Impeach Bush/Cheney: Take Action Now!

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
In summary, the evidence seems to point to corruption and malfeasance on the part of many people in positions of power. We need to put a stop to it and force these individuals out of office.
  • #71
russ_watters said:
Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!
So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?

Regarding the current administration - it is against international (and US law) to attack a country without provocation. The claims of WMD were pushing this envelope due to lack of clear and present danger. Then when WMD were not found, there was no question the US had violated these laws. The argument that intelligence was faulty is like arguing you did not see the signal, but you ran the red light and broke the law just the same. And of course the popular method of vindication is to change the laws (e.g., DeLay changing ethics committee rules), thus the sudden embracement of the neocon vision and the Bush Doctrine. When the world still did not buy into the legality of preemptive strikes, the reason soon became regime change, which interestingly enough also is illegal.

And like the crime of murder, there are various degrees with premeditation being the first degree. The Downing Street Memos showed premeditation to deceive congress and the American people, then inappropriately diverting funds, unnecessarily placing troops in harms way, etc., etc. Add to that the Plame leak, and you have acts of treason. And you ask why people believe there is cause for impeachment? Come on man, stop with the coy little games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
russ_watters said:
Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why. :rolleyes:
And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.
edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
edward said:
If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.
I agree. It appears that some folk here are suggesting that Bush must be proven guilty before he can be impeached and tried by the senate and as folk cannot provide that proof he should be left alone.

I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.

There is certainly widespread suspicion and circumstantial evidence that a crime has been committed so I'd have thought that following precedent it is now time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and report to congress to see if Bush should be impeached.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Informal Logic said:
So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?
Because that would be a delusion. Since conviction automatically means removal, for someone to say that Clinton was convicted would be the same as saying he was removed from office, and clearly he wasn't.

It's a catch-22: a Republican simply can't use the word incorrectly when talking about Clinton because if he doesn't know the definition, he wouldn't use the word because he'd believe he would be incorrect to use it and if he knows the definition, he'd be right to use it!
edward said:
If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Art said:
I agree.
That is exactly my point.

Props to both of you for being forthcoming about that.
I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.
Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?
 
Last edited:
  • #75
russ_watters said:
Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?
Democrats in power?:confused:

Where?

If Bush is to be impeached, it will be because of what is revealed by Fitzgerald's investigation, which in turn might lead to some Republicans gaining a conscience and sense of duty to their country and launching a more widespread investigation into the conduct of this administration.

Democrats can not even have a Congressional hearing let alone an investigation into the Downing Street memo. They are certainly not going to be allowed to bring articles of impeachment against Bush.

What do you suggest they do?

Use their 5 minutes or whatever when they can address the congress on any topic to call for investigations?

There are currently no legal grounds that I am aware of to impeach Bush. This, IMO would change if Congress would launch an investigation. Even though many would say it is a waste, even nailing them for obstructing justice would be a blow for justice. There is a difference of many degrees between trying to hide an extra-marital affair, and trying to cover up the outing of a covert operative. Obstructing justice, when the crime is possibly treason is orders of magnitude more injurious to the Nation.

The whole issue of impeachment is tied to A Republican prosecutor and what he and the Grand jury have discovered.

[edit]My mistake, Fitzgerald is apolitical, I heard that when he found out that "Independent" was a political party he declined to register as an independent.[/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
Mercator said:
Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.

Well I always believe Al Jazeerah!

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/Feb/1%20o/The%20Verdict%20on%20Jupp,%20Arab%20News.htm [Broken]

“…If however the president seeks to protect himself by protecting his political protégé Juppé, their patience may well run out. A rescue attempt for Juppé would further compromise Chirac himself and increase the already strong probability of indictment if he leaves the Elysée at the next election in 2007 when he is 74. On the other hand, if he now leaves well enough alone, pressure for prosecution may ease in the next three years…”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
russ_watters said:
Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws? Huh?
Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:

1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).

2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.

3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.

4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.

