Kucinich Offers Impeachment Artcles Against Bush

[oldwirehands]

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4167427.shtml)

(The Politico) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

Kucinich has introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney. That resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which has taken no action on the measure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."

Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks.

[oldwirehands]

Sorry about the title typo.

[GuitarR0cker1]

He should be impeached but this is going to go nowhere. The Democratic House leadership aren't going to support this at all and I think that 75% of Democrats will be strongly against this for political reasons.

[Broken Parachute]

He should be impeached but this is going to go nowhere. The Democratic House leadership aren't going to support this at all and I think that 75% of Democrats will be strongly against this for political reasons.Why do you say that?

[Machu505]

I frankly do not want impeachment. I want him to be promptly arrested, tried, and executed.

[Machu505]

Why do you say that?

War crimes. I'm sure he's gotten a blowjob once or twice too.

[oldwirehands]

Because he lied to congress and lied to the American people over a war that was unprovoked?

Clinton was up for impeachment for way less and he even apologized on national TV.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Why do you say that?
He misled the nation to war with Iraq when he knew that much of the stuff he was saying was false, because most agencies of the government knew at least those basic facts.(Hussein not supporting Al-Qaeda etc). I know that isn't that large of a reason but compared to the Republican impeachement of Clinton this is a gigantic reason.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I frankly do not want impeachment. I want him to be promptly arrested, tried, and executed.
Thats pretty hardcore, maybe arrested but I think those who should be executed are Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

[Machu505]

He misled the nation to war with Iraq when he knew that much of the stuff he was saying was false, because most agencies of the government knew at least those basic facts.(Hussein not supporting Al-Qaeda etc). I know that isn't that large of a reason but compared to the Republican impeachement of Clinton this is a gigantic reason.

Not that large of a reason? 100,000 families beg to differ.

[Broken Parachute]

War crimes. I'm sure he's gotten a blowjob once or twice too.I wanted to hear it from him. He says he knows so much about politics, I wanted to see his answer.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Not that large of a reason? 100,000 families beg to differ.
Well we are almost always misled into war and you could argue that somehow Bush was misled into believing these facts and information was not true.

[Broken Parachute]

Not saying he doesn't deserve it, but there's no chance he's impeached.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Not saying he doesn't deserve it, but there's no chance he's impeached.
Yeah I think it is pretty obvious there are many political reason why the Blue Dog Democrats, most of the DLC and the House Leadership would be against this 100%.

[Machu505]

I wanted to hear it from him. He says he knows so much about politics, I wanted to see his answer.

Ok, sorry.

[loveisdead]

Well we are almost always misled into war and you could argue that somehow Bush was misled into believing these facts and information was not true.
huh?

[GuitarR0cker1]

huh?
Yeah I post confusing things. What I meant to say is that in foriegn involvements not involving self-defense presidents have almost always fudged the facts to their advantage.

[Nevuk]

Hurrah.

[saysmydoctor]

:appl: Will support.

[open mind]

impeachment doesn't make sense to me since he'd be out of office by the time they got around to it. i'd like to see criminal charges brought against the man (and most of his administration) after he leaves office though. if convicted i think they should have to do time in guantanamo or an iraqi prison.

[4N6 science]

too little too late, I don't think Bush and his loyalists will be tried after leaving office because I believe people just want to forget this guy. I will not lie sending 4,000+ soldiers to their death for no reason and have 125,000+ injured is far greater a crime than Clinton having an relations with an intern. I'm just tired of the republicans running everything and controlling people.

[Steve Henderson]

I was going to post this same thing.

For the people saying it doesn't matter, I think Keith Olbermann said it best when he acknowledged that at least this will allow it to be recorded for record and history, and can show that at least someone did not sit idly by while all this was happening.

To be honest, this should have been raised a LONG time ago, but I think the whole McClellan story has lit a fire under some rear ends. Either way, I have gained a ton of respect for Kucinich for rocking the boat when no one else would. (plus his wife is hot)

[FadedFocus]

I'll give Kucinich credit for not staying completely silent on this issue, but its far too late to go ahead with this. As much as I would have liked to see this happen, the better time would have been 5 years ago. History will recognize that he did what others failed to do and that was actually do something meaningful about this instead of screaming at cameras like some others do.

[AnarchyintheUS]

If Bush should be impeached for War Crimes, I would say that Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, and Truman should have gotten the same.

[4N6 science]

Even though I know Bush won't be impeached or criminally investigated, I take solice in the fact that history will judge him very harshly and he will go down as one of the worst presidents this country has seen.

