Grounds for Impeachment?

[koolking1]

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Top_US_military_publications_call_f_11042006.html

Top Generals are

saying that Rummy has to go. President Bush says "he's staying till I leave".

A good reason to impeach I

think.

[belgareth]

An executive decision is a

reason to impeach? I don't think so.

[koolking1]

I disagree. When the top

Pentagon official is grossly incompetent and the boss wants to keep him, the boss is the one in the wrong. You

watch, he's going to resign (Rummy) cause the President ain't got no balls, we learned that in the 60s when he

failed his country in his military duties. Watch and see.

[belgareth]

You and I view the govrnment

differently. He may resign, I don't know. Personally, I think physical bravery and political balls are two

different things.

However, I haven't really seen what I'd call a competent political appointtee in many

years. They are not in their jobs for their ability to do the job, they are there to satisfy some debt.

[bronzie]

Bush will go one way or another

eventually I believe, the War is a disaster, and for votes.

Rummy had a very close relationship with Saddam,

in the 80s, best buddies in fact, now look at them.

Rumsfield is a billionaire from his private arms trade

over decades.

[belgareth]

The point is that the dems want

to do anything they can to (re)gain political power. I don't specifically begrudge them that because they are doing

the same things that the republicans did. And the sleazy games go on...to the detriment of the people. But I refuse

to buy into either side's games, neither has the slightest interest in the well being of this country unless it

helps them build their power base.

Admittedly, I have not read the legal standards for impeachment in detail.

But the little I do know about them makes me think that picking and supporting an incompetent to lead a department

does not qualify as grounds for impeachment. If that is the case, as I believe it is, then that makes this call for

impeachment just another pointless political attack where they are playing for votes.

[koolking1]

"But the little I do know

about them makes me think that picking and supporting an incompetent to lead a department does not qualify as

grounds for impeachment"

But then one has to wonder at what point does letting the incompetent stay

crossover from incompentency to criminality?

[belgareth]

Agreed on that point. However,

I felt that our last president did things that were as bad. He did a couple good things too. I try to see both the

successes and the failures. You'll probably disagree with me but I see the democratic philosophy as the greater

long term failure.

Whether we are talking about this president or the last few, I have no desire to see anybody

like them in office. Voting for either major party is, in my opinion, the worst thing we can do. Creating strife in

order to win votes is almost as bad. That alone is a good reason to not vote for them.

[koolking1]

"Whether we are talking

about this president or the last few, I have no desire to see anybody like them in office. Voting for either major

party is, in my opinion, the worst thing we can do."

I couldn't agree more which is a very sad commentary

on political life in the USA.

[belgareth]

I read an article yesterday

where government is puzzled about why people don't vote. It demonstrates that they have a very weak grasp of the

obvious. People don't vote because of the disgusting state of politics in this country.

[Mtnjim]

Admittedly, I

have not read the legal standards for impeachment in detail.

It seems that, for the last President at

least, lieing about a BJ was enough. The sad thing is, when Clinton lied, no one died.

[belgareth]

I didn't say I agreed with

that either. It was another case of the opposition attacking to gain votes/points. Party politics sucks and wastes

huge amounts of time and taxpayer money.

In the case of Clinton, I was more amused by the fact that his wife had

him sleeping on the couch in the oval office than by anything else. Clinton did do a pretty good job of killing

people when he ordered Belgrade bombed. The reasons (excuses) weren't any better than Bush's.

[silksand]

If you google *bush grounds for

impeachment* it seems that the main issues are:

-lying to get us into war in Iraq
-illegal detentions

here in the U.S. and abroad, dismantling the right to habeus corpus
-torture, defiance of Geneva

conventions
-NSA warrantless wiretapping/chipping away at the 4th amendment

But there are numerous other

extremely worrisome acts by the Bush administration that add up to something more ominous, the latest of which

occurred very recently, and our watchdog (or is it lapdog?) media has had little to say about it. Have you heard

that the Insurrection Act was revised last month to enable the president to more easily impose martial law? (say, in

the case of protesters who assemble when election results don't match exit polls in some hotly contested districts

... again?)

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_95980.asp

Our elections tomorrow

will be easy to hack, and largely unverifiable due to problems that congress has known about for years.



http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/05/recounting_tomorrows_vote.php

We live in

interesting times indeed. The worst enemies of our Constitution and our very freedom are currently holding high

public office ... in the United States.

