The cries for impeachment and removal of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney from many on the Left have been heard for a few years now, but it is interesting to see how they themselves view such possibilities. One such analysis is provided by “Daimeon”, who posts on the ever-so-liberal blog Pam’s House Blend. In this we see what I can only describe as Bush Derangement Syndrome in an unreasonable desire for the removal of both or either man by just about any means necessary, somewhat tempered by a woeful ignorance of how the impeachment process is outlined in the Constitution. For someone who claims a connection to the United States Air Force, one would think they would at least be more familiar with the actual document he possibly swore (or affirmed) to “support and defend” in the Oath of Enlistment. It’s not as if finding the text of the United States Constitution online is all that difficult. One could even start with Google if they do not know where to find it online.
Daimeon begins his review of possible impeachment scenarios he envisions by writing:
Scenario number 1 and the one most discussed right now as a “two pronged approached,” Impeach the Vice President:
Vice President Cheney is Impeached. While this seems like a good strategy to prevent him from becoming president should Bush be impeached, Mr. Bush still has the presidential power of granting pardons. The house would vote for impeachment which is the equivalent of charging the person of a crime and Mr. Bush would pardon him and wipe the slate clean. Cheney could not be charged again for the same crimes and would remain the veep.
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the very clear text of Article II, Section 2, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment” (emphasis mine). In other words, President Bush could pardon Vice President Cheney for any alleged criminal activity but has absolutely no power to prevent his impeachment and removal from office. Despite all the trappings in the proceedings, impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate are political acts and not judicial. Congress has no authority to levy criminal or civil penalties in an impeachment and trial process, as stated in Article 1, Section 3:
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.
That an impeached official who is removed from office after a Senate trial, still faces the possibility of criminal or civil proceedings in the courts should be enough to put that misunderstanding to rest. In fact, even if an official is not impeached in the House or after being impeached is acquitted in the Senate, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties in the courts like every other citizen. Thus, there is no “double jeopardy” protection preventing Congress from trying again to impeach and remove from office an official no matter how many times they previously fail. This is contrary to what one finds in a criminal trial where the Fifth Amendment affords the accused protection from being “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”.
Daimeon continues with a second scenario which he envisions being:
Scenario number 2: Impeach the President
George W. Bush is impeached towards the end of his second term. While the president can’t pardon himself, he’s already played the best hand any administration could have. In fact, the Republicans have allowed and helped the administration “stack the deck” just for this reason. Two words: Supreme Court. Mr. Bush has successfully appointed two of his cronies in the SCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Alito. In the event of the president’s impeachment, the Chief Justice presides over the trial as the senate president, a position normally taken by the Vice President but due to the possible succession of the president by the veep it would be a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice could call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote to get the two thirds required vote to convict. The President would return to his normal duties and pretty much chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal under this tyrannical administration.
Contrary to Daimeon’s assertion that a “president can’t pardon himself”, one should recall that “except in cases of impeachment” the Constitution places zero restrictions on the president in granting pardons. In theory at least, the president can pardon himself though this has never been done before and would ignite a political firestorm of enormous proportions. Nevertheless, the president could act thusly without any constitutional impediment preventing him from doing so.
Daimeon next erroneously asserts that any possible impeachment trial of President Bush would be thwarted by the presence of Chief Justice John Roberts, whom he “appointed” to office. As stated in Art. I, Sect. 3 of the Constitution, “the Chief Justice shall preside” over any such trial in the Senate of an impeached president. What Daimeon sees as a nefarious “stack[ing of] the deck” preventing a possible conviction of an impeached Mr. Bush, turns out to be nothing more than misguided and woeful ignorance. First of all it should be mentioned that although the current Chief Justice was nominated by President Bush, he was confirmed by a vote of 78-22 in the Senate which included exactly half of the then-Democrat caucus. Second, one should recall that in the two previous instances of trial of impeached presidents in the Senate, the presiding of the seemingly ‘friendly’ (to those wishing to remove Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) Chief Justices Salmon Chase or William Rehnquist made no difference whatsoever to the outcome of either. Thirdly, this notion by Daimeon that Chief Justice Roberts could thwart any impeachment trial in the Senate is shown to be absurd when one notes that each House in Congress makes it own rules by majority vote, as outlined in Art. 1 Sect. 5. The presiding officer, in this case the Chief Justice, can only delay things if they so choose through parliamentary procedure, which can be easily quashed by a majority of the Senate. He has no authority on his own to dismiss the charges against an impeached official, to suspend or “call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote”, etc. Such actions are taken by vote of the Senators, a vote which the Chief Justice does not have himself. Need I even have to mention which party holds the majority in both the Senate and the House since January 2007?
