bush swung far right to buy the Bob Jones' vote, then swung back towards the middle. Now all the evangelicals are complaining about how Bush sold them out... (Well, silly people, Bush was never a heavy right-winger to start with; he's more moderate. He was just buying your vote.)

I remember when the Repubs were trying to drum up candidates in 1998-1999 for the 2000 election... and in their smoky backrooms, they settled on Bush as a talking head. He was only chosen because he could win a popular election, not because he was presidential material. At times like these, I hate being an idealist; I get sick just thinking about this crap.

I wonder what would have happened if McCain had actually won in 2000. Would 911 have happened? And what would McCain have done differently?

[dubbeltop]

It's Official: Bush Not To Get Impeached

http://www.deathofapresident.com/

:wub:

[Madrigal]

"Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad." -- Henry Kissinger

Haha, I have felt that way before, 'didn't know that son of a bitch had actually put it in words.

[Intension]

I'm still ticked that McCain was run out of the primary in 2000 due to all the mudslinging Bush's team did in North Carolina-- all the lies, rumors, and innuendo by the man who supposed was trying to "draw people together."

Also, Bush swung far right to buy the Bob Jones' vote, then swung back towards the middle. Now all the evangelicals are complaining about how Bush sold them out... (Well, silly people, Bush was never a heavy right-winger to start with; he's more moderate. He was just buying your vote.)

I remember when the Repubs were trying to drum up candidates in 1998-1999 for the 2000 election... and in their smoky backrooms, they settled on Bush as a talking head. He was only chosen because he could win a popular election, not because he was presidential material. At times like these, I hate being an idealist; I get sick just thinking about this crap.

I wonder what would have happened if McCain had actually won in 2000. Would 911 have happened? And what would McCain have done differently?

I had thought the government's only chance to prevent 9/11 was for the FBI bureaucracy to follow up on the leads that were coming in, and make connections between disparate sources of evidence (e.g. the Phoenix Memo). Short of rapidly revamping the FBI and CIA's intelligence bureaucracies, I don't see how McCain could have stopped 9/11. He might have gone into Afghanistan similar to Bush, but I don't see him initiating the Iraq war, although I believe he is currently a war-supporter. Not sure what he thought back in 2002.

[ptGatsby]

He might have gone into Afghanistan similar to Bush, but I don't see him initiating the Iraq war, although I believe he is currently a war-supporter.


The major problem isn't the Iraq war...

The major problem is lying and manipulating the entire populace, undermining rule of law, creating propganda departments, exempting the presidency from the laws being signed into law, inciting global discontent, increasing the military complex...

In short, perpetuating everything that will eventually bring down the US from the inside due to short sighted knee-jerk reactions to a set doctrine rather than a rational approach to known information.

I have never seen a president caught 'misinforming' the populace to such a degree... ever. Hell, this administration created a brand new form of comedy that can air on a weekly basis for an hour: finding out how many contradictions and lies they and their supporters spout.

The only reason to impeach him is if you will prosecute him after he is out of WH. Otherwise it's a waste of time. The damage is done already... the sychophants won't be removed, departments won't be made redundant, contracts won't end... It was heading this way already, but this was an abrupt example of where things were headed before. It became naked for all to see. The only thing that matters is that the play changes... not the actors.

[Jennywocky]

It was heading this way already, but this was an abrupt example of where things were headed before. It became naked for all to see. The only thing that matters is that the play changes... not the actors.

So you're saying that Bush's main problem (well, besides the dishonesty) is that he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag?

[Or is that what he just WANTS you to think? Mua ha ha...!]

[MacGuffin]

The title of this thread sucks.

[Nyairj]

The days have long passed when an American president could be held accountable for anything. At least Nixon seemed to have some capacity for shame, or at least akwardness at getting caught -- and what he did was Mickey Mouse stuff compared to what Bush does every day.

Fred Reed, one of the smartest guys I know of, poses an interesting scenario: what if Bush decides he doesn't want to go when his term is up? (http://www.fredoneverything.net/BushPower.shtml) To protect us from terrorists, of course. As an emergency measure:


Given a president who seems chiefly concerned to display his indomitable manhood, the question arises: What restraints keep him from absolute control of a formidably armed nation of three hundred million? The Constitution, noblest of fables, was designed to do just this. But absent the will to enforce them, checks and balances do not exist, and laws, principles, and constitutions mean nothing. If no one says ?no,? the president simply behaves as he wants. The genius of the strange little man in the White House has been to recognize this, to divine the weakness of the American political order.

When he wanted to attack Iraq, he simply lied, and lied again, and shifted his ground and lied again. It worked. When he didn?t want to follow the Geneva Conventions in his treatment of captured Iraqis, he just declared his prisoners of war not to be prisoners of war. Torture? He just did it and faced down the country and the world. Disregard of civil rights? Spying? He just did as he chose.

Here is the great discovery of the little man who doesn?t read. America is not the land of the free, nor of the brave, nor of the politically sentient. Nor is it a country of laws or of principles. It is a country of those who just do as they want. A president can do anything he chooses. Who will tell him no? Nobody has.

Today there is speculation as to whether he will make war, perhaps nuclear war, on Iran. The universal assumption seems to be that if he wants to, he will just do it. The legislature, already having given up its authority to declare war, seems to regard the military as the private guard of the president. Is it not interesting that one dim, pugnacious, ignorant little man can bring on nuclear war all by himself?

When Mr. Bush gets caught lying or breaking the law, he shows no embarrassment, contrition, or sense of having done anything wrong. He seems to have no conception of right and wrong, of principle. He is not accustomed to being told ?no,? and accepts no constraints on his power. All that matters to him is that he get his way. He gets it.

Where will this lead? Obviously, to vastly increased police powers. But I wonder. If, down the pike, Bush announced that to protect us from terrorism he would have to postpone the presidential elections and remain in office?what would happen? Suppose he came up with a bit of supportive theater. If just before the elections something blew up, and were attributed not to the CIA but to Terrace, what then? The Reichstag has burned before. The public, the congress, the judiciary are so very, very easily manipulated. All it takes is the will to do it.

And that the little man has.

[Jennywocky]

Fred Reed, one of the smartest guys I know of, poses an interesting scenario: what if Bush decides he doesn't want to go when his term is up? (http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm) To protect us from terrorists, of course. As an emergency measure:

I found the essay interesting, but overall I don't think this is a strong possibility. (I would be surprised if Bush would try to stay in office, psychological profile-wise.)

[And if he tried, his mother would wipe the floor with him.]

[FranG]

Yes perhaps a little blood, but are you seriously gonna try to convince me what Clinton did was by anyway, shape, or form in the same league of moral corruptness as that fecking cowboy Bush??

Clinton and Bush are brothers in crime. They're one in the same. They're all conspirators. One may have murdered more people but that's a reflection of opportunity, strategy, and manipulativeness. Clinton is a much smoother operator than Bush but Clinton has bodied many people on his rise to the top, not to mention the quiet death that he put on the Iraqis via economic sanctions throughout the 90s. It's a classic game of good cop/ bad cop. Right now Bush and Blair are playing that game. But don't get it twisted; they're all on the same page with their goals of conquest.