News Impeach Bush/Cheney: Take Action Now!

[Astronuc]

After reading several threads, the only recourse left is to force these individuals out of office and put a stop to the corruption.

Write your Congressperson and Senator.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=797407&postcount=283

Humvees in Kuwait, not in Iraq - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95969

Valeria Plame - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83110

This list could go on and on, and enough is enough.

And add Rumsfeld and DeLay to that. Make sure they don't come back!

 

[russ_watters]

What should the charges be?

 

[Astronuc]

Begin with misleading Congress about the reasons for war. Bush had it on his mind to wage war in Iraq - before he was president. How about malfeasance - misconduct - in office?

As for Cheney, let's see what falls out of the Plame affair.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
§ 2340A. Torture
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

 

[arildno]

You might also add corruption charges on Bush.
It shouldn't be too difficult to prove those.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Begin with misleading Congress about the reasons for war. Bush had it on his mind to wage war in Iraq - before he was president. How about malfeasance - misconduct - in office?
As for Cheney, let's see what falls out of the Plame affair.

Apparently the aluminum tubes have come up a number of times as well during questioning .

 

[SOS2008]

With a quick google, I was surprised at how many sites there were on the topic. The first page:

1) For Failing to Act on 9-11 Warnings

2) Dereliction Of Duty (most specifically Katrina)

3) High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Most notably:

President Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a "war of aggression" in direct violation of the United Nations Charter to which the U.S. subscribes by treaty, thus violating U.S. law. (1)

President Bush violated U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution in July 2002 by taking $700 million from funds Congress appropriated for the war in Afghanistan, and secretly diverting this money to prepare for an unauthorized war in Iraq. This included the illegal bombing of Iraq, which was meant to provoke a counter-attack and thereby justify a U.S. invasion.

This site is sponsored by various journalists and activists who have a petition people can sign requesting impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach&refer=home

4) Treason (regarding the Plame case)

The Blood For Oil Artwork for Anti-War/Empire was interesting...

 

[edward]

The scandal sheet

The scandal sheet
Print it out, send it to Harry Reid, or just read it and weep. Here are 34 scandals from the first four years of George W. Bush's presidency

You may need to watch a short advertisement before accessing Salon.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html

Clerverly leading the American people to believe that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq was the most immoral action that a president has ever comitted. "Grave and gathering danger my arse"

No matter how clever the indoctrination of the American people was, it was not legal. To accomplish it Bush commited; fraud, corruption, and conspiracy.

Without "big money ties" Bush would have been gone after his first term on anyone of a number of charges.

 

[edward]

With a quick google, I was surprised at how many sites there were on the topic. The first page:
1) For Failing to Act on 9-11 Warnings
2) Dereliction Of Duty (most specifically Katrina)
3) High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Most notably:
This site is sponsored by various journalists and activists who have a petition people can sign requesting impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach&refer=home
4) Treason (regarding the Plame case)
The Blood For Oil Artwork for Anti-War/Empire was interesting...

I have gut feeling that anyone who signs this will end up on an FBI watch list. I signed on anyway.

 

[Cosmo16]

Just one point- for the derliction of duty-

Katrina can not be laid at Bush's feet for one specific reason.

Mainly, legally, his hands were tied. Bush was not allowed, by law, to give any support to lousiana until they asked for it. Once they asked for it, the federal government responded in a relativly timely manner. (Though reponse was not the most rapid, considering the circumstances, it actually wasn't that bad"

2. I have yet to see a deceantly proved accustation yet from these posts
3. SOS2008- You can not legally impeach over misdeamenors.

 

[SOS2008]

Just one point- for the derliction of duty-
Katrina can not be laid at Bush's feet for one specific reason.
Mainly, legally, his hands were tied. Bush was not allowed, by law, to give any support to lousiana until they asked for it. Once they asked for it, the federal government responded in a relativly timely manner. (Though reponse was not the most rapid, considering the circumstances, it actually wasn't that bad"
2. I have yet to see a deceantly proved accustation yet from these posts
3. SOS2008- You can not legally impeach over misdeamenors.