An explanation of the grounds for impeachment was given in a recent memo to Rep. Conyers from attorney Bonifaz. Among the preliminary formal charges made against the Bush administration as proposed by Clark include the following allegations that:

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;
1) President Bush violated various sections of the United States Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2) President Bush committed crimes relating to "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments;"
3) President Bush has concealed "information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;" and
4) President Bush has caused or is responsible for assassinations, torture, and indefinite detentions such as the Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay and other such matters including the persecution of U.S. and non-U.S. Muslims.
5) President Bush has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on numerous occassions with the prohibitive measures on any protests or marches by the people of the United States.

Many activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

A number of legislators, journalists, bloggers and citizen activist groups see the heretofore secret Downing Street memo as proof that Bush was willingly and knowingly untruthful about Iraq's possession of WMDs, and had lied in the year (2002) leading up to the Iraqi Invasion of 2003, and that the president intentionally planned to invade Iraq regardless of the whether or not Iraq has any such weapons. Congressional democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. The minority party does not have subpoenas power, and therefore cannot force the production of documents.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special prosecutor investigating the Plame affair has subpoenaed phone records made from Air Force One, and the court filings in support of these subpoena's have alleged "serious breaches of security." The closeness of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the president and vice-president respectively has led Frank Rich to draw comparisons to Watergate in recent columns.

Official Democratic Party organizations, including the DCCC and the DSCC have used phrases such as "worse than Watergate" and accusing Bush and the Republicans of "abuse of power". The latter phrase is significant because "abuse of power" was the meaning attached to the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution's impeachment standard by the Congress in the Impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. To date, neither organization has endorsed impeachment explicitly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.
 
  • #78
SOS2008 said:
Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:
1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).
2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.
3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.
4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges
Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.

On the international front, you have the http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm" [Broken] Which was used to prosecute people like Tojo after WWII for crimes against peace.

And we all know what happened to the Japanese 'Class A' War criminals ...

Get the rope.

Oh, and you will notice Kellogg-Briand originated with the President of the USA and has never been repealed as a treaty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
I guess I need to stick in my two cents!:biggrin:

Russ, you have asked for specific charges and here they are according to Clark:
Articles of Impeachment
of
President George W. Bush
and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


This list does not even include what Fitzgerald will probably lay on this administration. So you can guess that list does get longer. BTW, outing Plame could carry the death penalty! That was a law enacted by Bush Sr. It is a strange small world up there in D.C, isn't it?

My suggestion would be to not put any faith in politicians, if they didn't have that wealth behind them they would all probably be petty criminals.

Oh yeah, who cares what Clinton did? How is that even remotely relevent? IMHO, it only provides a partisan distraction to the matter at hand!

We'll have to wait and see what the specific charges will actually be when it does come to pass!

This has been a long time coming!:bugeye:
 
  • #80
Oh, yes ... and what was the CIA doing in Italy kidnapping people, chucking them on a plane and spiriting them off to Egypt for 'Extrordianry Rendition'?

Doncha' love that phrase? :!)

Let's see ... Clinton = BJ ... Bush = Kidnap and torture.

Anybody here see the difference? One requires a handywipe and a 'Shout' Sachet the other a firing squad.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
And there is a possiblity of a civil suit by the Wilsons.
 
  • #82
I read the list of charges at votetoimpeach.org, and most are pretty weak, particularly the violations of international law. The question is whether they fall under the definition of an impeachable offense.

As for violations "First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments", technically they only apply to US citizens, especially after the Patriot act.

I would agree that the Bush Administration has subverted the Constitution.

The indefinite detention and torture certainly would seem to be grounds for impeachable offenses - they would seem to constitute high crimes.

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.
Congress produced the legislation and the President signed it. Congress would have to impeach itself if they went after Bush for that. Actually, I think Congress should resign en masse, and no incumbent should run for office in 2006+.

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Actually another congress person has mentioned this.

As for torture, assassination, kidnapping, . . . Bush does not have a declaration of war from congress, so technically the US is not at war. On the other hand, like so many times in the past, the US government has military and paramilitary (mercenary) units in Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of paramilitary is very problematic because they do things outside the law, such as kidnapping and torture, and that seems to be endorsed by the Bush administration since they set it up.
 
  • #83
I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.

The reason Clinton's impeachment is being brought up is because the republican talking points are that perjury and obstruction of justice are secondary charges to justify 2 years of investigations that lead to nothing. Unfortunately for them their statements during the Clinton impeachment are exactly the opposite.
 
