Vote to impeach Bush

[Boota]

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

I voted to impeach Bush, but only because execution isn't on the table.

This is a real movement that aims to ask impeachment of the usurper king. The articles of impeachment definitely call for at least a hearing. Clinton faced impeachment over a blowjob. Bush has this coming, even though I know it will NEVER happen.

Still, it's nice to dream.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I loved the headline: George W. Bush Must Answer to the People.


The problem is that he already has.

He said, “F**k You!”

 

[Lisa Denton]

Wait a minute ................ President Cheney?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Wait a minute ................ President Cheney?

There! He said it again.

 

[Boota]

I actually support the idea of President Cheney. If Bush is removed from office everyone will have no choice but to face the real power. Take the goofy, likable face off of the evil empire and it will crumble. Cheney doesn't have the leeway for stupid "aw, shucks" mistakes like GWB.

 

[shereads]

Don't toy with me.

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

I voted to impeach Bush, but only because execution isn't on the table.

This is a real movement that aims to ask impeachment of the usurper king. The articles of impeachment definitely call for at least a hearing. Clinton faced impeachment over a blowjob. Bush has this coming, even though I know it will NEVER happen.

Still, it's nice to dream.

 

[Guest]

Don't toy with me.

*snicker*

 

[rgraham666]

I can't vote as I'm Canadian.

Wouldn't if I was American. Knowing the sneaky sods behind Shrub II, this might be a method of getting people to 'denounce' themselves.

Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm a paranoid cynic.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


Clinton faced impeachment over a blowjob.

Silly me. All this time I thought he faced impeachment over perjury.

 

[Guest]

Looks like I need to fire up the ignore list again.

Look you fuckwads, the election is over and "the people" didn't vote Kerry in. You lost. That doesn't mean the rest of the country is stupid. It doesn't mean Bush is a criminal. What it does mean is that if you can't stand behind your country and your president, you need to find another fucking country to live in, because you are making yourselves DAMNED unwanted in mine.

Canadia is north. Get the fuck out.

I'm done with the lot of you.

 

[rgraham666]

Dran, chill.

Bring up a link about Whitewater, we 'liberals' can be pissed and we'll call it even.

 

[Boota]

Silly me. All this time I thought he faced impeachment over perjury.

Yes, perjury. He lied to a question that should have never been asked. About a BLOWJOB.

 

[Boota]

Looks like I need to fire up the ignore list again.

Look you fuckwads, the election is over and "the people" didn't vote Kerry in. You lost. That doesn't mean the rest of the country is stupid. It doesn't mean Bush is a criminal. What it does mean is that if you can't stand behind your country and your president, you need to find another fucking country to live in, because you are making yourselves DAMNED unwanted in mine.

Canadia is north. Get the fuck out.

I'm done with the lot of you.

I'm not leaving my country. You want me out then you can come fucking throw me out! I want my country back. I want America to stand for what it claims to stand for. I'm going to stay right here and fight against the ignorant fuckwads who support their favorite holy warrior. GWB has committed every single crime listed in those articles of impeachment. I can't stand behind this President because he is utterly repugnant to me. It's not a Republican thing. I have supported Republicans in the past and will likely do so in the future. It is a dumb ass, war of conquest, theocracy craving thing that keeps from supporting this ignorant fuck. GWB is not qualified to be the fucking dog catcher and a scant majority of voters were unable to see that behind their nationalistic brain dead fervor.

Bush won by the smallest margin an incumbent President has ever won re-election. The swing vote took him over the top. Who was the swing vote? Pussies and bigots. Plain and simple. The pussies were shitting their pants over terrorist attacks that never materialized. Bush keeps people scared and that keeps them in his corner. They believe that he will protect them, even though nothing has really changed. (He has increased our pool of enemies quite a bit, though.) Security is no stronger than it was before 9/11. It is a facade of security that lulls people.

And the bigots? Well, they hate homosexuals. Even if they disagree with Bush on every other issue, he got a lot of votes from people who simply hate and fear homosexuals. Some of my family, staunch Democrats for life, voted for Bush this time merely over his stand on gay marriage.

