None of those reports state that Bush is responsible for the bad
intelligence. Except maybe the one of the socialist website, I just
ignored that one.

bibby7,

I think it's interesting you have have never talked to me or probably
read anything I have written, but you already know everything about me.
Are you a mindless attack dog for the left who bites anyone who shows
any conservative inclinations?

It seems you think I am a Bush supporter. I find that laughable, I in no
way support Bush, I support the constitution and the bill of Rights. I
support the judicial system yet I do not support many of the decrees
they have handed down. I support the presidency and congress, however
the only thing Bush and the congress has done is put us where we don't
belong.

I am simply doing what I am good at, and that is reading and writing. I
know what is required to impeach a president and so far Nobody has shown
me that Bush abused his Police/Presidential Powers, and in as much he
should NOT be impeached. This is written in the terms of impeachment and
is there to keep the sectors of government policing/protecting each
other.

In your post you have shown me falsified documents, and what others have
Said. You in no way have shown me where he has ABUSED his Police Powers
for his own gain. You can argue till Hell freezes over that he has
Mislead they entire country, however that is NOT grounds for
"Impeachment".

If you read and understand what is necessary for "Impeachment" as a
president of this country you would understand why I believe this is a
waste of time and money. It MUST be Proved that he abused his
presidential powers, and to be honest with you I don't think that will
ever occur.

As I stated before this is a MUST and if he is impeached without proving
this it will be a miscarriage of the constitution and the bill of
rights. To lie about something in the eyes of the constitution is Not a
reason to impeach, to decieve is not a reason to impeach. If that were
the case every polititian we have should be removed from our Democracy.

I am sorry to say this, but unless it is proved he broke the LAW AND
USED his position under the articles of police/presidential powers to do
so it is NOT grounds for impeachment.

Here is a link about police powers and what they are considered to be.
You will find several links tied to this one and I hope you understand
my position and definitions and reasons for impeachment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power

I happen to agree Bush is a terrble president, however it doesn't give
congress or the senate or the judicial system a right to impeach without
proper and just cause.





G

In answer to the colonial experience with absolutist monarchy, the
Articles of Confederation created a purely legislative form of
government in which there was no King, or Chief Executive. Ministers
answered directly to Congress. Removal of government officials was at
the will of the Congress. Impeachment was not needed. The legislative
form of government created by the Articles of Confederation did not
work. It proved ineffective in accomplishing the purposes of government
and diffused responsibility and accountability for acts of government,
making reform difficult.

Delegates at the Constitutional Convention quickly decided that a strong
executive was essential to effective government. They created the office
of the President and vested "The executive Power" in it. The direct
means provided in the Constitution for preventing and correcting abuse
of executive power was impeachment. The debates on impeachment focused
"...principally on its applicability to the President."2

Seeking to create a strong, but responsible executive, delegates at the
Convention intended, in the words of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
that "the maxim would never be adopted here that the Chief Magistrate
could do no wrong." 3

George Mason, defending provisions for the impeachment of the President
in the Constitutional Convention, asked "Shall any man be above justice?
Above all Shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive
injustice?" 4

Benjamin Franklin favored Congressional power to impeach and remove the
President to prevent tyranny and recourse to assassination.
Edmund Randolph, who would become the first Attorney General under the
Constitution and later be forced to resign from the Washington Cabinet
on accusation of "Treason", argued for the impeachment power, observing
"The Executive will have great opportunity of abusing his power;
particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some
respects the public money will be in his hands." Without the power to
impeach he saw the remedy in "tumults and insurrections." 5

James Wilson, a major participant in the Constitutional Convention,
speaking in the Pennsylvania ratification convention argued that for all
the power vested in the President, "not a single privilege is annexed to
his character, far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in
his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by
impeachment." 6

The great concern of the Constitution was that there never be an
imperial presidency disregarding law and usurping powers of the
government and the people. This is further revealed by two provisions in
Article II of the Constitution. The final clause of Article II, Section
3, which follows the recitation of Presidential powers and duties set
forth in Sections 2 and 3, provides "he shall take care that the Laws be
faithfully executed..." The last paragraph of Article II, section 1
prescribes the Oath or Affirmation to be taken "Before he enter on the
Execution of his Office" ... "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States."

