MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

mimo2005 · 06-10-2008, 04:26 PM

Live vote now up at MSNBC: "Should Bush be impeached?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

Yes = 89%
No = 4.1%

**Drew1369** · 06-10-2008, 07:28 PM

Ask the same question of Fox news and use both results to determine what the country actually thinks.

**-=Rousseau=-** · 06-11-2008, 01:37 AM

Better yet, don't take any polls on a media site to be scientifically valid. MSNBC is, at least from my observations, one of the more liberal sites. No surprise here. (I note it as liberal having read maybe a few articles from there, and noting that MSN has a gay and lesbian section, whereas most news sites don't)

All polls say is what the people who actually cared to respond say. People who dislike Bush are more likely to read an article about impeaching him or vote in such a poll.

**TheAtheist** · 06-11-2008, 08:05 AM

I like the fact only 93.1 % of people have their votes posted out of 100% of people who have entered. Flawed if you ask me.

**simpswr** · 06-11-2008, 08:11 AM

Have the pro impeachers thought this thru ? . . Are they sure they want "the evil Chenney" in the number one spot???? . . . wait . . come to think of it, he's been there for the last 7 1/2 years . .

**Chode** · 06-12-2008, 08:54 PM

I think there are adequate ground to impeach Bush, but it isn't a good idea. We don't need a sideshow that won't end by him being removed from office, and will just distract from more pressing National concerns. Primarily the National concern of insuring that the next President isn't a Republican.

mommabear · 06-13-2008, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chode

I think there are adequate ground to impeach Bush, but it isn't a good idea. We don't need a sideshow that won't end by him being removed from office, and will just distract from more pressing National concerns. Primarily the National concern of insuring that the next President isn't a Republican.

That's true as far as it goes. But the primary and often overlooked problem is the failure of Congress to do its duty. "Defend and protect the constitution." (Which is also Bush's failure)

At any rate, the lack of will to investigate this is purely political on both sides. To give you an idea of what I mean here are snippets from a discussion about it with just one constitutional scholar.

Quote:

OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?

TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.

What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.

And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will. ...

OLBERMAN: ..... This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.

TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.

The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.

And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record. ....

OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?

TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done. ....

.... they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.

What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.

OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25098178/

I don't want to get into another useless debate about the Blue Dress and lying under oath about a sex act. But we all know that a large part of the push to impeach Clinton was purely political. The Republicans saw their chance to take down a popular president and regain the WH.

It's taken years for the Democrats to recover from that. They turned into cowards, afraid to challenge the wrath of the religious right and the neocons.

The crimes are clearly there in the Articles. Their silence makes them culpable too, along with the Republicans.

**sobeit** · 06-13-2008, 07:16 AM

though bush deserves impeachment and deserves prosecution I do not believe it should be done. It could lead to a dangerous precedent where every time the opposition disagrees with policy, there could be impeachment.

mommabear · 06-13-2008, 12:56 PM

You haven't read any of the 35 Articles of Impeachment have you? This isn't about "policy". It's about how the policy was implemented. It took over 4 hours to read the indictments into the Congressional Record. It's time-lined with all the events and actions that took place.

Here's just one example:

Quote:

Article II FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner that is damaging to the national security interests of the United States, as well as to fraudulently obtain and maintain congressional authorization and funding for the use of such military force against Iraq, thereby interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.

The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control, including the Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President's Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, on the one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al Qaeda, on the other hand, that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

(A) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke submitted to the President's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a memo he had written in response to George W. Bush's specific request that stated: (1) the case for linking Hussein to the September 11th attacks was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

(B) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the President received a President's Daily Briefing which indicated that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."

(C) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein- Al Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

(D) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave a "Low Confidence" rating to the notion of whether "in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda." The CIA never informed the President that there was an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, its most "aggressive" analysis contained in Iraq and al-Qaeda- Interpreting a Murky Relationship" dated June 21, 2002 was that Iraq had had "sporadic, wary contacts with al Qaeda since the mid-1990s rather than a relationship with al Qaeda that has developed over time."

