For All of You In Favor Of Impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney...

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he opposes impeachment of either President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Illinois Democrat said he would not back such a move although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush and Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009.

The senator, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

Obama spoke at a weekly constituent breakfast he and fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin sponsor. He was asked about impeachment.
 
Werbung:

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
The senator, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

Exactly. This is what I said earlier today to Jeffbiss:

I don’t want to screw up the failing political process even more for vengeful proceedings and trials of some imaginary “crimes”. When Clinton was being impeached, I remember telling one of my buddies that every president from here on out was going to be brought up on impeachment hearings. Bringing impeachment trials on Bush makes a mockery of the Constitution (specifically Article 2, Section 4). People like you make me think back to the days of Charles Sumner and the Radical Republicans. (Go ahead and Wikipedia him to see if you can make the connection.)
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
I wouldnt call for his impeachment either, for several reasons. It sets a bad tone for future Presidents. Clinton while he did commit perjury, the application to doing his job as President was a joke. I am not aware of anything Bush has done that is actually against the law and is an impeachable offense.
The most important reason not to impeach Bush, despite my dislike and distain for the man is that is brings the whole government to a screeching halt and nothing else gets done. Plus, I dont need the media circus.
 

michaelr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Here not there
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush and Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
Bull, we have rules and laws in this country. What these treasonous SOB's have been doing begs for prison time. It's too damn easy to say "impeachment will only bog the system" or better yet "they only have a short time left, so we should let them ride it out." They need to stop what their doing, come clean with their hidden agendas, and be held accountable just like any other American.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Interesting idea Michael, but not a sound practice. Can you show me where they broke the law. I am the first to say that if they(Bush and Cheney) broke the law, throw the book at them. But as far as I know, and what I am being told by the media(who by right wing accounts hate Bush) is that there has been no impeachable offense commited. Our dislike, distain for an elected official does not merit impeachment. It need only be reserved for serious cases. IMHO the Clinton case was a breech of the seriousness policy, but going back tit for tat will not do anyone any good but the political pundits on any number of talkshows who make thier money by trying to convince you they have the pulse of America through some flimsy polls where 500 people are asked a series of questions and those answers can be spun anyway the poller wants.
 

michaelr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Here not there
Interesting idea Michael, but not a sound practice. Can you show me where they broke the law. I am the first to say that if they(Bush and Cheney) broke the law, throw the book at them. But as far as I know, and what I am being told by the media(who by right wing accounts hate Bush) is that there has been no impeachable offense commited. Our dislike, distain for an elected official does not merit impeachment. It need only be reserved for serious cases. IMHO the Clinton case was a breech of the seriousness policy, but going back tit for tat will not do anyone any good but the political pundits on any number of talkshows who make thier money by trying to convince you they have the pulse of America through some flimsy polls where 500 people are asked a series of questions and those answers can be spun anyway the poller wants.

Bush came out the other day and "Granted" himself dictoral powers in charge of both houses of congress in the event of a "national emergency". Thats a crime in it self.
Here is another...5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva ConventionsThats a good crime because its a war crime.
Stupid Cheney says that he isn't part of the executive branch, essentially creating a fourth branch of government. If thats not a treasonous act, I don't know what is.
Cheney was doing business with Iran as head of Halliburton while the US had sanctions against Iran...clearly he broke the law there.
Thats a small sample, I could go on but I wont.
If we are to remain a nation of laws then we need to make sure that NO ONE is above the law.
 
Werbung:

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Michael, let me preface this by saying there is nothing that would make me laugh harder than to see Bush and Cheney handcuffed together in orange jumpsuits doing the perp walk, but until there is evidence that he committed an impeachable offense you are only getting yourself set up for further disappointment. Dont think for a minute that the Democrats arent doing everything they can to find a smoking gun on Bush-Cheney, but until they do, we must sit here and watch the ineptness continue, like it or not. That is our constitution and this isnt California we are talking where we can get a recall election going.

Having a policy ruled unconstitional is not an impeachable offense. See the line item veto ruling for that, among many other rulings throughout history.
Granting oneself powers in time of national emergency over those bodies would only be done in the case of those bodies through the deaths of many of its members such as in a terrorist act would he act through martial law until the body could be re-populated...read Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" for a fictional but possible account of this, published 10 years beforehand BTW.
Where has Cheney said he is not part of the Executive Branch? Although he may stretch the bounds of it, he has not to anyone who cares to talk about it broke the law.
If Haliburton was doing business in Iran, with Cheney as its head, it was before he was VP. Did you ever realise that Haliburton is a major US government contractor and doing business in Iran might have been to the benefit of the US...think intelligence agencies here.
You are right, we live in a nation of laws. We live in a nation of due process. Section II. Article 4 of the US Constitution says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The key term in this phrase being that of CONVICTED. He hasnt even been charged, the Executive Branch is given quite a bit of leeway by design to allow them to do thier jobs rather than have to be tied down with frivilous charges in the name of dislike for one person over the other, such as personal vendettas.
I dont like the men, Bush and Cheney have set this country back years and it will take the next leader a good deal of time to heal the wounds that have been caused by the ineptness we find ourselves in now. But calling for impeachment on every fart that went crosswise is a waste of time.
 
Top