By the impeachment power, the authors of the Constitution intended to
prevent the emergence of a tyrant, or despot in the form of a President
who could destroy "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
posterity."

Read that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"bibby7,

I think it's interesting you have have never talked to me or probably
read anything I have written, but you already know everything about me.
Are you a mindless attack dog for the left who bites anyone who shows
any conservative inclinations?"
**************************************************************

No, I am not a left or right person. I am just a concerned person, who
once had fine neighbours to the south, that I loved and respected.

Bush cut that number in half when he began his futile "War on
Terrorism". What a laugh! It is even more moronic than the "War on
Drugs". It has split America in two, and make haters out of, what was
once, the most united country in the world.

He has made targets of Americans, and those who support American
policies..(there ain't too many supporters left, either)

He has overseen the slaughter of tens of thousnads of innocent
civilians, and thousands of American sevice men/women.

All this was done on the strength of a pack of lies, deceit, and
doctored papers.Yellow Cake uranium, anyone?

Yeah, he sure has been good for America.. Want a good job? Try India,
China, or any country besides the US..Your jobs belong to foreigners
now, and the country in nearly bankrupt!

When I see Bin Laden captured or dead, I will begin to trust America and
American policies again.

Bobby, you speak the truth, it is a shame at what has occurred yet as
one person I can do nothing. The worst part of this whole affair in the
last few years is only those in control can do anything, and those who
do control have done what they wanted. It is an evil web that has been
woven and I hate to say it but only god may be able to help us now. The
politicians of today have destroyed what I believe in.

G

You are so right, Gryphyn..Only Divine Intervention can save all of
us..And, I ain't holdin' my breath for that..

What a pity. Instead of labeling others as fanatics, the populace should
unite and rid the US of the real fanatics..

Divide and conquer..Smoke and Mirrors..That's what Americans are being
fed!!And half of them are just lapping it up, as the world slowly sinks
into a chaos that is unstoppable!!

Impeach Bush? pfffffffffffffft!!!!! I dont care if Bush, Gore or Clinton
was president its a funny dayum thing every american FULLY SUPPORTED our
going in when 9-11 went down.
Bunch of dayummm traitors in MY HONEST OHHHHHPINION!!!!

God Bless America AND all the brave men AND women serving proudly during
this war!

I'm just a bit confused. I always thought that impeachment was a legal
preceeding in a government official was charged with and then tried on
charges. So I looked up the definition

Definition
impeach Show phonetics
verb [T]
to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a
serious offence in connection with their job, especially in the US:
The governor was impeached for wrongful use of state money.

It seems there are many statements, but how does one make them formal.
If senators, representatives say they think the President should be
"impeached", why don't they make a LEGAL charge, expecially if they
believe there is so much substantiating evidence?

How does one make a legal charge?

And again - making the charge still requires that a trial, in which the
charges must be upheld by evidence, is still in order.

It seems to me that we "all of us" whether opposed to Bush, with Bush,
or indiferent, have a right to require clarification.

Do we not?

Red Thank you for your last post, that is exactly my point. It must be
shown that Bush abused his executive/police powers in order to impeach
him.

So far I have not seen one piece of evidence proving he broke the law.



G

Wow,,,
After yall got rid of me,,,

This turned into a good thread!!!!

representative McKinney filed articles of impeachment on fri..dec 8,
2006...

At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney’s articles of
impeachment, is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the
oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and
defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the
charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war:
“George Walker Bush … in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold
intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the
full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting
information … and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s
alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency
and other intelligence agencies.”
This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, “with
the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress
in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the
people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an
informed choice.”
Article II, “Abuse of office and of executive privilege,” states that
President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by “obstructing and
hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking
to expand the scope of the powers of his office.” The President has
“failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those
responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and
malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.”
This article continues by indicting Vice President **** Cheney and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or
“fix” intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq’s weapons programs.
Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush’s impeachment and
removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against
Cheney and Rice.
Article III states that President Bush has failed to “ensure the laws
are faithfully executed” and that he has “violated the letter and spirit
of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military
courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that
carry out the law.”

there are grounds for impeachment...

