Impeach Bush

[msbirt]

Below, you will find a discussion that took place in the "greenpeace" thread. I didn't want it to get buried there, so I thought I'd start a new thread and paste in the relevant dialogue.

The conversation began in this (http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17088) thread.

[msbirt]

Shrike
Why the hell does Bush have to testify under oath about anything? I hear no one in teh DOJ, or Congressional committes or the supreme court demanding this.
Who cares if he testifies under oath, the last president did that and lied, under oath ain't worth two shits anymore.

birty74
nice.

Bush apologists are just as bad as Clinton apologists.

Shrike
What does he need to testify regarding?


birty74
Violating international treaties.

We'll start there.

Shrike
which one, lets get specific here.

birty74
The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the Anti-Torture Act, and the War Crimes Act.

The Convention Against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

He also is violating Article Six of the Constitution, which says treaties are the supreme law of the land (tell that to the Native Americans).

Besides that, though, it's all good.


Shrike
I need dates man, and who ratified them, also you didn't give an example for the Geneva convention.

birty74
I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was doing three things at once.

The Geneva Conventions (also known as the First Geneva Conventions) contained the The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994 (http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty14.asp).

This (http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2002/14901.htm) document, released on the Department of State website is funny to read just because it is. It is all about the United States' commitment to fight torture.

Again apologizing for my lack of clarity, The Anti-Torture Act is a U.S. Law. You can read it here (http://www.universaljurisdiction.info/index/120435).

The War Crimes Act (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html) is also a U.S. Law.

And of course, this most relevant part of The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) contains the edict regarding the upholding of treaties.

That's a pretty strong case for impeachment. It's a lot more damning than a blowjob in the Oval Office if you ask this citizen.

matt

[msbirt]

Shall we, as citizens and employers of the illegitimate president, get to work on throwing his dumb ass out of office?

[onest2.0]

Who specifically signed these treaties and what did they have for breakfast that day?

I need details here.

[msbirt]

Originally posted by onest2.0
Who specifically signed these treaties and what did they have for breakfast that day?

I need details here.

:D

[sueque222]

Originally posted by birty74
Shall we, as citizens and employers of the illegitimate president, get to work on throwing his dumb ass out of office?

I think as citizens who oppose the policies of bush, it is instead our duty to do our damndest to get kerry into office, a much more plausible solution.

[msbirt]

Originally posted by sueque222


I think as citizens who oppose the policies of bush, it is instead our duty to do our damndest to get kerry into office, a much more plausible solution.

Good point. That'll work.

While I'm not a Kerry man, surely he would be better than Bush, or at least I hope he would.

Neither side is the solution, though. For now, however, we must take what we can get.

matt

[DaysWithoutEnd]

I agree the election is important, but even the appearance of impeachment activities could make a difference, and i would support the attempt. If anyone deserves it, it's bush.

[SurlyGirl]

Originally posted by birty74
Shall we, as citizens and employers of the illegitimate president, get to work on throwing his dumb ass out of office?

There is actually a website set up for this....
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

[Shrike]

Originally posted by birty74
Shrike
Why the hell does Bush have to testify under oath about anything? I hear no one in teh DOJ, or Congressional committes or the supreme court demanding this.
Who cares if he testifies under oath, the last president did that and lied, under oath ain't worth two shits anymore.

birty74
nice.

Bush apologists are just as bad as Clinton apologists.

Shrike
What does he need to testify regarding?


birty74
Violating international treaties.

We'll start there.

Shrike
which one, lets get specific here.

birty74
The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the Anti-Torture Act, and the War Crimes Act.

The Convention Against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

He also is violating Article Six of the Constitution, which says treaties are the supreme law of the land (tell that to the Native Americans).

Besides that, though, it's all good.


Shrike
I need dates man, and who ratified them, also you didn't give an example for the Geneva convention.

birty74
I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was doing three things at once.

The Geneva Conventions (also known as the First Geneva Conventions) contained the The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994 (http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty14.asp).

This (http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2002/14901.htm) document, released on the Department of State website is funny to read just because it is. It is all about the United States' commitment to fight torture.

Again apologizing for my lack of clarity, The Anti-Torture Act is a U.S. Law. You can read it here (http://www.universaljurisdiction.info/index/120435).

The War Crimes Act (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html) is also a U.S. Law.

And of course, this most relevant part of The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) contains the edict regarding the upholding of treaties.