(E) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the September 11th attacks, the President allowed and authorized those acting under his direction and control, including Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Lewis Libby, who reported directlyto both the President and the Vice President, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, to pressure intelligence analysts to alter their assessments and to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence or reinterpret raw data in ways that would further the Bush administration's goal of fraudulently establishing a relationship not only between Iraq and al Qaeda, but between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th.

(F) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th attacks, the President, and those acting under his direction and control have, since at least 2002 and continuing to the present, repeatedly issued public statements deliberately worded to mislead, words calculated in their implication to bring unrelated actors and circumstances into an artificially contrived reality thereby facilitating the systematic deception of Congress and the American people. Thus the public and some members of Congress, came to believe, falsely, that there was a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 911. This was accomplished through well-publicized statements by the Bush Administration which contrived to continually tie Iraq and 911 in the same statements of grave concern without making an explicit charge:

(1) " [If] Iraq regimes [sic] continues to defy us, and the world, we will move deliberately, yet decisively, to hold Iraq to account…It's a new world we're in. We used to think two oceans could separate us from an enemy. On that tragic day, September the 11th, 2001, we found out that's not the case. We found out this great land of liberty and of freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And therefore we must do everything we can -- everything we can -- to secure the homeland, to make us safe." Speech of President Bush in Iowa on September 16, 2002.

(2) "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors." March 6, 2003, Statement of President Bush in National Press Conference.

(3) "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

(4) "Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking. The major battleground in this war is Iraq." June 28, 2007, Speech of President Bush at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

(G) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no credible evidence of a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and that the intelligence community had specifically assessed that there was no such operational relationship, the President, both personally and through his subordinates and agents, has repeatedly falsely represented, both explicitly and implicitly, and through the misleading use of selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the United States and to the Congress that there was and is such an ongoing operational relationship, to wit:

(1) "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of President Bush to the Nation.

(2) "[W]e we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." October 14, 2002, Remarks by President Bush in Michigan.

(3) "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." November 1, 2002, Speech of President Bush in New Hampshire.

(4) "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." January 28, 2003, President Bush's State of the Union Address.

(5) "[W]hat I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network…" February 5, 2003, Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations.

(6) "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda." May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S. S. Abraham Lincoln

(H) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:

(1) "Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al- Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence."

(2) "The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed."

Through his participation and instance in the breathtaking scope of this deception, the President has used the highest office of trust to wage of campaign of deception of such sophistication as to deliberately subvert the national security interests of the United States. His dishonesty set the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members; injuries to tens of thousands of soldiers, the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and the ultimate expenditure of three to five trillion dollars for all costs covering the war; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

I'm not intending to get into an argument over the contents of the example I've shown. This is just to show that it's more than just a list that you see in most new stories about it.

If anyone wants to read the entire document, the pdf is here:

http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

**Drew1369** · 06-13-2008, 03:23 PM

Is there evidence that he did it on purpose?

**sobeit** · 06-13-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

You haven't read any of the 35 Articles of Impeachment have you? This isn't about "policy". It's about how the policy was implemented. It took over 4 hours to read the indictments into the Congressional Record. It's time-lined with all the events and actions that took place.

it is still just policy. as I already stated impeaching because of bad policy can lead to a dangerous precedent. It would make us no different than one of those two bit countries that force leaders out of office and shoot them.

Every single president america ever had had caused to be impeached because of some policy that may have violated some law. Once you take the genie out of the bottle, it would be hard to put backin, especially when you do it out of spite as whats being done now.

mikeber · 06-15-2008, 06:27 PM

The impeachment process in the US is more in the direction of if the president broke the law (i.e. Nixon in 74). But the more common case is bad policies which deeply affect the future of US. Today the president ratings can be as low as zero and nothing can be done until his 4 year term is over.
Maybe impeachment is the wrong term, but there should be a way congress can vote the president out of office IF THE MAJORITY THINKS HIS POLICY OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY IS BAD and it affects badly the US.
There are no checks and balances in US constitution such as those in parliamentary democracies. We are stuck with a terrible president for 4 years, "by hook or by crook".
As a matter of fact, he can go to sleep until January, or get a vacation in Bermuda and there is nothing we can do...

yustr · 06-15-2008, 09:33 PM

Mike, as much as I loath what Bush has done - and I think he's done damage that will take generations to mend, if ever - I respectfully disagree. Congress could have stopped the war in Iraq instantaneously by simply refusing to authorize any expenditure of funds there. That is their check on executive power. They authorized (a very limited defense of the US) back when they claim that they didn't know the reasons were lies and then the cowards refused to act even after they did know.