[se1046]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.

[Steve Henderson]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.
You are missing the point.

[saysmydoctor]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.
You are dumb.

[se1046]

You are missing the point.

Oh no. I'm not missing the point. The point is... every politician is crooked. I don't think what Bush did is deserving of impeachment.

[se1046]

You are dumb.

Nice argument. Good INTELLIGENT argument.

[mattybobviously]

Is this the second on third time Kucinich has brought about articles of impeachment?

Either way, Dems won't back it, as much as they should. I hope some day someone puts Bush on trial, but I am afraid we'll never see that time.

[Nevuk]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left.
More talking points plz.
Even if he doesn't deserve to be impeached for the starting of the war, the implementation of it has been horrendous. Blackwater, the corporate interests, building buildings whose walls are filled with shit (literally), etc. And putting down his foot and saying "do this or we go to war" is not in Bush's authority. It is not the right of the president to declare, only congress can. Purposefully tricking congress and the public merely to fulfill a petty ultimatum is not justifiable.
The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.
Sadly, this concept is being used more and more to take away freedoms from people. Look at the patriot act, it was put in place to guarantee us our freedoms and instead strips us of every right. That's another impeachable thing for Bush.

[Nevuk]

Is this the second on third time Kucinich has brought about articles of impeachment?

Either way, Dems won't back it, as much as they should. I hope some day someone puts Bush on trial, but I am afraid we'll never see that time.
Second, I think. First time was against Cheney though.

[saysmydoctor]

Nice argument. Good INTELLIGENT argument.
If this isn't a pot kettle situation.

[CrenshawPunch]

I love all of these self-righteous people. It is amusing to watch you speak.

[se1046]

If this isn't a pot kettle situation.

No it actually isn't. You see you called my stupid offering no reasons for why I'm stupid. I called you stupid just blatantly mocking you. It's a totally different situation.

[Steve Henderson]

Oh no. I'm not missing the point. The point is... every politician is crooked. I don't think what Bush did is deserving of impeachment.
IF you would take the time to do some homework on this, you would see the articles are far beyond just the initiation of the war.

[Steve Henderson]

I love all of these self-righteous people. It is amusing to watch you speak.
Almost as entertaining as watching smug right wingers going down with the ship...

[saysmydoctor]

Almost as entertaining as watching smug right wingers going down with the ship...
http://users.rcn.com/bbober/zing/zphotos/zlogo_purple.gif

[TheOtherAndrew]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.

Nice argument. Good INTELLIGENT argument.
First of all, dismissing your opponents as socialists is a disgusting smear tactic that has been used by those without legitimate arguments for decades. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid it. It is also no more INTELLIGENT than what he said to you.




Second of all, find me proof that Sadaam was tied to Al Qaeda. I assume that's the organization you're talking about? There have been countless reports that Sadaam had no ties whatsoever to Al Qaeda, so saying that he was "knowingly involved" with them is quite a stretch.

In case you have any doubts about it, Colin Powell himself stated it was unlikely that there were any ties before his resignation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/) in 2004. Reports came out weeks after the attacks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1365672/Iraq-link-to-Sept-11-attack-and-anthrax-is-ruled-out.html) that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Simply searching for information that contradicts that theory will get you countless examples.

Now, find me one report that implies there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And don't argue with my sources that claiming that the "liberal media" is at work, you'll only wind up making a fool of yourself.

[CrenshawPunch]

Almost as entertaining as watching smug right wingers going down with the ship...


Who's going down with what ship now? Those republicans aren't my people. I'm a conservative, I don't follow party lines. Thanks for the amusing comment though.

[captainhampton]

i think it's funny that saysmydoctor is laughing at someone being called smug.

[TheOtherAndrew]

i think it's funny that saysmydoctor is laughing at someone being called smug.
you have a bad sense of humor.

[saysmydoctor]

i think it's funny that saysmydoctor is laughing at someone being called smug.
I think it's funny that you come in this forum--in general. Your opinion is uninformed so your presence isn't even appreciated.

[AnarchyintheUS]

Almost as entertaining as watching smug right wingers going down with the ship...

If you are talking about the GOP, I'm pretty sure McCain is gonna walk the election. Obama will be down and out even before the Democratic Convention.

PS - I'm not taking sides, both candidates are fucking idiots.

[awakenarogue]

If Bush should be impeached for War Crimes, I would say that Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, and Truman should have gotten the same.

just interested, but any specific reason(s) you have for each of them?