Granted, there are people who truly benefit from his Presidency and have a vested interest in his side winning the election. They are called rich people. If you aren't one of them, and I'm not, then you aren't their kind of people. They need your vote, they don't need you.

Sorry to hear that I, a lifelong American citizen who is expressing my Constitutional right of free speech, am unwelcome in YOUR country. FUCK YOU! That is so telling about how people like you "think". Dissent is dying in this country because people who "think" like you want to do nothing but to shout down any opposing view. You fucking fascist! How fucking dare you call yourself a patriot of America! If that is the case, America is sorely in need of protection from it's patriots. I support our Constitution. What, excactly, are you supporting here?

You need an ignore list? You know, if you took your head out of the sand and looked around you might actually see some of the criminal acts your President has committed. I guess an ignore list seems about right for that mentality.

I have some liberal views and some conservative views. Maybe I do lean liberal on quite a few issues, but I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. I love violence. Love to watch it, love to participate in it. Made my living through violence for years. But I have to be right when I do violence. And I am no bully. Right now my country is behaving like a bully and it disgusts me.

What may be even worse than committing a war of aggression against a country who never attacked us, or even threatened or had the ability to attack us: Other real threats are going unheeded while we are bogged down in Little Bush's war of pride. Where are the resources going to come from if we have to defend ourselves against North Korea? They're tied up in Bush's folly. We are spread dangerously thin already. One more problem and we could be seriously fucked.

 

[Guest]

Looks like I need to fire up the ignore list again.

Look you fuckwads, the election is over and "the people" didn't vote Kerry in. You lost. That doesn't mean the rest of the country is stupid. It doesn't mean Bush is a criminal. What it does mean is that if you can't stand behind your country and your president, you need to find another fucking country to live in, because you are making yourselves DAMNED unwanted in mine.

Canadia is north. Get the fuck out.

I'm done with the lot of you.

Whether you like it or not, Dran, the country belongs to us all.

And I find it frightening that dissenting opinions are no longer welcome. Can you personally agree with every single action taken by another person? Even (or especially) if that person happens to be president?

I can't. I'll never be able to have that type of blind faith in any leader. But these days, if you dare to disagree, then you have somehow become unpatriotic.

But I am a patriot. And the daughter of a Vietnam veteran.

And I do want the best for my country.

I just happen to disagree with you and the little more than half who voted in the last presidential election.

It doesn't make you right and me wrong, by the way. It just means the guy you voted for got more votes.

 

[Jagged]

I read the site and what they posted and their reasons are not even close to what you need to impeach a President. Never mind they totally lack proof much less common sense. You lost the election so deal with it. President Clinton won his second term and I didn't see the need for impeachment. When he lied under oath he is a lawyer and he knew better.

President Bush had authorization to make war....and even followed UN resolutions. Nobody has been lied too.......there is a big difference between a lie and being mistaken. Senator Kerry seemed to think WMDs were present as well.

Never mind I find I still have my civil rights.....Frankly I don't think the President has done enough.

Get over it people...

 

[Belegon]

I normally stay so far out of this...but one thing finally needs to be said about the whole WMD thing and the denials and all the stances, etc.


If he did not know they were lying to him, then he failed. If he did know there were no WMD's, he failed by lying to us. Not that he is not allowed to fail. All men fail. It is normal and human. It is the need to appear as if he has not failed that I take greater issue with. Not that this is unique among politicians.

This administration was totally justified in it actions concerning Afghanistan. I can not say I feel that way about Irag. I feel it is a mistake and it is wrong. I feel we have made things much worse. I feel horrible for the families of those who have lost their lives.

Reagan played this little game too. Iran-Contra, remember? If he did not know, well he damn well should have. By not knowing, he dropped the ball.

And if anyone wants to go toe to toe with me on patriotism, bring it on. I am a patriot and I support the troops. I just feel that the best way to support them would be to bring them home alive. There is a difference between supporting my country and supporting one administration.