Please note--these were findings from various websites via a quick google just to provide an example of thoughts out there among the populace--not anything I came up with myself. There is evidence that pre-emptive invasion is illegal (already debated extensively).

If you can find it, I started a thread some time back about Bush and how trustworthy and honest he is (or should I say isn't). It was a lot of documentation. I'm certain you could find one thing if you were to be trustworthy and honest about it.

 

[Tide]

I think the topic is totally moot. You can argue all kinds of legal and alleged legal issues but we learned from the last administration that impeachment is a purely political undertaking.

 

[sean1234]

How do you plan to get the votes from a Republican Congress?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you plan to get the votes from a Republican Congress?

In a year + it won't be Republican anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the topic is totally moot. You can argue all kinds of legal and alleged legal issues but we learned from the last administration that impeachment is a purely political undertaking.

Nonsense. Nixon was taken down by the mere threat of impeachment and it can be done again. As was evident all along, Clinton's impeachment was political assasination and nothing more, but as with Watergate, this is a matter of a genuine criminal acts of vast proportions by comparison.

 

[champ2823]

In charges for impeachment, wouldn't the Downing Street Memos be enough? Add that with our own CIA reports of no WMD in Iraq when Bush claimed there were and that would add credence for treason towards the American public. Those documents could prove that he lied to the American public. Is that not enough?

 

[russ_watters]

Begin with misleading Congress about the reasons for war. Bush had it on his mind to wage war in Iraq - before he was president. How about malfeasance - misconduct - in office?
As for Cheney, let's see what falls out of the Plame affair.

I said charges, Astronuc (Sos, Ivan, et al). Those aren't charges. If you could impeach someone for being an idiot or a jerk, half the Presidents we've had would have been impeached.

 

[russ_watters]

In a year + it won't be Republican anymore.

Hehe. You actually believe that?

 

[Mercator]

Actually, just curiosity, how many presidents have been impeached in the US, and were they Republicans or Democrats?

 

[kat]

Actually, just curiosity, how many presidents have been impeached in the US, and were they Republicans or Democrats?

Andrew Jackson and Clinton...but niether were convicted. Clinton as you know was a Democrat as was Andrew.

 

[kat]

In charges for impeachment, wouldn't the Downing Street Memos be enough? Add that with our own CIA reports of no WMD in Iraq when Bush claimed there were and that would add credence for treason towards the American public. Those documents could prove that he lied to the American public. Is that not enough?

I don't think you can impeach on hearsay(downing memos)..and impeaching the pres based on WMD claims would put all of the senators who also put forth the WMD claims at risk. Not to mention the 9-11, kaye and Duelfer reports would alone cast enough doubt on their case to allow the charge to be discarded.

 

[Skyhunter]

You may need to watch a short advertisement before accessing Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html
Clerverly leading the American people to believe that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq was the most immoral action that a president has ever comitted. "Grave and gathering danger my arse"
No matter how clever the indoctrination of the American people was, it was not legal. To accomplish it Bush commited; fraud, corruption, and conspiracy.
Without "big money ties" Bush would have been gone after his first term on anyone of a number of charges.

Without big money ties he would be just another unknown loser.

 

[kat]

Nonsense. Nixon was taken down by the mere threat of impeachment and it can be done again.

It wasn't a mere threat of impeachment it was the imminent impeachment that caused Nixon to attempt to save some bit of dignity and resign.

As was evident all along, Clinton's impeachment was political assasination and nothing more, but as with Watergate, this is a matter of a genuine criminal acts of vast proportions by comparison.

Clintons impeachment was based on the same charge that helped send Martha Steward to prison.

 

[Skyhunter]

Forget about impeachment. What we need is a revolution and the revolution starts now!

http://www.worldcantwait.org/

http://rwor.org/a/018/world-cant-wait.htm

 

[Skyhunter]

Clintons impeachment was based on the same charge that helped send Martha Steward to prison.

Clinton impeachment was the culmination of years of political wrangling to try and bring him down.

When they failed with the Whitewater deal, they gave Ken Starr a free rein.