THEORIES

While checking on the status of the bill you mention (the impeachment
bill) I noticed something startling. I have never followed closly the
working methods of congress. What exactally do they do with their
taxpayer payed time. Party?

In checking on said bill I discovered it has been sent to committee.
The startling part was that ALL the bills I saw on the list (bills that
are important to this country) presented to congress have been sent to
committee. Most of them have been in committee for 3 or 4 months.

If my employees performed their duties in such a slothful manner I would
fire them.

I am shocked and appalled.

And if there just happens to be a congressional representative reading
these threads or one of their many lackys. I have but one thing to say.

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND START TAKIN CARE OF BUSINESS OR I WILL FIND A WAY
TO REMOVE YOU FROM OFFICE.

YOU ARE MY EMPLOYEE AND I AM WAY UPSET WITH THE WAY YOU DO BUSINESS.

THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE.

I hate to say it Devinci but that sounds like someone trying to push the
envelope of jurist prudence. It will take a lot of proof to convince me
that a lie is grounds for impeachment. As I said earlier in this post,
if we were to impeach each politician for lieing we would be without ANY
representation in congress or the senate.

Grounds for impeachment must be met, and it must be proved that Bush
Broke the Law, only then is impeachment possible. Unless something has
been rewritten since the Nixon proceedings. I remember Walter Cronkite
carrying on about what is necessary, Tom Brokaw did his bit about it
also, and I think Barbara Walters did also.

Since the cabinet of Bush has been Changed around since he first took
office that could be considered doing something about chain of command
and Possible allegations of impropriaties. This in itself would show he
Tried to take care of certain things that this statement refers to.

We Have NO idea what is going to happen, and as far as I many like
myself are concerned think this is just another waste of Taxpayers
Dollars on a witch hunt.

Seems to me Bush will be out of Office this year? Then it would be
possible to have a JURY Trial of his actions. To impeach is to remove
from Office so that proper Criminal Proceedings can be Followed. That
means he will then be charged with criminal negligence and put on trial
for his crimes if they can be considered crimes.

As AD stated if these congressmen worked half as hard to get some of
these bills/ammendings as they are on trying to hang Bush this country
would be Far better off.

JMHO

G

Countinued question, or proof of conspiracy within the Bush
Administration. How far will they go??

White House Pushed Ashcroft on Wiretaps
Published: 5/15/07, 11:46 AM EDT
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was
so questionable that a top Justice Department official refused for a
time to reauthorize it, sparking a battle with top White House officials
at the bedside of an ailing attorney general, a Senate panel was told
Tuesday.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary
Committee on Tuesday that he refused to recertify the program because
Attorney General John Ashcroft had reservations about its legality just
before falling ill with pancreatitis in March 2004.

Comey, the acting attorney general during Ashcroft's absence, said
then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and former White House Chief
of Staff Andy Card responded by trying to get Ashcroft to sign the
recertification from his bed at George Washington University Hospital.

During that dramatic meeting, also attended by Comey, Ashcroft lifted
his head off the pillow and appeared reluctant to sign the document,
pointing out that Comey held the powers of the office.

Gonzales and Card then left the hospital room, Comey said.

"I was angry," Comey told the panel. "I thought I had just witnessed an
effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers
of the attorney general."

The hospital room confrontation had been previously reported, but this
was the first time Comey has spoken about it publicly.

hindsight's 20/20


*doh*

LOL, twighlight...
See Bush tried and could not get approval from the acting AG, so he
tried to by-pass him and go to the death bed of the AG who was too sick
to perform the actions of his office, but even he was not so bad off to
realize the ploy and told them the acting AG would have to approve. when
all that didnt work he bypassed the law altogether and made the wire
taps etc. illegally breaking laws of the constitution. This article is
an investigation into the Administrations illegal activities and is
damming evidence against him. Not Hindsight, but evidence!!

Evidence indeed.....I do think he should be impeached..though it should
wait until he is out of office simply because of the repercussions it
will have in Iraq and the men and women over there fighting.