  • #84
Skyhunter said:
I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.
This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.
 
  • #85
SOS2008 said:
This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.
Bingo.

Activism by the voting public will get results, especially leading into an election year. Look at how fast they backed off of PBS when a petition received over a million signatures in 24 hours. (a record)

Writing or emailing your representative, is extremely important, it helps them to know what their constituency is concerned about. Even when they do what you want, let em know, having the support of your constituents makes it easier for elected officials to take tough positions, because they know it is what the people they represent want.

My representatives are Congresswoman Barbara Lee, (The only member of Congress to vote against invading Afghanistan) Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. My guess is that they will support a move to impeach.
I still let them know what I think at least once a week. Especially Dianne, I agree with her less than with the other two.

I for one will participate November 2nd in "The World Can't Wait for 2008! Drive out the Bush Regime!" protests.

If you want to find out what Bushco has been up to, write/email your representatives and demand a little congressional oversight!

If you want to demonstrate your seriousness, don't go to work or school on November 2nd.

This is still our government, let's take back control. If we exercise the "of the people, by the people" aspects of our government the "for the people" aspect will be returned.
 
  • #86
Where have all the Red States gone?

http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 [Broken] is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

I am not sure that running away from Bush is going to help the Republicans much in the mid-terms. It appears that the American people have figured out that the Emperor really is naked. It won't take much to show them that the Republican controlled Congress has been complicit in Bush's agenda, and has failed to provide oversight.

Pelosi is saying that the House won't impeach if the Dem's gain a majority. I believe that will change early in 2007, as soon as Congress starts exercising it's subpoena power and the sordid details of the lies told to engage us in this tragedy in Iraq become common knowledge. When the people learn the truth they will demand justice.

A Democratic House will vote to impeach. I think that the mood of the Country will compel a super majority of Senators to vote for removal from office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Skyhunter said:
http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 [Broken] is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

Err, there are no county-level approval polls! That map looks highly suspect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
That's an estimate constructed by combining election results with that recent poll, Rach3.
 
  • #89
You mean they used an approval poll to make that map? :rolleyes:

edit: Apparently that's exactly what the idiot did. Someone tell all the fundamentalists who've turned against Bush, they are now statistically considered Democrats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
Just to be clear, I didn't say it has any meaning, I just said that's how he did it. I think the author knows it is meaningless, too - he doesn't claim any meaning for it on that page, just explains how he made it. So I must conclude that the only meaning it has is that Democrats prefer the color blue to the color red. And blue being my favorite color - I like it too. :uhh:

It would be cool, though, if he could make one plaid.
 
  • #91
How about purple with yellow pokadots, or green with orange pokadots? :biggrin:
 
  • #92
normally i dislike talking politics because no one ever agrees about it, but i cannot stay silent any longer.

As a former demonstrator for civil rights who was threatened by racists and beaten by police in the 1960's for opposing segregation and the war in Vietnam, it is more than embarrassing to me for the US be asked by the UN to close our prisons in guantanamo and to stop rendering people away to foreign sites where they may be tortured.

Under this government we have become essentially the people we claim to oppose. This government is indeed the Taliban of the US.

I think George Bush is the worst president in my memory, and I never thought I would say that after Nixon.

This president has done more to diminish the moral authority of the US in the world than anyone has done in the last maybe 100 years. I clearly understand how and why people in other countries hate us after this. Even right wing conservative Republicans have turned against this clown on the issue of wiretapping.

This is not as serious, but now he is going to empanel a committee to study math education in the US. That's all we need, a complete moron who cannot even speak English competently, taking over math education. Under his idiotic "no child left behind" crieteria, the most talented and accomplished students I have ever had cannot be hired as teachers because the criteria are designed for imbeciles.

The only thing he espouses that I agree with is the right of emigrants, even illegal ones, who contribute to our society, to become citizens. Please turn out and vote this gang of evil idiots out of office as soon as possible. It is not enough just to argue about it online.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
mathwonk said:
normally i dislike talking politics because no one ever agrees about it, but i cannot stay silent any longer.

As a former demonstrator for civil rights who was threatened by racists and beaten by police in the 1960's for opposing segregation and the war in Vietnam, it is more than embarrassing to me for the US be asked by the UN to close our prisons in guantanamo and to stop rendering people away to foreign sites where they may be tortured.