Finally, we’ve already seen an impeached president who was acquitted in the Senate “chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal”. Indeed, President Clinton put on a remarkable performance calling his impeachment “illegitimate” and how he “saved the United States Constitution“. In such a hypothetical scenario as Daimeon presents, Mr. Bush would have to have a lot more chutzpah than this all while charming the general public with a wink and a smile. Such is possible I suppose but unlikely. President Bush has lost a significant number of his own political base with unfortunate maneuvers as the recent controversial immigration bill, making any friendly allies in Congress opposing legitimate reasons for his impeachment difficult if not impossible to find in numbers that would prevent such an action. Yet in order for Messrs. Bush and/or Cheney to be impeached and removed from office convincing evidence of criminal wrongdoing would have to be presented and thus far what the Left has provided has been, to put it mildly, found to be lacking. If it could be shown that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney have criminally violated their oath of office, I for one would support such a move but until then while I have my own reasons in looking forward to them leaving office, I see no reason to invoke the impeachment and removal clauses of the Constitution to short-circuit their terms. Politically such a move would probably be disastrous for Democrats as it was for Republicans when they impeached then-President Clinton in 1998. Of course the Democrats hold the majority in the House and can make such a move for impeachment if they choose, damning the consequences Admiral Farragut-style. Yet if such a move is made it would be far better for them to do so based upon something of more substance, rather than rely upon the tripe presented by Leftist activists like Daimeon which display quite an amusing ignorance of the very process they wish to use in order to achieve their objectives.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
There are certainly reasons for impeaching POTUS, but those same reasons would apply to all but one member of Congress, but the liberals seem intent on focusing on impeaching people they don’t like for silly often hypocritical political reasons, not for actual high crimes and misdemeanors in spite of and against the Constitution.
Senator Mike Gravel is indifferent about impeachment. He thinks there’s greater potential mileage and traction in Congress to get binding legislation to end the Iraq occupation this year.
What are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the liberals think President Bush can be impeached for? Do they ever give specific examples?
John, your article is a sane person’s descent into someone else’s fever swamp.
My first reaction is, “Why??? Why spend one second considering and refuting such pathetic nonsense?” My second reaction is, “Because lack of refutation from good people is how nonsense overtakes a nation, in time.”
Gosh, I just a poll that said 39% of Americans support impeachment — more than supported the impeachment of Clinton WHILE he WAS being impeached. What the heck is going on? What do people think Bush has done so wrong?
Good question Samantha, 39% is a sizeable number. However, I wouldn’t be afraid to wager that 60% of that 39% couldn’t even locate Kansas on a United States Map.
Polling is nothing more than an uneducated guess by many and that is illustrated by AGJ’s post using Daimeon’s post as an example.
I believe that if the Democrats tried impeachment of either Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney, they’d get responses they wouldn’t dream of like they did with that immigration bill.
The “popularity” of impeachment merely demonstrates the American people’s dismal understanding of the political process and their own Constitution and it’s history. Certainly in retrospect, the Republicans were wrong in their zeal to impeach Clinton…and I still wonder if Nixon’s demonstrated-crimes really met the Founder’s vision of a “high crime” against the Republic. Personally, I resigned to the obvious reality that American-style “politics” is a dirty, nasty business that still works better than most systems….while striving to control the overt venality of it’s operatives. I don’t expect perfection…though I do favor more competency that the current Administration seems to possess.
Are we to become a postwar-Italy were governments fell on an annual-basis….based on the whims of the electorate and popular opinion?
Clinton lied to a grand jury – the same crime Scooter Libby was supposed to go to jail for. The idea that everyone, even the Prez, owes the truth to the justice system (or else plead the 5th – that’s what it’s for) is fundamental to our entire way of life. So yes, Clinton’s was a high crime and I daresay the Founders would have agreed.