 

[Boota]

Jagged, are you serious? Did you really read those charges, which by the way, are proven? There is documented evidence throughout the public record concerning every single point in that list of articles of impeachment. Every single one. These people are criminals. They have subverted the Constitution in nearly every conceivable way. Their crimes are akin to treason. And I don't say that lightly.

The lies they told are documented, as well. WMD's? Every member of the Bush Administration spoke publicly before 9/11 saying that they knew for a fact that Iraq did not have WMD's and that they were no threat to us in any way. Even Colin Powell, the only member of that administration worthy of any respect, said this on national television. Then suddenly after 9/11, Iraq has them and we always knew they had them? Colin Powell quit fucking around with these reprehensible monsters for a reason.

I'm glad you still have your civil rights. But for how long? And what about those whose civil rights have already been trampled on? Don't you care about that at all? Doesn't America not living up to what it claims to be bother you? If you really love your country the things we're doing and allowing to happen should bother the hell out of you. I guess as long as YOUR civil rights haven't been directly affected there's no problem. Fuck the other innocent people who are being trod upon by these thugs.

 

[Liar]

...and even followed UN resolutions...

Um. No. But that's no surprise. Are things like the Geneva Convention even legally binding? I was under the impression that going against them (which GWB has done) was not a crime, but a case of Very Bad Manners. Which of course is something you can afford, if you're the biggest kid on the block.

Other than that, I'm not 100% positive that he has done anything legally impeachable. But I'm not gonna wager any guess, since I don't know exactly what the whole process means.

It's all weird to me. If the chief of state in my country does something illegal, he will be arrested by regular cops, tried and sent to the slammer by a regular court.

#L

 

[Goldlion1]

Looks like I need to fire up the ignore list again.

Look you fuckwads, the election is over and "the people" didn't vote Kerry in. You lost. That doesn't mean the rest of the country is stupid. It doesn't mean Bush is a criminal. What it does mean is that if you can't stand behind your country and your president, you need to find another fucking country to live in, because you are making yourselves DAMNED unwanted in mine.

Canadia is north. Get the fuck out.

I'm done with the lot of you.

I recently read a poll of high school students that showed that about 60% favored both the muzzling of the press and the need for dissenters to shut the fuck up and not publicly register complaints about "our" government and "our" president. The saddest part of this is that the students saw absolutely nothing wrong with the dismantling of the first amendment, the one that permits sites like this one to exist.

Dranoel, dissenting and registering that dissent in a public forum is a guaranteed right under the constitution, a document that the president has sworn to uphold. It pains me when people fail to see the irony, or worse, the hypocrisy involved in stiffiling dissent. It also pains me deeply when people like you accuse we dissenters as being "un-American" and "unpatriotic" because we share an unpopular opinion and wish to air those opinions here. Don't you realize that there is no litmus test for Americanism, in fact I would say that stifling dissent, and further ignoring the fact that dissenters exist is more un-American than having a dissenting opinion.

I love my country desperately, I would die for it. This is not blind patriotism, it is not a view through rose colored glasses. To love something, a person, an idea, or a country is to recognize its flaws as well as its strengths. It is our job as citizens to resist falling in line, to look at our country and our government with lucidity. Your opinion, unfortunately is held by many people, the opinion that our republic is somehow ordained by some divine right, that we as Americans are too stupid to lead ourselves so we need some imperial figurehead to do it for us.

I have no love for the Bush white house, however I have no hatred in my heart for the President himself. I respect the office, but not the policies that emanate from it, I think that both parties have sold their souls to those in entrenched positions of power. And, as a loyal American, that saddens and angers me.

The thinking that there is only one way, one American way, is simplistic and dangerous. Think of all the freedoms fought for, and won, by those who dissented, freedoms that you now enjoy. Including the freedom to post here.

I do believe that if Bush and his band of morality police had their way, this site and all it contains would go bye-bye and neither you nor I would have the opportunity to opine, express or dissent.

 

[Goldlion1]

Jagged, are you serious? Did you really read those charges, which by the way, are proven? There is documented evidence throughout the public record concerning every single point in that list of articles of impeachment. Every single one. These people are criminals. They have subverted the Constitution in nearly every conceivable way. Their crimes are akin to treason. And I don't say that lightly.