The name Paula was mentioned by Arkansas State Troopers, so they found Paula Jones. Got a ruling from the Supreme court that a sitting President could be sued. Then they sued him for sexual harassment.

During the civil trial they brought up Monika Lewinski. The judge ruled that the Lewinski incident was irrelevant to the case because it was consensual, therefore demonstrates no pattern of behavior.

They impeached him for denying having "sexual relations" with Monica, accusing him of perjury. A blow job does not fit the legal definition of "sexual relations" so he beat it on a technicality.

Remember the "vast right-wing conspiracy"?

At the time I thought Hillary was nuts to say such a thing, but after reading Blinded by the Right, by David Brock, I have a different perspective.

Bush has committed real crimes and will be held accountable. Mark my words!

If you could impeach someone for being an idiot or a jerk, half the Presidents we've had would have been impeached.

Just curious, which half?

 

[kat]

I'm having a hard time cutting through the propaganda...Skyhunter..please do me a small favor and quote the exact charges brought against him... and save the rhetoric.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm having a hard time cutting through the propaganda...Skyhunter..please do me a small favor and quote the exact charges brought against him... and save the rhetoric.

Against who?

Sorry, but I don't post for your benefit.

 

[kat]

Sorry, but I don't post for your benefit.

lol, then I'm at a loss as to why you bothered with the long response to my comment.

Against who?

The charges brought against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. I'm leaning hard towards putting my money on any charges being brought against libby, rove...delay et al. to be the same. Which in one sense is problematic as these type of charge has little to do with the origional purpose of the investigations..yet on the other hand..it is a crime. So, one must either change the law or realize that those found guilty of it are...criminals. *shrug*

 

[Gokul43201]

kat, do you recognize the difference between an investigation into whether or not someone progressed from third base to the real mccoy and an investigation into whether White House officials leaked secret Intelligence information (not to say anything aboutendangering the careers/lives of people) ?

 

[kat]

Gokul..although I think you're minimizing the Clinton issues, it's not relevant to my point. If in the end..there is not evidence to support the charges the the origional investigations were based on..
and they are in the end only charged with perjury and obstruction of justice...
then, quite frankly there is little difference in either event.

 

[mrjeffy321]

Andrew Jackson and Clinton...but niether were convicted. Clinton as you know was a Democrat as was Andrew.

Acutally, it was Andrew Johnson (the guy right after Lincoln), not Jackson.
Andrew Johnson was a "Union" part member, or so says this page,
http://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html
he didnt get along too well with the post-civil war congress.

 

[Tide]

Nonsense. Nixon was taken down by the mere threat of impeachment and it can be done again. As was evident all along, Clinton's impeachment was political assasination and nothing more, but as with Watergate, this is a matter of a genuine criminal acts of vast proportions by comparison.

You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You're contradicting yourself.

No I'm not. I'm saying that Clinton's impeachment was a joke; this since those in power now are mostly responsible. But Bush and his gang are in Nixon's class of criminals, and Nixon did go down.

 

[kat]

Acutally, it was Andrew Johnson (the guy right after Lincoln), not Jackson.
Andrew Johnson was a "Union" part member, or so says this page,
http://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html
he didnt get along too well with the post-civil war congress.

my apologies..I meant to type johnson... Johnson was http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The significance of impeachment depends on the Senate trial.

Article. I.
Section 3
...Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

The only reason that Clinton's conviction was a joke was that everyone knew that the trial was a joke. In Nixons case, no one was laughing.

 

[Gokul43201]

my apologies..I meant to type johnson... Johnson was http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html"

kat, that's just a cheap shot. Now you want to make the Dems look dirty by association with Johnson, who wasn't a member of the Democratic party. And even if he was elected as a Jacksonian democrat, he was impeached as a stuck-up conservative.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It wasn't a mere threat of impeachment it was the imminent impeachment that caused Nixon to attempt to save some bit of dignity and resign.

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

Clintons impeachment was based on the same charge that helped send Martha Steward to prison.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs. He was fined for contempt of court and was never sent to jail. This was not a presidential matter and he should have been prosecuted after leaving office. His conviction was a civil and not a criminal matter.

Clinton's shenanigans were orders of magnitude less significant than those of the criminals in power now.