Ted B, you’re right. Our politics have become so mean — sometimes, it seems like we are split into camps that seem to hate each other. That can’t be good for the country. But how on earth do we ever stop the cycle?
And Good vs. Evil, I’m not sure the Democrats would try to do something like impeachment without having a lot of Republicans involved with them. While you would think they would never get that many Republicans, with the the way people are peeling off on the war right now (Sens. Alexander and Gregg being the latest), it could happen. What a tough time for all of us.
I think the liberals should push for impeachment. That would expose their culpability and hypocrisy thereby destroying themselves in the process. Not only that, but they would be exposed as the power hungry ass hats they are.
Bring it on!
sometimes, it seems like we are split into camps that seem to hate each other. That can’t be good for the country. But how on earth do we ever stop the cycle?
The only way to “stop the cycle” is to give the liberals their absolute power back. The liberal left, including our figures of Ian, Kevin, Keogh, Chase etc., are the very purveyors of hate that you speak of. They hold the fundamental belief that Algore was robbed of his rightful seat of power and would gladly see this country destroyed if it would give them their power back. That’s why they wanted to throw out the vote of our overseas soldiers, that’s why they ignore their own media which found that Algore would have lost no matter what and that’s why they continue to cheerlead for our established enemies. It’s also why they orgasm each and everytime a U.S. soldier is killed in Iraq.
Why do you suppose they take joy in video of snipers killing our soldiers? Why do you suppose they demonstrate on CNN on how to shoot down our helicopters? Why do you suppose the NYT gladly exposes our national security efforts? Why do you suppose they’re willing to confer American civil rights on the Club Gitmo vacationers who don’t deserve it.? Why do you suppose Ian, Kevin, Keogh etc. don’t mind looking like complete asses?
The overall point is that they want their control over the country and your life back and they’re willing to risk anything and everything to get it back. They hope that if they side withe al Qaeda that they will embarass Bush enough that the American people will roll over and hand them back their power they desperately crave and you’re supposed to be stupid enough to do it.
You have to wonder, for example, why they pi$$ and moan about what the rest of the world thinks of us, but they have ZERO problem telling Iraq, SoKo, Panama, Colombia, Peru etc. to shove it up, left. Why is that? They can’t explain it. They can’t explain anything they believe in because you’re supposed to be too damn stupid to ask questions. That’s why you won’t find Ian, Keogh, Chase, MorOn.org, Daily KOSsak etc. answering any real, hard questions.
Just remember that all the liberals care about is getting back their absolute power over you and that they’re willing to allow the complete destruction of this country to achieve it.
Of course liberals dont understand impeachment, as they dont understand the constitution in general. Impeachment is just another politcal tool to them. The constitution is just a political tool to them. They think “congress shall make no law…abridging free speech” means “shut down talk radio” to them, Thats why they didnt understand that the President has sole CIC powers. Hell, Nancy Pelosi still doesnt understand that. and on and on and on… But theres no NEED for liberals to understand the constitution–when you believe the constitution is a “living, breathing” document, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
The very core of why liberalism is so dangerous.
Oh my, reading Byron York’s column in the Washington Post this morning and he doesn’t help any, saying “base to Bush, it’s over”. This is all becoming a bit frightening.
#12 TGC, What you stated is so accurate it is scary. And it is for those reasons that I stopped worshipping at the Church of Liberalism and come to my conservative senses.
The Democrats will not bring on the impeachment proceeding, they use it as a carrot to dangle in from of their constituents to keep them yearning.
I am with you I wish they would BRING IT ON! But then again, letting it steep serves their purpose too.
Not toeing the PC I-hate-AmeriKKKa party line, of course. That’s a crime to a liberal — see any college campus speech code.
Here is a video stating the “reasons” to impeach Dick Cheney. Enjoy
12: yeah, just keep drinking more kool-aid pal. And as far as destroying this country? I think the desertion of the president by a growing number of Republicans is proof of that. Seriously, the way you write your words I feel like I’m watching Angela Lansbury giving her final long monologue to Laurence Harvey in “The Manchurian” Candidate”. Liberals enjoy watching snipers killing US soldiers? You’re deranged. Glad to see that this country hasn’t learned from it’s mistakes and we’re hearing the same rhetoric we heard in the 60s – “if you don’t agree with the current government then you clearly hate America. Puh-lease.