Under this government we have become essentially the people we claim to oppose. This government is indeed the Taliban of the US.

I think George Bush is the worst president in my memory, and I never thought I would say that after Nixon.

This president has done more to diminish the moral authority of the US in the world than anyone has done in the last maybe 100 years. I clearly understand how and why people in other countries hate us after this. Even right wing conservative Republicans have turned against this clown on the issue of wiretapping.

This is not as serious, but now he is going to empanel a committee to study math education in the US. That's all we need, a complete moron who cannot even speak English competently, taking over math education. Under his idiotic "no child left behind" crieteria, the most talented and accomplished students I have ever had cannot be hired as teachers because the criteria are designed for imbeciles.

The only thing he espouses that I agree with is the right of emigrants, even illegal ones, who contribute to our society, to become citizens. Please turn out and vote this gang of evil idiots out of office as soon as possible. It is not enough just to argue about it online.

Thanks for your candid views mathwonk. What puzzles me is that this clown managed to get elected to a second term of office. Obviously, he must have support, and it's not just from a fringe group of crazies, it must be from a large group (even a majority) of the people. How can people be so misguided?
 
  • #94
Curious3141 said:
Thanks for your candid views mathwonk. What puzzles me is that this clown managed to get elected to a second term of office. Obviously, he must have support, and it's not just from a fringe group of crazies, it must be from a large group (even a majority) of the people. How can people be so misguided?

His rabid supporters and rabid foes deadlocked and left the decision to a small group of pretty dim voters who never pay attention and are driven by rules of thumb like "Never change horses in the middle of the stream". But in the last two years things have got so bad even those folks have noticed.

That and the GOP stalwarts in the states did everything they could think of to deny the vote to as many inner city people as they could, and they were damned effective at it, especially in Florida and Ohio.
 
  • #95
This articles discusses the current WH strategy, which is to focus on the 2006 elections. The reason is because Bush's approval ratings cannot be changed short of a miracle in Iraq, and if even the House goes to the Dems, there may be enough balance of power to demand accountability and oversight, which of course the Bush cabal does not want to face.

Though this could also be under the "Can Bush Win Back Approval" thread, here is an article today on the general topic:

"Midterm elections crux of GOP strategy
Bush aides look to November vote as way to reverse precipitous slide" - Washington Post, May 21 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12905785/

It is highly unlikely the situation in Iraq will improve any time soon, and certainly not before November. And I suspect Bush will "stay the course" and not begin an exist strategy--he is still "urging for patience." Even if Osama bin Laden was caught, as long as the Iraq quagmire continues, it would only result in a temporary spike in approval ratings. The reason Americans do not see the economy in a positive light is because of inflation versus income, most notably gas prices. And once again, the increasingly high costs of housing, health care, education, etc. cannot be resolved anytime soon. The additional tax cuts will not heal this wound, and may even cause fiscal conservatives to become more angry.

Social conservatives have achieved their main goal--two more conservative judges in the Supreme Court. Many social and traditional Republicans (especially neocons) will remain supportive of the invasion of Iraq, but are not supportive of Bush's illegal immigration solution, particularly the "guest worker" program -- or his energy plan. Most no longer care for Bush, and believe he will go down in history as a poor president.

At this point, aside from my house rep. JD Hayworth (R), I will vote for Democrats or Libertarians only. In my opinion the Republican party should be renamed the Theocratic party. In the meantime, I wish liberals and moderates would get to the polls, and conservatives would take time to learn the issues and not just vote the party line.
 
  • #96
After doing nothing about the border situation during his entire presidency, Bush all of a sudden "steals the headlines" from Iraq and transplants them in the southwest, which is a good example of what we can expect to see prior to the upcoming elections. Yet the announced actions at the border is all fluff and no substance.

It is not just Bush, this administration is so full of sophisticated sleaze like Rove , that I can't believe it.
 
Last edited:
  • #97
edward said:
After doing nothing about the border situation during his entire presidency, Bush all of a sudden "steals the headlines" from Iraq and transplants them in the southwest, which is a good example of what we can expect to see prior to the upcoming elections. Yet the announced actions at the border is all fluff and no substance.
It's a winning strategy...one I saw coming for over a fortnight. Did you see how the approval ratings jumped after his immigration speech ?