 

[SOS2008]

I said charges, Astronuc (Sos, Ivan, et al). Those aren't charges. If you could impeach someone for being an idiot or a jerk, half the Presidents we've had would have been impeached.

Do you really believe the only thing Dubya has done wrong is be an idiot or jerk?

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

It was more than a threat--Nixon would have been impeached. And this is only one difference between Watergate and Whitewater/The Clinton Investigations. Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment so there was no reason to resign, and indeed he ended up being acquitted.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs. He was fined for contempt of court and was never sent to jail. This was not a presidential matter and he should have been prosecuted after leaving office. His conviction was a civil and not a criminal matter.
Clinton's shenanigans were orders of magnitude less significant than those of the criminals in power now.

Good Lord, we have to keep going over this don’t we? How anyone can compare lying about infidelity (which was a personal, civil matter as Ivan points out), and lying about an illegal invasion of another country that has resulted in the loss of American lives is beyond me. IMO this is even more serious than Watergate.

 

[Townsend]

Look at it this way...

Bush is on his way out no matter what!

Hopefully we will have some decent candidates to vote for in 2008 unlike we did this last election.

 

[SOS2008]

Hehe. You actually believe that?

Please see posts #92 & #93 in the “What can Bushy do to gain back favor?” thread.

 

[kat]

kat, that's just a cheap shot. Now you want to make the Dems look dirty by association with Johnson, who wasn't a member of the Democratic party. And even if he was elected as a Jacksonian democrat, he was impeached as a stuck-up conservative.

Lol...anyone who is ignorant enough to think that the parties..then resemble the parties today..well..whatever.
By todays standards they were all conservatives.

 

[kat]

You are toying with words. He was not impeached but he left due to the threat.

No, you're toying with words. It was not a "mere" threat. It was a definitive threat and very imminent.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual affairs.

Clinton was impeached based on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[SOS2008]

No, you're toying with words. It was not a "mere" threat. It was a definitive threat and very imminent.

Clinton was impeached based on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

He was acquitted.

 

[kat]

He was acquitted.

AND?! It's irrelevant to my origional statement!
And you also had pardongate...chinagate...oh my lord...travelgate..and oh my goodness... way to many gates to remember... how much of it stuck and how much was a waste of our money and time? and how much of this is the same...IN THE END?!

And on another note..what's going on elsewhere while this is in the news... While america was focused on monicagate...we had far more serious matters that should have been on the front page and weren't. What's not being reported while this is? If in the end..all we have is accusations and possible charges of obstruction and perjury..then...what a waste!

 

[GENIERE]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...

Duh!

 

[edward]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...

Duh!

Impeachment requires a two thirds majority vote . Since Clintons situation was perceived by Democrats as being a result of a political witch hunt by the republicans, there was no possibility of impeachment.

The democrats stood firmly behind Clinton. Many republicans are distancing themselves from Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

Hopefully we will have some decent candidates to vote for in 2008 unlike we did this last election.

I second that!

 

[Cosmo16]

I third it! I couldn't vote in '04 cause I was only 16 however, I would have voted for Bush because the the alternetive was worse.

It was a choice between Twidle dee or twiddle dum. And Twidle Dee was stupid in my general direction of choice so I supported him.

 

[moose]

So first people complain that we are spending too much money and supplies in Iraq, now that we aren't giving enough? Right

 

[GENIERE]

...Clinton was never in jeopardy of impeachment...
Impeachment requires a two thirds majority vote . Since Clintons situation was perceived by Democrats as being a result of a political witch hunt by the republicans, there was no possibility of impeachment.
The democrats stood firmly behind Clinton. Many republicans are distancing themselves from Bush.

That deserves a double duh! Apparently you have no knowledge of the impeachment process re: the executive branch. If you take the trouble to enlighten yourself, you will find it is similar to a criminal indictment and that Clinton was most definitely IMPEACHED.

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi. After his presidency ended he would have been tried before his peers and found guilty and served a few months in jail. As it was he was later stripped of his law license for "serious miscounduct" purjury and obstruction of justice by a judge he appointed.

DUH!