13: I’m a liberal who’s read, studies and understands the constitution and what it means. stop making general statements please.
15: Well, I think Bush proved that using the term “bring it on” is a pretty bad thing to do.
Sonicfrog, I used your link but, for the life of me, I can’t see what you might think are “reasons” for impeaching the Vice President. So he thought al Queda was in Iraq. So did a lot of other people. So he thought the war would be easy. So did a lot of other people, including me and probably everybody here. Most everyone thought it would a “cake walk” (as you liberals like to remind us), and most of us thought it was just something that finally needed doing — just because Saddam had been such a PITA to us since 1991. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but foresight is more valuable and our leaders had the foresight to take care of Saddam BEFORE he had a chance to become more than just a PITA, but a real danger to liberty and freedom. Plus, there was that thing about Saddam ruling so brutally over Iraq. Iraq was a lot worse off under him, you know, than it is today, because Iraqis can now vote. There, I said it and feel better. I don’t like all this bickering, but sometimes you just have to make people hear the truth.
#11 – Right on, TGC. Dhimmicrats are a prime example why idiots shouldn’t be in charge. They make Bush look like a member of Mensa.
Can anybody tell me what the Dhimmicrat-controlled Congress has actually accomplished? Besides lower approval ratings than Bush and themselves, BTW.
Regards,
Peter H.
Hey, Samantha, don’t blame me. They aren’t my reasons.
The dems will never seriously pursue impeachment. Every day with dubya/darth seems to bring a new scandal they can make political hay from.
And as far as destroying this country? I think the desertion of the president by a growing number of Republicans is proof of that.
I don’t suppose you could possibly make less sense than that. Besides, I read Lugar’s speech last night and he doesn’t appear to be against the Irag Campaign per se, but rather against the surge. But of course the liberal media doesn’t want us to know that.
Liberals enjoy watching snipers killing US soldiers?
If it wasn’t true, CNN wouldn’t have showed it or any of the other crap they’ve been pulling and calling it “news”. If the liberal media supports the USA, why don’t they bother showing what we’ve accomplished rather that tallying deaths? Further, why don’t they ever tell you how many of the enemy we’ve killed?
On a similar note, why were the liberals so orgasmic over the Abu Ghraib photos demanding more and more? Why were they run on the front page of the NYT for 30+ days? It obviously wasn’t “to inform the masses”. THAT, my friend, is deranged.
“if you don’t agree with the current government then you clearly hate America.
I think the real point, which you team-killing fcuktards intentionally spin, is that if you don’t support the attempts to protect America and her interests, then you clearly hate America. That and bastardizing the meaning of patriotism to fit a sick, twisted agenda. When the liberal left sounds exactly like Zawahri, what are we supposed to believe?
I’m a liberal who’s read, studies and understands the constitution and what it means. stop making general statements please.
So you agree that there’s no “Seperation of Church and State”, there’s nothing guaranteeing infanticide, the 14th Ammendment was never Constitutionally ratified etc., right? Otherwise, you’d have to be dishonest.
Well, I think Bush proved that using the term “bring it on” is a pretty bad thing to do.
Based on what?
Further, we’re aware that “Screw you guys, we’re going home!” is an even worse thing to do.
Lest we forget:
In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to secretary of state James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles.These are exact quotes from the memorandum to the administration. And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to secretary of state Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not.
-Algore 29 September 1992
This is too hilarious for words, Cindy Sheehan Threatens to Run Against Air Pelosi unless Pelosi Impeaches Bush.
The nuts are turning on themselves. Somebody make me some popcorn.
Sonicfrog, I viewed that link & I hope you convince your fellow Democrats to BRING IT ON! PLEASE CONVINCE Pelosi & Reid…
Good Lord, & they want the sane ones to trust them to defend this country.
… I loved the background music!
I think the libs love to talk impeachment… anything they can do to further weaken the Administration (and, by extension, the entire country). I don’t think they’d actually do it, however.