I honestly think it's not hard at all to win back a strong rating. Just wait and watch...I think it's starting to happen already.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
There will be more of this before the election. Laura is already playing "good cop" and is "urging" Bush to not used gay marriage as a campaign issue. Yeah, right! She just happens to be the most popular member of the campaign team and she will be used to float the sensitive issues to elicit reactions from the electorate. Maybe next she will talk about how important it is for the government (our taxes) to support "charitable work" being done by religious groups, and about how it would be nice to see ID presented "fairly" in schools. If you are a real cynic, you might wonder what Nixon would have done with the phone call records, emails, and Internet searches of hundreds of millions of people, especially going into what looks like a tough mid-term election for his party. Bush does not want to be impeached and he, Rove, and the dirty-tricks team will do whatever they think they can get away with to keep control ouf the House, at least in the short term. At the end of the Bush administration there will be pardons all around, including for Skilling, Lay and deLay.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
Gokul43201 said:
It's a winning strategy...one I saw coming for over a fortnight. Did you see how the approval ratings jumped after his immigration speech ?

I honestly think it's not hard at all to win back a strong rating. Just wait and watch...I think it's starting to happen already.
I'm not sure what approval ratings you are referring to. All the news articles I've seen today make reference to Bush's numbers still sagging in the 30s.

True, some Repubs will be taken in with Bush's tokenism, such as sending a measly 6,000 unarmed Nat'l Guard to provide logistical support at the border. But those with any real understanding of the long-term repercussions of amnesty and/or a guest worker program know better. Here's an article hot off the press about Bush's housekeeper:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12892962/site/newsweek/ [Broken]

Bush's parents also had a housekeeper/nanny from Mexico. The only people Bush knows who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps," who he admires so much are illegals. He has since done a great deal for such people, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who recently told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "it's unclear" whether his grandparents emigrated legally from Mexico. I guess this is the only exposure to "self-made success" a rich boy with a silver spoon in his mouth has ever seen. If only he had the same supposed compassion for legal American citizens who also work hard to feed their families. This "human interest" approach only appeals to other elites and misguided liberals. The majority of Americans who are in the trenches will not accept double standards or tokenism on this issue.

In general, Americans have formed their opinion of Bush, and these little things won't have a significant impact. What Congress does, now that's another matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
SOS2008 said:
I'm not sure what approval ratings you are referring to. All the news articles I've seen today make reference to Bush's numbers still sagging in the 30s.
I saw it on the news, but after a quick Google search...

CNN (5/5/06) : 34%
CNN (5/17/06) : 36%

CBS (5/8/06) : 31%
CBS (5/17/06) : 35%

However,

FOX (5/3/06) : 38%
FOX (5/17/06) : 35%

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
 
  • #101
I think those numbers will go down again as the economy softens and energy prices increase, as attention returns to Iraq, when the next major hurricane hits the US (at least three major ones of Cat 2 or greater are expected to hit the US in 2006), and whatever bad news might develop. :rolleyes:
 
  • #102
Gokul43201 said:
However,

FOX (5/3/06) : 38%
FOX (5/17/06) : 35%

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

The thing to note about these numbers, though, is that many conservatives are not happy with Bush for completely different reasons than liberals would like to think (or most likely want to hear).
 
  • #103
I'd love to see the Bush regime all face criminal charges for their activities. Don't count on it unless the November elections go very well for the Democrats.
 
  • #104
StarkRavingMad said:
The thing to note about these numbers, though, is that many conservatives are not happy with Bush for completely different reasons than liberals would like to think (or most likely want to hear).
Yet, here goes Bush, clearly trying to win back his Conservative support by reiterating his strong approval of the gay-marriage ban. Is that just the kind of thing liberals don't expect?

He even had the gall to ask people to be "tolerant of gays and lesbians". Tolerant? C'mon Dick, I'd like you to be tolerant of your daughter. It'll earn you brownie points. Gays and lesbians are things to be tolerated? Please tell me there's a way to interpret that remark that doesn't make you want to throw up.

It's them that are forced to tolerate this mindnumbingly prehistoric bigotry.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
494K
Back
Top