Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles

Not at all, but I am attempting to hose down claims that the fact it won't get off the ground is due to the fact that GW is innocent of the allegations. I don't see this as holding water.

Also, in the future it may save the World from from a repetition of this behaviour, plus I feel that in a case where the evidence is so blatant, to let it slide is a sign to others that if you are President, anything goes.

And, I've always had a strange belief that criminals or suspected criminals should not be able to escape justice just because they are politicians. The cost is not even worth considering, what will it be,... a day's budget for the War in Iraq??? A mere trifle in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Yes but a days budget for the Iraq war does some good, paying to prosecute a politician knowing he will walk away at the end of it even if found guilty is just a waste of money.
 
Is that any different than the waste of money on a war that has a good chance of making no difference?

If your case were true, we wouldn't bother judging and imprisoning any criminals either, after all it doesn't appear to stop crime.

It is a moral imperative that something should be done.
 
1) While Iraq may be a misguided venture keeping those tasked with the job of fighting it supplied is not.

2) If I thought all that would come of judging criminals was a blotch on their record and less funding for their library I would be opposed to wasting money on their trials as well.

The time to have challenged Bush's plans and schemes was when the arose not 5 years later.
 
I guess I'm just a old softie at heart who doesn't like to think that crime should go unpunished or at least unacknowledged.

I realise you can't see any advantage in prosecuting GW, but do you think that there is no case for him to answer?
 
Not at this point no, all of the things he is accused of could have been stopped by effective government I think charging a guy because others are too spineless to check his facts serves no purpose.
 
I'm afraid I don't agree. I have argued for law and order on other threads here I can't see why I should be seen to be as crooked as those who won't have this matter investigated.

If a crime is suspected, it should be investigated, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

And for the life of me, I can't see where you get the idea that it serves no purpose. As I said earlier if that were true why do we bother maintaining a criminal justice system? Yeah,... I know, when some crims are told how much it cost to prosecute them, they have answered, "If you would have given me that much money, I wouldn't have had to commit the crime, nor would you have had to pay to incarcerate me".

It's quite evident that the money is no problem, so why not do the right thing. No,... I was not advocating that we take a day's money away from supplying the troops, I merely used that as a relative cost to demonstrate how little this amount of money is to the US Government.
 
AikiRooster said:
He's a done a decent job with the cards he was dealt. Mistakes made? Of course, but I highly doubt anyone in his position would have been able to do much better. I think he's done more thing's correctly than errors made, which is a plus for a President. As time goes on after he's finished with the job, I assume eventually some tell all type stuff will come out, maybe and hopefully a little of it by him and not just folks talking trash.
Click to expand...

Boy, does this post sound like an apology if I ever did hear one, and to say nobody could have done better is to set the bar incredibly low. Judging from the polls, I think most people would say just the opposite, its hard to imagine anybody doing any worse.

Lying to get America into a war, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the illegal wiretapping without a warrent, the illegal manipulation of state elections, the leaking of a undercover CIA agent for political payback,
the use of torture, and denying prisoners access to the 5th amendment, the jerrymandering of the judicial system, interfering in a US election, and the wrongful prosecution of a state governor for the purposes of winning an election. These are IMPEACHABLE offenses.

And thats just the illegal stuff, wait till I run the list of the immoral things this president as done. A small sample:

The neglect of terrorism warnings that lead 9-11, the incompetance and indifference shown at Hurricane Katrina aftermath, his two taxcuts for millionaires, the attempted sale of critical infrastructure assets to a unfriendly nation, his contempt for science, anything intellectual, and people smarter than he is (which is most everybody), his personal ego to outshine his dad as president, (this he succeeded, he's a much worse president)

So on and so forth.
 
MontyB said:
What should have been Al Gore?