Life’s much easier sniping from the sidelines. If the libs actually believed what they said, we’d be out of Iraq by now (defunding).
All that said, W and the GOP have only themselves to blame. It takes some real stupidity to let dimwits like Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry control the debate.
The Administration has failed miserably to communicate the goals, problems, and progress in Iraq and Bush wasted immense amounts of time and political capital trying to buy the goodwill of big-spending libs. And then there’s the immigration fiasco.
If we’re at war, it seems to me that the president needs to direct his efforts into leading the country in this most-important effort.
#26 – Sonicfrog is not a Democrat, LOL! GvE, he offered the video as an example of the libs’ poor “reasons” for impeachment…
#25 – V, not possible. The article must be false. Because Mama Moonbat “retired” a few weeks ago – remember? 😉 (The first many public, attention-whoring “retirements” to come, no doubt, that further erase her son Casey Sheehan’s legacy. 🙁 )
Uhm, #26, I’m not a Democrat. I was being sarcastic. I would only endorse the Dems trying to impeach either Bush or Cheney simply because it would make great political theater. Imagine, dragging all those Democrats, including John Kerry and Al Gore, to admit under oath that they had made the same determinations about Iraq’s WMD capabilities in the three years prior to 9/11.
23: Seriously, are you planning on going on to play Mame or Broadway or perhaps have a television career as a senior citizen amateur detective? Ya’ really do sound like Mrs. Eislin from Manchurian Candidate, and of course we know what she turned out to be…..
Funny, because it’s been a lot of dictators in history who’ve supported the theory of “if you’re not with us you’re against” and we knwo where that led to in those regimes. I sincerely hope you’re not an elected official.
Personally, I would only support impeachment of Bush or Cheney if there were hard evidence of crimes and misdemeanors against the country. Kind of hard to prove when all your snivelling subordinates fall on their swords for you. Then again, the republicans in the House were all to happy to try and impeach Clinton for lying about an extramaritial affair….there’s high crimes and misdemeanors against country.
PS – Are you misspelling swear-words on purpose to avoid having your posts removed?
First off, I don’t go to Pam’s blog to learn about the legal framework for impeachment. There are far better progressive sources: some good Kossack diarists, some at firedoglake, Glenn Greeenwald at Salon for example.
It’s my firm belief that Cheney and Bush have both violated US laws with respect to the attack on Iraq, spying on Americans, and that’s just for starters. However, the details are murky and further investigation is required. I believe that because they committed crimes, neither Bush nor Cheney will submit to these investigations, probably by ignoring subpoenas issued by Congress. However, if they do that, I think that constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” by itself and warrants immediate commencement of impeachment proceedings. If I were explaining why to Bush and Cheney, I’d use an analogy with which they’re both quite familiar: it’s really kind of like the DUI laws in many states where it’s a crime just to refuse to take a breathalyzer test. I think that’s exactly what John Conyers was getting at today on ABC.
And away we go:
Seriously, are you planning on going on to play Mame or Broadway or perhaps have a television career as a senior citizen amateur detective?
Jeezus! What a theater queen.
Ya’ really do sound like Mrs. Eislin from Manchurian Candidate, and of course we know what she turned out to be…..
Nope. Never saw it. Either one. Next?
Funny, because it’s been a lot of dictators in history who’ve supported the theory of “if you’re not with us you’re against” and we knwo where that led to in those regimes.
Again I say that Bush can’t possibly be a dictator based on the fact that liberals hate his guts. If he were a dictator, the libs would be falling all over each other to kiss his arse like Castro, “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Noriega, Ortega, Chavez etc. The bigger the murderous bastard, the more the liberals love ’em.
The main reason libs hate with us/against us is because it’s an absolute truth and can’t be bastardized by a hazy shade of gray. Furthermore, it pegs them for who and what they are and you can’t shine a light and expose them like that. They’re like cockroaches who scurry away when you turn on the lights.
I sincerely hope you’re not an elected official.
Nope. Don’t tolerate stupid people very well, as you already know. Plus, there’s no money in it, if you’re honest. I suppose if I were inclined, I could ransack the WH on the way out the door as well. Maybe sell it off on eBay.
Personally, I would only support impeachment of Bush or Cheney if there were hard evidence of crimes and misdemeanors against the country.