The lies they told are documented, as well. WMD's? Every member of the Bush Administration spoke publicly before 9/11 saying that they knew for a fact that Iraq did not have WMD's and that they were no threat to us in any way. Even Colin Powell, the only member of that administration worthy of any respect, said this on national television. Then suddenly after 9/11, Iraq has them and we always knew they had them? Colin Powell quit fucking around with these reprehensible monsters for a reason.

I'm glad you still have your civil rights. But for how long? And what about those whose civil rights have already been trampled on? Don't you care about that at all? Doesn't America not living up to what it claims to be bother you? If you really love your country the things we're doing and allowing to happen should bother the hell out of you. I guess as long as YOUR civil rights haven't been directly affected there's no problem. Fuck the other innocent people who are being trod upon by these thugs.

I couldn't agree more, just look at what was done to Clinton. I'm no fan of the man but he was raked across the coals for getting HEAD. The lying was what did him in, yes, but the kernel of the complaint revolved around sex. Now what is worse, lying about getting a hummer from an "big" girl (Pathetic how many "fat" jokes resulted from that one, the whole debacle exposed some sad facts about how sex and race play a part in political demonizing, remember Vernon Jordan?) or outright lying to the people to start a war that would kill so many Americans for less than dubious reasons.

You can only quantify a lie by its results. And I would say that the results of Clinton's lie were far less dire to the freedoms we enjoy or the power we invest in the office of the presidency than the big lie of Iraq. The body count alone, the result of the initial lie, pales in comparison to the monetary wake left by the Clinton "scandal." And the incredible tax on the American people's collective wallet was brought about by those who sought to depose our legally elected official. Need I remind everyone that there were no parlor tricks involved in either Clinton win and the margin of victory in both cases was far greater than that of both Bush wins COMBINED.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

High Crimes & Misdomenors. Strictly speaking, Clinton should have been impeached. The term refers to moral lapses. In the early part of this century many judges were removed from office for high crimes, usually visiting a prostitute or having a mistress. By the correct definition, getting a blow job from an intern qualifies. More so than perjury, for which he should have just got jail time.

The problem with impreaching bush is A. You've got to prove he personally did something wrong. B. You have to prove he acted wilfully in doing so. C. You've got to prove it beyond all doubt, because the house & senate are both solidly GOP majorities and they act as judge.

You can't blame him for the war on Iraq, simply because he didn't use the war powers act, but went to congres & got approval. In doing so, he got instant CYA. the people's rpresenaties gave him carte blanche and he used it. Sayng he lied to get that approval dosen't work, because the congress has as it's responsibility, making sure they acted correctly. More substantially, even Kerry, the opposition parties head man, stated quite clearly he would have still voted for war had he known there were no wmds.

While the ethical imlications of his administration are open to discussion, you cannot point to a single crime you can lay at his feet, that is a crime, is solely his responsibility and is proveable. The fact that he was reelected by a wide majority also shows the people, at least the majority of those who voted, supported his actions.

You are allowed to dislike him. You are allowed to disagree with his vision for America. You are NOT allowed, to criminalize that vision, simply because you don't agree with it. The fact that there is significant debate over his actions, proves that they ar mattrs of opinin, not matters where the law can easily or should take a hand.

I don't agree with much of GW's program. I don't agree with the majority of the program of his core constituency. Those are opinions. they are my opinions. AS much as I believe them, I don't think they should carry the weight of law. Nor should anyone else's.

Impeach him you say? For what exactly? You can't use the old school definition of high crimes, in his personal life he has been about as much of a boy scout as you could wish. With the lack of those ugly, scandalous moral lapses, you need a crime. A real, significant, proveable crime, that is solely the responsibility of the president. To my knowledge, he hasn't shot anyone, assaulted anyone, stolen anything or otherwise commited a PERSONAL crime, which is what you need to prove, in the abscence of a defineable high crime.

I would be very interested to know, for exactly what you plan to impeach him.