The only statement I recall making about him was in regards to the Bush/Gore race where I said it was a race of two rocks, dumb as a rock vs personality of one, but obviously we are talking personal opinion here.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am pointing the finger at the wrong guy, but the principle remains. It was a commonly held view on this forum in dissing Geo W. that Al Gore had won the election in fact. My apologies if you did not contribute to that position.

So I made a tongue in cheek qualification of your quotation.:) (your 'peter principle' target should have been Al Gore. No?)

That's all, no hidden agenda. I thought it was very clever, but then I would, wouldn't I.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Lying to get America into a war, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the illegal wiretapping without a warrent, the illegal manipulation of state elections, the leaking of a undercover CIA agent for political payback,
the use of torture, and denying prisoners access to the 5th amendment, the jerrymandering of the judicial system, interfering in a US election, and the wrongful prosecution of a state governor for the purposes of winning an election. These are IMPEACHABLE offenses.

And thats just the illegal stuff, wait till I run the list of the immoral things this president as done. A small sample:

The neglect of terrorism warnings that lead 9-11, the incompetance and indifference shown at Hurricane Katrina aftermath, his two taxcuts for millionaires, the attempted sale of critical infrastructure assets to a unfriendly nation.
Click to expand...

Now,.. how could anyone not love a man like that? Charming piece of work isn't he, well,... at least takes some of the heat off of other "world leaders" like Robert Mugabe :p

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Lord Acton. 1834-1902
 
The problem is that I doubt he did all these things on his own, I think its kind of rough blaming one man for the failures of many.

Don't get me wrong here I imagine the world will breath a sigh of relief when he is out of office but for all this stuff to have occurred it took a lot of spineless complacent officials to implement.

So while I don't like the guy and don't believe he will rate in the top 50% of US presidents I don't think he is as bad as people like to make out.
 
Quite so Monty.

But there is train of thought that says. Sh!t runs downhill,... but responsibility runs uphill.

Adolph Eichmann probably never put a single Jew on a transport to the death camps either, but he was deemed responsible, and eventually paid the price.

Yes,.. I must agree, he is no doubt not totally to blame, but one of the expectations of a person in such high office is that he has enough "nous" to administer those running the country in his name. This is perhaps one of the pitfalls of electing a a man of his calibre to run a country as powerful as the USA.

We could start a whole new thread on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al. But I wouldn't dare, that in itself could lead to WW III.
 
Last edited:
The real trouble makers are the ones who we don't read about every day. They usually have a lot of money and very little publicity. I think this sort of stuff is on the rise in many countries. Makes one wonder just how much power the guys who come on TV really have.
 
Yes Redneck, the "Movers and shakers" of the world, they've usually got their sticky little fingers firmly in the pie too.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that I doubt he did all these things on his own, I think its kind of rough blaming one man for the failures of many.

Don't get me wrong here I imagine the world will breath a sigh of relief when he is out of office but for all this stuff to have occurred it took a lot of spineless complacent officials to implement.

So while I don't like the guy and don't believe he will rate in the top 50% of US presidents I don't think he is as bad as people like to make out.
Click to expand...


As Truman once said "the buck stops here", meaning the president is responsible no matter what. And yes, some of the things I mentioned were hatched by his advisors such as Karl Rove, and Cheney. And while I do not belief for an instant the president was totally ignorant for these things, even if he was it doesnt matter; he is responsible. He is their boss, their actions are his responisbility And his crimes are impeachable.

When you think that they impeached Clinton (ignoring whether you like the man or not) about lying about a ******* and meanwhile the stuff I mentioned above is allowed to pass without even a reprimand, I have great fear in the direction our country is heading, we are veering into the path of dictatorship. Its not too late to stop, but this past 8 years has been a particularily dark time of our country.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Yes, the president is ultimately responsible. No excuses, no ifs, no buts.
Click to expand...


Yes - for both success and failure, and despite partisan opinions, we all must wait for history to speak on the big picture now unfolding, before we are empowered with full comprehension.

And of course the principle will hold true of the next incumbant.

Anyone here fancy the job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top