Since when do liberals require evidence of anything? As the DeLay and Libby kerfuffle demostrates, it’s the “seriousness of the charge”. Evidence be damned.
Oh and then there’s Ian:
It’s my firm belief that Cheney and Bush have both violated US laws with respect to the attack on Iraq,
But you still refuse to point out exactly which ones?
spying on Americans,
And specifically, which Americans were spied on? Wasn’t there a court case that the ACLU lost on Friday? Help me out here.
I believe that because they committed crimes,
You have no idea what specific crimes, but by God you believe that they committed some because that’s what you were told.
However, if they do that, I think that constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” by itself and warrants immediate commencement of impeachment proceedings.
Well thanks for pointing out that you would support impeachment for nothing. What you’re saying is that if Bush doesn’t grab his ankles for the liberals, that’s “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Thanks for clearing that up. I really wasn’t sure that you were full of it before.
If I were explaining why to Bush and Cheney, I’d use an analogy with which they’re both quite familiar: it’s really kind of like the DUI laws in many states where it’s a crime just to refuse to take a breathalyzer test.
And then you’d be laughed out of the WH. If there was any doubt you were full of it, it’s gone now.
I think that’s exactly what John Conyers was getting at today on ABC.
Perhaps you should ask Conyers to explain how the direction they’re going in could be about as bad catching whatever nuts they have in a vise.
Here’s a radical idea, how about liberals do what they promissed back in November? When do they plan on getting started on that?
#18
Sorry, you’re not, there simply is no such thing.
My bad Sonicfrog… you are on the sane side. Obviously I thought you were offering up that video as hard evidence to impeach the Veep.
“I don’t go to Pam’s blog to learn about the legal framework for impeachment. There are far better progressive sources: some good Kossack diarists, some at firedoglake, Glenn Greeenwald at Salon for example.”
And another piece of the puzzle falls into place. I should have guessed.
Regards,
Peter H.
#33 – And ironically, TGC, it is the libtard-friendly Venezuelan dicta – oops, I mean “president” 😉 – who is trying to “re-write” the Venezuelan constitution to assure himself lifetime tenure.
Note to BDS sufferers: now THIS is what you claim “Bushco” is doing, while your hero Chavez is ACTUALLY doing it.
Next stop – Contradiction City, anyone?
Regards,
Peter H.
#35 – Will, to paraphrase President Ronald Reagan:
A liberal is one who has read the Constitution. A conservative is one who actually understands the Constitution.
Regards,
Peter H.
# 36 –
Classic rightwingerism:
Mr./Ms. Frog gets hit hard by your hate, then harder with the typical thoughtless rightwing bile. Your computer monitors are rainbowed by your spittle.
Then you think he/she is on your “side” and apologies and pardons follow.
Ahhh…you rightists are too funny,
Impeachment:
Not since FDR has there been a better recruiter for Dems than Bush. His “leadership” has created tens of millions of young American Democrats and has entrenched the republicans to lesser party status for generations.
“bring it on” indeed…
You boys just love to fight. I’ll bet you’re a bunch of fun to go bar-hopping with. (snark) Seriously, stop it! We’ll never come together as a people with all this bickering. Let’s talk about what we have in common. Do we even have anything in common? Let’s hear it. TGC, you start.
Gil, I am on no one’s side.
I posted that video because it represents the ridiculously shallow POV of many among the “Impeachment” crowd. It will be very hard to prove, no matter how much you suspect otherwise, that Bush and Cheney “Knew” Iraq posted no threat or that it had no WND’s because so many from both parties (including Kerry, Clinton, Gore) had stated with certainty almost the exact same claims prior to 9/11.
Now I do think Cheney is vulnerable as he seems to have overstepped the traditional powers of the VP, according to the WP article. I am very much bothered by the appearance of the co-president role the modern VP position has evolved into, and I would suggest Cheney may have crossed a line concerning executive power, acting more like the president than the president himself. We did not elect him to the Presidents position, and I don’t thing he should have his hands on so many levers of government. That said, there doesn’t seem to be any instance where Cheney acted outside of the roles given to him by the President or without his knowledge, and since the position of the VP is very vague in the Constitution, it would be hard to argue he was acting unconstitutional.