[Steve Henderson]

If you are talking about the GOP, I'm pretty sure McCain is gonna walk the election. Obama will be down and out even before the Democratic Convention.

PS - I'm not taking sides, both candidates are fucking idiots.
I'd love to see some basis for this belief.

[AnarchyintheUS]

I'd love to see some basis for this belief.

About the reasons McCain will win, or the fact the two of them are morons?

[Steve Henderson]

About the reasons McCain will win, or the fact the two of them are morons?
Specifically the latter, but both.

[Nevuk]

i think it's funny that saysmydoctor is laughing at someone being called smug.
Come on, this was an astute observation. Not that he wasn't right, but it is kind of funny.

[saysmydoctor]

Not following.

[Nevuk]

Not following.
You were right, but I still thought the statement was funny. I think that syntax should be more clear.

[oldwirehands]

c0mWVxlSysM

I won't post all of them for the sake of saving space but there are links to watch the rest of them.

[saysmydoctor]

He is a ballsy representative.

[oldwirehands]

I would have loved to seen Kucinich get the Democratic nomination over Obama. But of course, hardly anyone knew he was running or just completely ignored him.

[saysmydoctor]

His gun policy and yet his self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist credentials deterred me from supporting him.

[oldwirehands]

No one is perfect. Including Obama. I don't completely agree with his gun policy but it doesn't really bother me. They didn't have giant automatic-weapons around the time the Constitution was written and I don't think the Founders could have possibly predicted how powerful weaponry would get.

I am voting for Obama though.

[shit stroll]

His gun policy and yet his self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist credentials deterred me from supporting him.
banning semi automatic weapons does not violate the constitution.

[TheOtherAndrew]

First of all, dismissing your opponents as socialists is a disgusting smear tactic that has been used by those without legitimate arguments for decades. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid it. It is also no more INTELLIGENT than what he said to you.




Second of all, find me proof that Sadaam was tied to Al Qaeda. I assume that's the organization you're talking about? There have been countless reports that Sadaam had no ties whatsoever to Al Qaeda, so saying that he was "knowingly involved" with them is quite a stretch.

In case you have any doubts about it, Colin Powell himself stated it was unlikely that there were any ties before his resignation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/) in 2004. Reports came out weeks after the attacks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1365672/Iraq-link-to-Sept-11-attack-and-anthrax-is-ruled-out.html) that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Simply searching for information that contradicts that theory will get you countless examples.

Now, find me one report that implies there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And don't argue with my sources that claiming that the "liberal media" is at work, you'll only wind up making a fool of yourself.
By the way, se1046, you can respond to this at any time.

[boykosaurus]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

[open mind]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.

i've got three simple beefs with your logic here.......well i have more but i won't address the nonsense.
1.we've now killed at least a 100k innocent iraqis....which from all accounts is more innocent blood then saddam had on his hands.
2.no evidence of those facilities even existing at the time we went to war has surfaced......and you can't show someone what you don't have.
3.there is no evidence that saddam knowingly supported or was involved with al queda (al queda being the group that attacked us i assume you're talking about them).

[saysmydoctor]

banning semi automatic weapons does not violate the constitution.
Well, it is a hindrance on my right to arms. Not that I don't support a blanket ban on all weapons.
i've got three simple beefs with your logic here.......well i have more but i won't address the nonsense.
1.we've now killed at least a 100k innocent iraqis....which from all accounts is more innocent blood then saddam had on his hands.
2.no evidence of those facilities even existing at the time we went to war has surfaced......and you can't show someone what you don't have.
3.there is no evidence that saddam knowingly supported or was involved with al queda (al queda being the group that attacked us i assume you're talking about them).
:thumbsup:

[oldwirehands]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2682

If this fails, he plans on coming back with 60 articles and more people to read them on the floor. This guy is my hero.

[Nevuk]

I know all you left wing socialists would love to see bush impeached, but i think liberating iraq from a man that killed thousands of people, would not open his facilities to the UN or the US to be inspected for possible nuclear or chemical weapons, and is knowingly involved with terrorist organizations (the same ones that have attacked the U.S.). The bottom line is... he had three days to open the facilities, failed to do so, and war was the alternative. If the US had not gone ahead with that plan they would not be taken seriously by any country. I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not a fan of the Republican party. I'm definitely not a fan of the socialist left. The principle this country was founded upon was freedom. I don't want to sacrifice my freedom to a government that wants to put it's hand in every single little thing it can.
left hand left wing leeft left left left why not just come out and start calling people sinistrals?