That's a pretty strong case for impeachment. It's a lot more damning than a blowjob in the Oval Office if you ask this citizen.

matt
Funny,
All these US laws, and the administration hasn't been taken to criminal court for it yet? You must assume obviously that the courts are all biased. Strange that one would assume they would prosecute those who commit the torture, or those who order the torture.

[onest2.0]

isn't the administration immune to criminal court while in office?

[Shrike]

And I'm glad they are torturing those folks in gitmo. Torture em till they have no more information to give. One step closer to us not being attacked again.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Shrike
And I'm glad they are torturing those folks in gitmo. Torture em till they have no more information to give. One step closer to us not being attacked again.

This is a joke right. Right?

You can't be serious!

[onest2.0]

I think he's representing himself as being serious, but he's just trolling.

[markalot]

This does not rise to the muster of impeachment. It's a better case then Clinton, but still not good enough. You would have to prove HE ordered the tortures and not one of his lackies.

Impeachment distracts the president from the job he is supposed to do. The republican impeachment of Clinton pre-occupied him while he should have been worried about Osama and quite possible led to 9/11. The vote is the best way to throw Bush out, not some prolonged legal manuever that would most likely fail anyway.

[Burger Queen]

I don't think that Clinton deserved to be impeached. Our country was in the best condition it had been in a very long time when he was in office.

I don't want to get start on Bush, I really don't. I just get mad.

[shivvy]

Oh yeah, the right wanted to impeach Clinton for getting his dick sucked...but this shit is NO BIG DEAL?

This country is insane.

[xu92]

Originally posted by shivvy
Oh yeah, the right wanted to impeach Clinton for getting his dick sucked...but this shit is NO BIG DEAL?

This country is insane.

They didn't want to impeach Bubba for getting felatio ("dick sucked" is quite crude), they wanted to impeach him for lying to God and lying to America.

[bjk15]

why would you want congress to waste even more time with such an issue? does anyone really think they can get off their asses fast enough to really do anything before the elections? the answer is an emphatic no. besides, the reasons why you want to impeach bush just doesn't make sense at all. i mean do you really think bush said to one of his aids, "hey there, why donchu go un down there and torture 'em til he talks." what clinton did was clear cut (whatever you choose to pick bush on will not be), he was asked on tv if he did something, and he lied. i think you might have seen it, it was played over and over again.

bottom line, just get the fvck out and vote and if bush wins, then you have yourselves to blame for not convincing enough people on your clear cut ideas. or you can bring up the impeach thing again then.

[AntiMushroom]

i think impeachment is a little excessive and in no way a tangible solution, but i think voting him out of office is justified.

the man does nothing prior to september 11th, and then when it came around he did everything wrong... not a good track record.

its gonna be an interesting couple of years coming up... not a huge fan of kerry's policies either but i don't think theres anything wrong with that choice. after all "doing something wrong" has been exhausted this term

[shivvy]

For lying to GOD? Are you serious?

I need to get out of the politics forum.






Originally posted by xu92


They didn't want to impeach Bubba for getting felatio ("dick sucked" is quite crude), they wanted to impeach him for lying to God and lying to America.

[markalot]

or stop letting it bother you :p

[jps]

for lying to god??? ugh....

the clinton impeachment was for perjury. i'm not a lawyer, but i don't think the case would have been made in the judicial system. i say this mostly, because if Starr thought he had the case he would have gone the indictment route after the impeachment failed to remove clinton from office. further, its been said before, but (i get it a lie is a lie) the circumstances of the lie did not meet the standards set forth in the constitution to warrant removing him from office.

The violations of the treaties probably are good enough for impeachment but unless you had white house tapes indicating that bush gave the specific orders, you have no case. you have a body, a suspect, a motive, but no smoking gun.

[Duemellon]

the money taken from Afghnstn & set up to b used for Iraq w/o Congress's knowledge BEFORE the Iraq invasion?

Protectng a cabinetmember who refuses to turn over documents vital to an investigation?

Basing his decisions on information that was faulty from a department proven to be faulty BEFORE the decision to go to war in Iraq, & never questioning that.

Those are offenses.

[postfeminist]

g-d isn't a citizen of this country, but i am.

and i could care less if bill clinton got a blow job under the desk in the oval office.

i do care about ANYONE getting tortured, ANYONE being killed in terrorist attacks, wars, suicide bombs, etc...

this shit is way more serious than clinton.

clinton's biggest sin wasn't something you can impeach a president for, and that sin was pushing the democratic party further to the center.