Congress could have refused to fund the NSA until they were told how the money was being spent.

They could have refused to allow the military to open a prison camp in Cuba.

They could have but they didn't.

Quote:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

How hard is that to remember?

06-10-2008, 04:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, The Relaxation Room/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 10,545 OS: xp	MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? Live vote now up at MSNBC: "Should Bush be impeached?" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904 Yes = 89% No = 4.1% __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

06-10-2008, 07:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,174 OS: Vista Business	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? Ask the same question of Fox news and use both results to determine what the country actually thinks. __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

06-11-2008, 01:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
-=Rousseau=- Where Was I? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 682 OS: Windows Vista Home Premium My System	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? Better yet, don't take any polls on a media site to be scientifically valid. MSNBC is, at least from my observations, one of the more liberal sites. No surprise here. (I note it as liberal having read maybe a few articles from there, and noting that MSN has a gay and lesbian section, whereas most news sites don't) All polls say is what the people who actually cared to respond say. People who dislike Bush are more likely to read an article about impeaching him or vote in such a poll.

06-11-2008, 08:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
TheAtheist TSF Articles Team Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portishead, Bristol Posts: 1,197 OS: xp sp2 My System	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? I like the fact only 93.1 % of people have their votes posted out of 100% of people who have entered. Flawed if you ask me. __________________ Submit New Articles "Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else." - James M. Barrie Join the TSF folding team - Team 85015

06-11-2008, 08:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
simpswr Mentor Hardware Team Join Date: May 2007 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 3,924 OS: XP, Vista	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? Have the pro impeachers thought this thru ? . . Are they sure they want "the evil Chenney" in the number one spot???? . . . wait . . come to think of it, he's been there for the last 7 1/2 years . . __________________ Rich MemTest86 \| BIOS \| BenchTest \| Spyware Cleaning \| How to Post a Screen shot \| PC running slow

06-12-2008, 08:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 735 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? I think there are adequate ground to impeach Bush, but it isn't a good idea. We don't need a sideshow that won't end by him being removed from office, and will just distract from more pressing National concerns. Primarily the National concern of insuring that the next President isn't a Republican. __________________ Sweet!

06-13-2008, 07:16 AM	#8 (permalink)
sobeit Mentor Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NEAR Posts: 4,670 OS: windows/linux	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? though bush deserves impeachment and deserves prosecution I do not believe it should be done. It could lead to a dangerous precedent where every time the opposition disagrees with policy, there could be impeachment. __________________ Do not feed the trolls.

06-13-2008, 03:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,174 OS: Vista Business	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? Is there evidence that he did it on purpose? __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

06-15-2008, 06:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
mikeber Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 43 OS: Win XP	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? The impeachment process in the US is more in the direction of if the president broke the law (i.e. Nixon in 74). But the more common case is bad policies which deeply affect the future of US. Today the president ratings can be as low as zero and nothing can be done until his 4 year term is over. Maybe impeachment is the wrong term, but there should be a way congress can vote the president out of office IF THE MAJORITY THINKS HIS POLICY OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY IS BAD and it affects badly the US. There are no checks and balances in US constitution such as those in parliamentary democracies. We are stuck with a terrible president for 4 years, "by hook or by crook". As a matter of fact, he can go to sleep until January, or get a vacation in Bermuda and there is nothing we can do...

06-16-2008, 03:19 AM	#14 (permalink)
mommabear Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 265 OS: XP Home Sp2	Re: MSNBC :Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?