Still, I don’t like it much.
Let me catch up:
Not since FDR has there been a better recruiter for Dems than Bush. His “leadership” has created tens of millions of young American Democrats and has entrenched the republicans to lesser party status for generations.
Too bad those tens of millions were aborted and therefore can’t vote. Then again, that never stopped the liberals.
Let’s talk about what we have in common. Do we even have anything in common? Let’s hear it. TGC, you start.
First of all, I fail to see the relevance. Second, are you asking what sort of things I like to do? To save space and time, I’ll refer you to my MySpace page:
http://www.myspace.com/thatgayconservative
that Bush and Cheney “Knew” Iraq posted no threat or that it had no WND’s
Well, I think it goes without saying that Iraq had no WorldNetDaily. 🙂
YEAH. Yet again, Ian dodges any questions. Naturally, since there’s no new posts, he can’t MovOn. So he has to wait until a new post comes out and then pretend he never saw the hard questions.
So here’s an idea for a new GayPatriot post:
Ian! Answer any and all questions you’ve been dodging lately.
Speaking of which, where’s Keogh? We haven’t heard any of his panty twistings about the poor Club Gitmo customers lately. Maybe he’s trying to figure out how to excuse the slaughter in Cambodia under American liberal hero Pol Pot. Or maybe s/he’s turning tricks for Chavez or maybe taking one off the chin from Annon. Who knows. Come to think of it, who cares?
“Club Gitmo customers”
Either you are completely brainwashed by the right wing machine or a parody of all right wingers….judging by your humorous foaming at the mouth posts I am leaning toward the latter.
Either way, you are pointing out quite clearly how the right assuages its hurting conscience through jokes and spin.
#34:
Yes, but the decision was not based on the merits of the case, merely whether the plaintiffs had standing. And the only appeals court judge to comment on the legality of the program stated that it was unlawful.
There is a wealth of information available that Bush and Cheney have violated US laws with regard to the Iraq war. Here’s one summary but there are plenty of others. The key is that Congress has and must use its authority to investigate these crimes and as with refusing to take a breathalyzer test, if the Administration refuses to cooperate in the investigation, impeachment proceedings can and should be immediately undertaken.
And the validity of that summary can be neatly demonstrated by the names on it.
One in particular: Ramsey Clark.
Particularly since said individual does not believe either Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic were guilty of ANY of the things of which he accuses George Bush of being.
In short, we have Democrats like John Aravosis, Ramsey Clark, and others making an impeachment case based on laws which they apply to no one else, and in fact ignore in other cases.
This should show better than anything else the banality of the impeachment-mongers like Ian, who shriek over alleged UN violations while flatly ignoring Saddam’s — or the fact that their leftist allies and UN bureaucrats openly exploited and demanded literally BILLIONS of dollars in bribes and kickbacks to ignore them.
WMD’s (TGC, you’re a jerk:-) )
Ian, about the “intelligence being fixed around the policy”, Bush would certainly not be the first President to do this. FDR’s infamous “Navy Day Map” showing how Nazi Germany would divide Africa comes to mind. Of coarse, as this article points out, the willingness to look the other way at this kind of action depends on how the war turns out. Good for FDR, seemingly bad for Bush. And FDR and the Brit’s would not have gotten away with this deception if they had the equivalent of our modern media apparatus hovering over them, waiting for the kill.
The greatest problem the “Impeach Crowd” has against them now is time. With the horrendously slow pace of Congress, not to mention the numerous vacations (which I am all for – less time available to screw things up) I just don’t know if their would be enough of it to get half way through an impeachment proceeding before the end of the Bush / Cheney tenure.
Let me see, the left is ignorant of the Constitution…are you surprised?
Don’t you remember the outrage over W winning in 2000 in the Electoral College. Millions of uneducated college students were appalled and felt cheated. They missed the 10 minute presentation of the Constitution in High School and University. Explaining the founders intention of guaranteeing small states were represented. When it suits their purposes, liberals are all for mob rule.
Brief reminder that “intelligence fixed around the policy” has been roundly, thoroughly debunked by commission after commission.
Except in partisan moon-bat land, of course. Or unless it was the CIA analysts themselves that you want to accuse of fixing the intelligence around the policy on their own initiative.