[markalot]

I'm not sure who is arguing to who here.

I don't think Clinton should have been impeached, I don't think Bush should be impeached.

I think Bush has lied and I'm not defending him one bit, I just don't think its worth impeaching hom over since it would most likely not work.

But, if you want to improve Bush's popularity then go right ahead and impeach him. Look what it did for Clinton.

[tobedawg]

I love Postfem.. She said exactly what was on my mind.. :)

[xu92]

Originally posted by shivvy
For lying to GOD? Are you serious?

I need to get out of the politics forum.








Pissing off DJs is fun fun fun.

[shivvy]

It didn't piss me off so much as shock me.

[msbirt]

Originally posted by xu92


They didn't want to impeach Bubba for getting felatio ("dick sucked" is quite crude), they wanted to impeach him for lying to God and lying to America.

I didn't know it was illegal to lie to a higher power.

Who would be the judge? Attorneys?

That's a case I'd watch on TV ;)

[xu92]

I was being a dick, but when you take an oath, you are swearing to God and to violate that I do belive is a felony.

Hey if I'm getting pushed atheistic views and homosexuality exceptance on this board, I'm going to push back with some good old Catholic guilt.

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Burger Queen
I don't think that Clinton deserved to be impeached. Our country was in the best condition it had been in a very long time when he was in office.


You do realize of course that Clinton inherited the economy, right? Just as all presidents do?

If Kerry is elected and the economy is still weak, are you going to blame him for it the day after he's inaugerated? If he inherits a growing economy, are you going to forget who he inherited it from?

As for the distruth quotient, I'm pretty sure Clinton and Bush are on par with eachother (and I don't expect Kerry to be any better). Selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese is a pretty big deal in my book.

It doesn't bother so much that people bash Bush as much as it does that they are blinded by partisan allegiances and hold different politicians to different standards.

The act is unthinking and hypocritical.

Phreon

[bjk15]

Originally posted by Phreon


You do realize of course that Clinton inherited the economy, right? Just as all presidents do?

If Kerry is elected and the economy is still weak, are you going to blame him for it the day after he's inaugerated? If he inherits a growing economy, are you going to forget who he inherited it from?

As for the distruth quotient, I'm pretty sure Clinton and Bush are on par with eachother (and I don't expect Kerry to be any better). Selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese is a pretty big deal in my book.

It doesn't bother so much that people bash Bush as much as it does that they are blinded by partisan allegiances and hold different politicians to different standards.

The act is unthinking and hypocritical.

Phreon

and what phreon said, is what i'm thinking

[AntiMushroom]

Originally posted by Phreon


It doesn't bother so much that people bash Bush as much as it does that they are blinded by partisan allegiances and hold different politicians to different standards.

The act is unthinking and hypocritical.

Phreon

very well spoken... but as far as the economy goes clinton did do a lot to improve it over his time in effort.. when alls said and done he was a pretty good president. as far as his sexual encounters are concerned its a matter that i believe landed him in no grounds for impeachment. when all is said and done clinton DID get us through the '90s.. bush on the other hand is not off to a good start in the 2000s

either way, whoever gets elected this coming fall i don't think will send us spiraling to the bottom, afterall we're pretty much already there. bush made some stupid decisions in sending our troops to iraq, but bush or kerry i am still convinced our troops are in for the long haul.

do i like bush? no
do i like kerry? no
am i really conflicted about how to vote? yes

but my main concern is getting the troops in iraq who are getting picked off day after day to get home safely and not in a body bag

[angryj5]

Originally posted by Duemellon
...

Those are offenses.

not to mention his whole administration is just plan offensive.

[postfeminist]

I love Postfem.. She said exactly what was on my mind..

thanks, tobe...you're such a sweetie! :)

[Slar]

Originally posted by AntiMushroom

but my main concern is getting the troops in iraq who are getting picked off day after day to get home safely and not in a body bag

The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.

Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, allowing politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President



http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php

[labadida]

Well, maybe he can tell us how Kerry will defeat terrorism like Clinton did. Maybe he has a great idea on how to improve homeland security or any comments on how all attempts at terrorism in the US since 9/11 have been discovered and stopped. Maybe he has some thoughts on how quickly George Bush overtook Iraq, brought to justice a lunatic dictator, restored relations with Libya and did so with very few American soldiers lives being lost in comparison to other wars. I would like to know how he could possibly do a better job than any other liberal President. Maybe we all should just get on a plane and go to, say, North Korea and enjoy our independence there, when Kerry runs with his tail between his legs with no idea what to do because we have a Dirty Bomb detonate in one of our states we may not have to go there. Only my thought about this subject, feel free to slam me with yours now.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by labadida
Well, maybe he can tell us how Kerry will defeat terrorism like Clinton did. Maybe he'll do it more like Hoover did. Y'know, since Hoover was the president before Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor was his fault.
Maybe he has a great idea on how to improve homeland security or any comments on how all attempts at terrorism in the US since 9/11 have been discovered and stopped. I'm assuming you're not talking about domestic terrorism. If that's the case, I'd also assume that Kerry could probably do just as good as every president except Bush and Roosevelt. Of course, then the debate would lead towards an explanation revealing that the president himself has very little to do with the detection and prevention of terrorism and the whole point becomes moot.
Maybe he has some thoughts on how quickly George Bush overtook IraqYeah, it was a bit hasty, wasn't it? brought to justice a lunatic dictatorI wasn't aware that the trial had occurred yet, or that Bush got to play a part in it.
restored relations with LibyaBut how many larger, more influential countries has he pissed off?
and did so with very few American soldiers lives being lost in comparison to other wars.Y'know what the best part about those relatively few dead American soldiers is? They didn't have to die! HAHAHAHAHA! Funny, huh?
I would like to know how he could possibly do a better job than any other liberal President.Awww...how cute. You think John Kerry's a liberal just 'cause he's a democrat. Seriously...that's just adorable.
Maybe we all should just get on a plane and go to, say, North Korea and enjoy our independence thereUmmm...huh? Canada's waaaay nicer, thanks.
when Kerry runs with his tail between his legs with no idea what to do because we have a Dirty Bomb detonate in one of our states we may not have to go thereI have a feeling that "not" was a product of quick typing. In any case, if you're worried about a president turning tail and running away from his duty to defend American and its interests, I think you may be a bit off in pointing your finger away from Bush.
Only my thought about this subject, feel free to slam me with yours now. Done and done.

[onest2.0]

Originally posted by labadida
Well, maybe he can tell us how Kerry will defeat terrorism like Clinton did. Maybe he has a great idea on how to improve homeland security or any comments on how all attempts at terrorism in the US since 9/11 have been discovered and stopped. Maybe he has some thoughts on how quickly George Bush overtook Iraq, brought to justice a lunatic dictator, restored relations with Libya and did so with very few American soldiers lives being lost in comparison to other wars. I would like to know how he could possibly do a better job than any other liberal President. Maybe we all should just get on a plane and go to, say, North Korea and enjoy our independence there, when Kerry runs with his tail between his legs with no idea what to do because we have a Dirty Bomb detonate in one of our states we may not have to go there. Only my thought about this subject, feel free to slam me with yours now.

Do you work for FOX?
Maybe you know nothing of the Y2K plot, or the fact that the Libya negotiations were started by Clinton. Or the fact that Bush was president when 9/11 happened. Or the fact that the war is still going on or the fact that Bush hasn't done squat with N. Korea.

Why do you hate America?

[markalot]

Originally posted by onest2.0


Do you work for FOX?
Maybe you know nothing of the Y2K plot, or the fact that the Libya negotiations were started by Clinton. Or the fact that Bush was president when 9/11 happened. Or the fact that the war is still going on or the fact that Bush hasn't done squat with N. Korea.

Why do you hate America?

What's that got to do with why Kerry would be better than Bush?

Yea, it was a little extreme, but can you tell me how Kerry would be better and not just different? How wouls Kerry help prevent another terrorist attack? How would he respond to another attack? Does he have any plans for Sudan? Does he have any plans for North Korea? Will he push for changes to the patriot act to eliminate the reductions in civil liberties? What the hell does he stand for except 'I'm not Bush'.

My fear is that if he can't clearly lay out an agenda now how can we expect him to be a decisive leader. Yes, Bush sucks, but let's not make matters worse just for the sake of change.

[bjk15]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Maybe he'll do it more like Hoover did. Y'know, since Hoover was the president before Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor was his fault.

I'm assuming you're not talking about domestic terrorism. If that's the case, I'd also assume that Kerry could probably do just as good as every president except Bush and Roosevelt. Of course, then the debate would lead towards an explanation revealing that the president himself has very little to do with the detection and prevention of terrorism and the whole point becomes moot.