[timchoke]

First of all, you guys can't really say he lied to Congress prior to going to Iraq. To the rest of the country? Yes, you can claim that. But members of Congress has access to the same intelligence reports Bush was using to make his case. If they felt they was insufficient evidence for war (which, as our representatives, they should have been pouring over these documents, not taking the word of anyone else, regardless of elected position) they should not have authorized budgets for such a war. I don't agree with the war, but it's pretty ignorant to place all of the blame on the President, when the legislative branch has means to stop him. Like saying Bush refused to provide proper armor? That was something Congress could have easily remedied instead of filling war budget bills with pork.

Also, I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating: most of the offenses Kucinich has brought forth aren't really impeachable offenses. For one, Congress authorized many of them (many under the GOP Congress, some under the Democrat controlled). Also, the points of circumventing the UN or whatnot...we happen to be a sovereign nation. I'm not saying we flex our muscle arrogantly, but we do not have to bow to a governing body that really should have any claim over us.

Someone a few pages back mentioned that, if we have to try Bush for war crimes, that many other presidents should be as well. Going by Kucinich's Articles, I have to agree. Why? Well....

"Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War."? Say hi, Vietnam.
"Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq."? Hey, FDR. (not in Iraq, but you get my point.)

Just sayin'...

Kucinish needs more evidence than just "secret" whatever to bring forth articles before Congress. Not saying those things don't exist, but secret task forces? Secret propaganda machines? Weak. Claiming Bush tampered with election? No hard evidence. Just because your boy lost doesn't mean there was cheating.


Now, I don't like Bush and severely disagree with him on many policies. But the only charge here that is worthy of impeachment is the spying/violating the 4th Amendment.
Was this long enough? haha.

[Nevuk]

There have been many presidents who deserved impeachment, However, none that have ever actually deserved it have gotten it. (Andrew Jackson spitting in the Supreme Court's face, in essence, is probably the most clearcut example. Bill Clinton for a blowjob is the example of the ridiculousness when it has occurred)

[timchoke]

Again, Clinton was impeached for perjury.

[open mind]

First of all, you guys can't really say he lied to Congress prior to going to Iraq. To the rest of the country? Yes, you can claim that. But members of Congress has access to the same intelligence reports Bush was using to make his case. If they felt they was insufficient evidence for war (which, as our representatives, they should have been pouring over these documents, not taking the word of anyone else, regardless of elected position) they should not have authorized budgets for such a war. I don't agree with the war, but it's pretty ignorant to place all of the blame on the President, when the legislative branch has means to stop him. Like saying Bush refused to provide proper armor? That was something Congress could have easily remedied instead of filling war budget bills with pork.

Also, I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating: most of the offenses Kucinich has brought forth aren't really impeachable offenses. For one, Congress authorized many of them (many under the GOP Congress, some under the Democrat controlled). Also, the points of circumventing the UN or whatnot...we happen to be a sovereign nation. I'm not saying we flex our muscle arrogantly, but we do not have to bow to a governing body that really should have any claim over us.

Someone a few pages back mentioned that, if we have to try Bush for war crimes, that many other presidents should be as well. Going by Kucinich's Articles, I have to agree. Why? Well....

"Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War."? Say hi, Vietnam.
"Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq."? Hey, FDR. (not in Iraq, but you get my point.)

Just sayin'...

Kucinish needs more evidence than just "secret" whatever to bring forth articles before Congress. Not saying those things don't exist, but secret task forces? Secret propaganda machines? Weak. Claiming Bush tampered with election? No hard evidence. Just because your boy lost doesn't mean there was cheating.


Now, I don't like Bush and severely disagree with him on many policies. But the only charge here that is worthy of impeachment is the spying/violating the 4th Amendment.
Was this long enough? haha.

i don't believe that everyone in congress has the same level of access to intelligence reports that the president does........i might be wrong on that but i doubt it.

[Nevuk]

Again, Clinton was impeached for perjury.
That's kind of the point. He lied under oath, about a relatively trivial matter. Bush, on the other hand has little compunction lying to us about important matters for our own good. He has however had the foresight to avoid testifying under oath or with witnesses as much as possible.

[timchoke]

Bush really isn't as moronic as people want to paint him out to be. Crazy? Yeah. But when it comes to things like covering his ass, the man should be teaching a course.