 

[Kassiana]

1. Dissent is good. It's one of the rights guaranteed in our founding documents as a country. If you don't like dissent, what are YOU doing in America? Maybe you need to create your own right-wing Taliban in another country.

2. I'm not giving out my real information to these people, therefore I won't vote on that site. Sorry. Paranoia strikes again.

3. Which is worse, lying to the American people about the motives for war or lying to them about your personal sexual proclivities? Call me crazy, but I think that lying to us about the motives for a war that's already killed and maimed thousands of Iraqi and American people is worse than lying about having sex with someone who isn't your spouse.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

1. Dissent is good. It's one of the rights guaranteed in our founding documents as a country. If you don't like dissent, what are YOU doing in America? Maybe you need to create your own right-wing Taliban in another country.

2. I'm not giving out my real information to these people, therefore I won't vote on that site. Sorry. Paranoia strikes again.

3. Which is worse, lying to the American people about the motives for war or lying to them about your personal sexual proclivities? Call me crazy, but I think that lying to us about the motives for a war that's already killed and maimed thousands of Iraqi and American people is worse than lying about having sex with someone who isn't your spouse.

Lying about motives for war is common. It's accepted practice. Has been for many generations. The unprovoked Japanese attack at peral harbor was provoked by an oile embargo. The rational for entering WWI, was over unresticted submarine warefar, yet we were already in defiance of our ownneutrality accords, as we made no protest of the British blocade of German ports. Spanish American, the blowing up of the Maine, when most reports at the time agred it was likely an accident? Mexican American? Well, there was gold inthem thar hills, but we went to war over a few men killed in disputed territory, yet it was claimed American lives had been lost on American soil.

We are a fairly martial people, but we cloak that in a veneer of pacifism & isolationism. In short, American leaders have almost always been forced to invent reasons to send in troops. That's a matter of policy and whether you agree with it or not, it's certainly not actionable.

Lying under oath is perjury. It's apersonal crime, not amatter of policy. It is attributeable to one person, acting as a citizen rather than as head of the nation. Where actions of the government, in persuing policy, are generaly not actionable, personal misconduct is.

In this case, comparing Clinton's impeachment to a proposed Bush impeachment, is like compring apples to oranges. Clinton commited personal acts that were if not illegal, at the least, they were unethical. In the case of Bush, you are trying to impeach a man, because you are pissed at policy. That does not wash.

I again query, for what crime do you wish to impeach him? The crime of not sharing your world view and not crafting policy you appreciate, notwithstanding.

 

[rgraham666]

As always, you bring up good points Colleen.

And though it is simply my opinion, Bush did lie about the reasons for invading Iraq. You can tell by the way the reasons kept morphing. "Saddam supports terrorism, no, he has WMDs, no, he's a threat to stability of the region, no…" One of the first rules of lying is to stick to the original lie. If you twist, it weakens the believability of the lie.

I would have given the Shrubbies points at least if they had been honest. "We need the oil, there's an election to win, we can more easily muffle dissent if there's a war on and a shooting war makes for better media than a proper battle against terrorism." Not enough to balance out the damage they've done, but at least they would have been honest.

I don't think Shrub II will be impeached. But I will not argue, too much, against attempts to do so. Democracy can only be maintained if people participate. Although I am not sure the Impeach Bush website is a proper way to participate, it may at least be said that the people involved are participating.

And if one thing can be said for sure about the Shrubbies, they don't believe in democracy.

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

Colleen Thomas]Lying about motives for war is common. It's accepted practice. Has been for many generations.

I'm going to stay away from the war topic like the plague.

Just wanted to point out that lying by presidents about extramarital affairs has also been common practice since the founding of our country. Except back when it seemed to be okay if your extramarital affair was with a black slave concubine...and then it didn't mattre because you weren't having an affair with a person, anyways. (So much for the chopping of the cherry tree and all). Until Clinton, our country accepted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on a president's marriage (JFK anyone?). And I can't help but wonder what our motivations were for changing that policy.

Now...before anyone jumps down my throat...YES...Clinton lied about in affair... UNDER OATH. Bad...bad...bad...Clinton. My concern is why the question was asked to begin with....

~WOK