But how many larger, more influential countries has he pissed off?
Y'know what the best part about those relatively few dead American soldiers is? They didn't have to die! HAHAHAHAHA! Funny, huh?

first off, it is fairly well known that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen, so unless that is what you are insinuating with GWB, then it is not a reasonable comparison.

secondly, thats a lot of assuming's and could's don't you think

i mean seriously, you act like no one died under clinton's watch, but if i bring that up, then its like ohh, we attack bush, so you attack clinton. every president is going to have its haters and so on and so on. i am not sticking up for bush, but you do really need a better scope on things.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by bjk15
first off, it is fairly well known that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen, so unless that is what you are insinuating with GWB, then it is not a reasonable comparison.I'll agree that it's a well-known suspicion, but I'm afraid I can't join you in calling it fact. And no, I'm not insinuating anything.
secondly, thats a lot of assuming's and could's don't you thinkYup.
i mean seriously, you act like no one died under clinton's watch, but if i bring that up, then its like ohh, we attack bush, so you attack clinton. every president is going to have its haters and so on and so on. i am not sticking up for bush, but you do really need a better scope on things. I don't act like that and I doubt I ever will. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, before diagnosing my problem and prescribing the solution, find out what I was trying to say. He said, "(Bush) did so with very few American soldiers lives being lost in comparison to other wars". My point was that they're still dead, and needlessly so. I never brought up or hinted at any delusion that people aren't killed under the orders of other presidents. Please don't pretend I did.

[onest2.0]

Originally posted by markalot


What's that got to do with why Kerry would be better than Bush?

Yea, it was a little extreme, but can you tell me how Kerry would be better and not just different? How wouls Kerry help prevent another terrorist attack? How would he respond to another attack? Does he have any plans for Sudan? Does he have any plans for North Korea? Will he push for changes to the patriot act to eliminate the reductions in civil liberties? What the hell does he stand for except 'I'm not Bush'.

My fear is that if he can't clearly lay out an agenda now how can we expect him to be a decisive leader. Yes, Bush sucks, but let's not make matters worse just for the sake of change.

Even if I threw out all of the arguments against Bush's war, education, health care, and environment policies, even if I ignored Kerry's elimination of tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, Kerry's tax credit for higher education, Kerry's rebuilding of internatiional support and trust, I only need to think about two words, supreme court, to know that I need to vote for John Kerry.

[mike]

Originally posted by onest2.0


I only need to think about two words to know that I need to vote for John Kerry.

Me too.

GEORGE BUSH

MST

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by Phreon
It doesn't bother so much that people bash Bush as much as it does that they are blinded by partisan allegiances and hold different politicians to different standards.
I hate to tell ya, but it goes both ways. Have you heard these phrases?
"Activist Judges"
"Cadilliac Welfare"
"Tree-Huggers"
"Bleeding-Heart"
"Gay Agenda"

Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing.

[markalot]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd

I hate to tell ya, but it goes both ways. Have you heard these phrases?
"Activist Judges"
"Cadilliac Welfare"
"Tree-Huggers"
"Bleeding-Heart"
"Gay Agenda"

Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing.

He never said it didn't go both ways. Matter of fact I believe he intended to say it DID go both ways. Why did you think he was only accusing one side of being blinded by partisan politics?

I've got a lot of hope riding on Kerry's speach tonight, I hope he does a good job.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

I interpreted it that way. There was a specific reference to Bush bashing, and then partisanship and holding different standards, i.e. his earlier reference to Clinton. 1+1+1=3

I could be wrong, but that's how i read it.

[asoundhound]

I thought lying under oath to a grand jury was illegal.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by asoundhound
I thought lying under oath to a grand jury was illegal. it is.

he got a lot of sympathy b/c of the nature of the lie...

he didn't lie so much to protect his conflict of interest, he lied to hide his infidelity.

Ppl tend to identify/w that easier than just lyin to cover up a corporate misdeed. The corporate misdeed is viewd to b the next thing in sequence to the adultry.

[shadowfeather]

Clinton and his wife were also involved in some shady money dealings, but I can't see how this even remotely compares to the atrocities Bush has allowed to happen.

The Bushes have always had the media in the palms of their hands. Througout the conflict, I was absolutely disgusted with the commercialist media orgy that passed for "information" on channels like Fox News. Weapons of mass destruction? Who needs 'em?? The media lead most people to believe that the reason the US went to war was September 11, even though no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attack on the WTC had or has ever been established. On the BBC and EuroNews it was a different story. Literally.