[Jason Tate]

That's kind of the point. He lied under oath, about a relatively trivial matter. Bush, on the other hand has little compunction lying to us about important matters for our own good. He has however had the foresight to avoid testifying under oath or with witnesses as much as possible.
Well, Bush has now set precedent to just say fuck off and not testify at all. Clinton should have done just that -- but he probably would have had the Republican congress rape him if he had tried that.

[Steve Henderson]

Bush really isn't as moronic as people want to paint him out to be. Crazy? Yeah. But when it comes to things like covering his ass, the man should be teaching a course.
Disagree. I think he has done a horrible job of covering his ass. We are, after all, finding out about his lies while he is still in office, when he should have the resources for far more effective cover ups.

The only difference with Bush is that he is surrounded by cowards that refuse to rise up and act against his bullshit. I can't say I ever thought I'd see the day when Kucinich and McClellan are some of the most respectable people in Washington.

[Nevuk]

Well, Bush has now set precedent to just say fuck off and not testify at all. Clinton should have done just that -- but he probably would have had the Republican congress rape him if he had tried that.
Now that I think about it, has anyone ever tried to get Bush himself to testify? His staff and cabinet members have been dodging, covering up "I don't recalling", resigning, etc. But the one impression I always got of Bush was that he honestly believed what he was saying was the truth, was good, was God's own given word. Bush is an idiot compared to some of our other presidents, but he probably has at least above average intelligence. Also, remember that Jimmy Carter was the one with the highest IQ(shitty measurement, but its there). I could see Bush being willing to testify under oath about things it would be a horrible idea to do so for.

[Jason Tate]

Now that I think about it, has anyone ever tried to get Bush himself to testify? His staff and cabinet members have been dodging, covering up "I don't recalling", resigning, etc. But the one impression I always got of Bush was that he honestly believed what he was saying was the truth, was good, was God's own given word. Bush is an idiot compared to some of our other presidents, but he probably has at least above average intelligence. Also, remember that Jimmy Carter was the one with the highest IQ(shitty measurement, but its there). I could see Bush being willing to testify under oath about things it would be a horrible idea to do so for.
Google "Bush executive privilege (http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+executive+privilege&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)" to see how many times he's used it.

[Nevuk]

Google "Bush executive privilege (http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+executive+privilege&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)" to see how many times he's used it.
Yes, but most of them don't involve him personally. He invokes it to prevent leaked documents, aides testifying, FBI investigations. No one has really gone after him, directly. With that said, I just think it would be interesting if someone did and he didn't invoke privilege, and likely somewhat entertaining. I'm almost positive he'd be just as protective of himself as he is of his friends though.

[Jason Tate]

Yes, but most of them don't involve him personally. He invokes it to prevent leaked documents, aides testifying, FBI investigations. No one has really gone after him, directly. With that said, I just think it would be interesting if someone did and he didn't invoke privilege, and likely somewhat entertaining. I'm almost positive he'd be just as protective of himself as he is of his friends though.
Like the 9/11 commission (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E5D6123CF935A 15751C0A9629C8B63)?

[Nevuk]

Like the 9/11 commission (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E5D6123CF935A 15751C0A9629C8B63)?
Interesting, I only remembered the Cheney part of that, and that it held a few more stipulations than are mentioned in the article. If I recall, it went something along the lines of he could refuse to answer any question he wished, no transcript could be made, it couldn't be recorded, had to be in private with a few people, and probably the most mindboggling one was that nothing he said could be considered to be under oath.

[Jason Tate]

Interesting, I only remembered the Cheney part of that, and that it held a few more stipulations than are mentioned in the article. If I recall, it went something along the lines of he could refuse to answer any question he wished, no transcript could be made, it couldn't be recorded, had to be in private with a few people, and probably the most mindboggling one was that nothing he said could be considered to be under oath.
I think some of those applied to Bush as well.

Rove refused to testify under oath - a private citizen - that's always awesome.

[WCC335]

Kucinich was my #1 for presidency. oh well.

[oldwirehands]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Future-without-Impeachme-by-Cheryl-Abraham-080624-56.html

An awesome article that explains why Bush/Cheney should be impeached.

[N8withoutSOUND]

I don't agree with the war, but it's pretty ignorant to place all of the blame on the President, when the legislative branch has means to stop him.
I strongly urge to watch Frontline's documentary, "Cheney's Law."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

It explains how Cheney and Bush basically gave themselves unlimited wartime power.

[oldwirehands]

Man, if nothing comes of this, that will be quite disappointing. The whole situation is a real embarrassment if nothing happens to these people.