[silksand]

* (duplicate post)

[belgareth]

The media a lap[dog to Bush?

That's hardly likely. Historcally the media has always been very biased on the side of the democrats/liberals.



It hasn't been just recently that our rights have been diminishing, it has been going on for many years under

every administration. Certainly the Bush crowd has done some serious damage but so have others for far lesser

reasons. Let me ask you this, if you were in his shoes and we were attacked after the previous president's policies

had allowed terrorists to come into this country and mount a horrendous attack, what would you do?

[koolking1]

"Let me ask you this, if

you were in his shoes and we were attacked after the previous president's policies had allowed terrorists to come

into this country and mount a horrendous attack, what would you do?"

Well, geez Bel, that's a "loaded

question" if you ask me. The brunt of the hijackers came into the USA with Saudia Arabian "express visas" issued by

the State Department - this was a new sort of visa policy initiated under the Colin Powell era State Department.

Additionally, the hijackers already in the country were being tracked and information about them was ignored by the

Executive Branch of government. There were plenty of FBI agents, Mossad agents, friendly foreign governments,

unfriendly foreign governments, even one Italian Mob informant, who tried to get the word out to no avail.



So, with all due respect, would you rephrase your question to something like: If you were the President and

the country just suffered a horrible terrorist attack, what would you have done? That's a question I think a lot

of people can answer.

[silksand]

"Let me ask you this, if you

were in his shoes and we were attacked after the previous president's policies had allowed terrorists to come into

this country and mount a horrendous attack, what would you do?"

If I were to accept the question as you

frame it, of course I'd go after the culprit ... and invading Afghanistan to capture bin Laden is a logical step to

take, once he was identified as responsible. Invading Iraq? not so much!

But the heroes and villains in this

piece are not so easily identified when you look at all the pieces that simply don't add up in the story we've

been handed about what happened on 9/11. A huge number of people in this country and around the world are not

satisfied with the story as told, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence that paints a picture more

horrifying than that of a cowardly act by terrorists who "hate our freedom." Just look at all those lucky folks who

were notified days or weeks ahead of time and managed to save their own skins, make a killing in the stock market,

or take out a very timely insurance policy on the WTC ... the workers in the towers and the firefighters were not so

lucky, of course.

You know, there are lots of folks who just cannot bear to think that their own government

would betray them at this level, but for anyone who's up for it, here is one quick summary (far from the only one,

as a simple google search will reveal):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

And you are

right, Bel, when you say that this type of act has been going on for a long time. There have been plans for enacting

the 9/11 scenario (or variations of such) kicking around the pentagon for decades (see above).

Whether GWB

was notified with specifics ahead of time, I kind of doubt, having watched his numb response in that classroom when

he's informed of what's just happened. I suppose the architects of this atrocity trusted that he could be counted

on to do the "right thing" ... with a little coaching.

[koolking1]

the numb

response can only indicate one of two things, he either knew in advance or he didn't know: if he didn't know,

God bless him. But, then again, if he didn't know - why was he so lacking in a leadership pose? He just plain

looked dumbfounded and sat there, and sat there, and sat there.

[koolking1]

one just doesn't

sit there for the "sake of the little children" when your country is under attack.

[koolking1]

one down, 3 to go.

[koolking1]

wouldn't at all be

surprised if he had a "mild heart attack" and stepped down.

quoting

"In an interview Sunday with ABC

News, Vice President Dick Cheney said he would ignore any subpoenas he received by Democrats if they gained control

of Congress."

If I were a Congressman, I'd take that threat seriously.

[Big M]

I voted for Bush twice , I like

his down to earth demeanor .
I also believed he was a very strong man in a leadership way, That has changed in the

last year , He (Bush spends more then many liberal politicians , He is weak in imigration , Because he wants to

cottle Hispanics , and everyone else , In fear he may offend someone. Heaven for bid if that happens oh my God !
As

a side note Bush who has executive powers has used those executive orders less then any other president in recent

time :blink: With the stroke of a pen he would be able to advance true conservative platforms .
Because he is weak

in many ways and has become a punching bag That is why the backlash With many republicans not voting or voting for a

democrat.
PS I still like and respect President Bush , But i would not vote for him again if he could run for a

third time.:nono:

[koolking1]

Bush will come out of

this and not be impeached. His cohorts will be in troubled waters though. And, the war will go on and we've

gained nothing much in reality.