Let’s see, the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for 6 months. If they believe like ian, that W and Cheney have committed crimes, let’s go. Start the impeachment proceedings. What the hell are they waiting for? If they can prove the charges in the last 18 months of President Bushs and VP Cheneys terms, lets go. My Constitution says Ms Pelosi would then take the reins being third in line. Quit whining and start prosecuting if you have the stones to do it. My guess is Democrats as usual are great at whining and complaining. And won’t like one bit the reaction of Americans to trying to prosecute crimes against the President and VP in a time of war, especially when it is this Administration who has kept us safe so far since 9/11 while the Democrats have carped about most of the techniques employed. So whine away, you as usual aren’t serious.
Oh yeah. The Downing Street Memo. I forgot what it was called. Why don’t the libs wave that around anymore? Sorta like all the millions of unemployed people and the 2, no three, no six Trillion dollar surplus that Bush supposedly “squandered”. The libs never could agree on the amount.
It’s all BS.
It’s called illustrating the absurdity of the liberal left team killing fcuktards by being absurd. Obviously, judging by your post, it works. Especially given how the libs champion those who murder men, women, children, animals and plant bombs on their bodies. You support those people who cook children and serve them to their families for dinner.
And yet somehow, you people have the perverse audacity to assert that Bush is a terrorist as well as our soldiers? You can take your whining, pissing and moaning about Abu Ghraib, Club Gitmo, secret detention centers and whatever else you b*tch about and shove it so far up your collective a$$ until you touch your tonsils.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
Sick bastard.
This is a common misconception due mostly to the phrase “third in line”.
The Speaker of the House is the third in line to replace the president. The first in line being the Vice President, the second in line is the President Pro Tem of the Senate, which happens to be Robert Byrd.
SO…were something to happen to the President and Vice President, Byrd would take over. However, if the President were impeached first, Cheney would become president and immediately name a new VP. If Cheney were impeached first, the president would name a new VP. And they cant be impeached at the same time.
And all of this is silly to begin with, since, unlike Clinton who actually broke the law, neither Bush nor Cheney have done anything even remotely impeachable–no matter how much the lunatics on the left wail and gnash their teeth.
Bush hasnt done it to begin with. Dont take my word for it, those are the unanimous conclusions of the nonpartisan and independent
9/11 Commission Report
Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report
Robb-Silberman Report
Duelfer Report
and just for good measure the Lord Butler Report in the UK.
ALL of which investigated the intelligence, and everyone involved in gathering it, compiling it, analyzing it and reporting it, and they all concluded there was no lying about the intelligence, there was no misrepresentation, and there was no “fixing”.
Any claim to the contrary is ignorance, propaganda or a bald faced lie.
And the Vice President is the only successor of the President established by the Constitution, the rest is established by Congress. Current law is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and i Was flat wrong, the Speaker is before the President Pro Tem, i apologize.
An appelate judge disagrees with the decision of the FISA Court of Review…yip-yip-yip-yahoo.
Still doesn’t change the fact that there’s fewer American citizens who can prove they were spied on than liberals in Congress demanding the process be stopped.
We (under duress) pledge allegiance to the burning cross of the White States of America and to the racist liberals for which it stands, one nation, hating Republicans, Hymies, Niggers, Chinks, Japs etc., divisible with hate and misery for all.
Some of the lefitsts are quoting John Conyers…is that the same Conyers who violated labor laws and wasn’t prosecuted because…because …what? he’s a Democrat? Conyers demanded employees of his shuttle his children around and do errands for him, which wasn’t part of their job descriptions. He fired those that refused. A businessman would have been crucified and prosecuted.
“Then again, the republicans in the House were all to happy to try and impeach Clinton for lying about an extramaritial affair…”
Kevin, is that the reason Clinton was impeached?
It’s what Kevin tells himself it is.
Since, if he admitted the real reason (that Clinton lied to a court, something Kevin wants Scooter Libby in prison for) and let himself think about its implications, he’d have to question other parts of his own beliefs.
“I’m not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore.”
–Peggy Noonan
So, so sorry, chumps.
#62: Ooooooohhhhhhhhhh Nooooooooooooooo!!!! Not Peggy!!