have the proceedings begun yet? did i miss something? i keep checking the news thinking i must have missed the headline that said "Bush to be impeached!!!" but i never see it.

...pryderi?? are you there??...hold me

10/3/2005 9:54:57 AM

no proceedings have begun, that is why no news is covering it

10/3/2005 9:58:43 AM

The impeachment will begin when Dems control the House in '06.

10/3/2005 4:08:39 PM

do you promise??

i would need to see a link to verify that information

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 4:15 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/3/2005 4:14:16 PM

That wouldn't be prudent. Impeaching the President would mobilize his base and put them squarely behind him. This was the lesson learned from Clinton. Goerge W. would have to do something that is a clearly violation of Federal law to be impeached.

10/3/2005 4:24:04 PM

Quote :

"The impeachment will begin when Dems control the House in '06."

2106, right?

10/3/2005 5:05:10 PM

^ I concur, it's still wishful thinking at best

10/3/2005 8:19:44 PM

Quote :

"Analysis: Can Patrick Fitzgerald Indict Bush and Cheney? by DC Pol Sci Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 at 11:14:45 PDT If Patrick Fitzgerald is indeed either contemplating the indictment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney or contemplating naming them as unindicted co-conspirators in the plot to out Valerie Wilson as a CIA agent, we are entering uncharted legal waters. The one example history presents us, that of Watergate, differs in a very important respect: Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, had a House Judiciary Committee that was willing to take action and provide a remedy in the form of impeachment. Since the current House Judiciary Committee is obviously not so inclined, Fitzgerald is essentially faced with three options: 1) Indict Bush and Cheney and provoke a constitutional crisis on the question of whether a sitting President is indictable; 2) Name Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators and watch them get off scot free, to be tried only in the court of public opinion; or 3) Do nothing and let them get off without even public criticism. Can a sitting President be indicted? "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/2/141445/581

10/4/2005 11:11:49 AM

"Cheney is a focus of the prosecutor."
"Libby never admitted to a June 23rd meeting with Miller."
"Cheney was IN meetings of the WHIG and discussed Wilson there."
"Cheney aide #1 has flipped."
"Cheney aide #2 has flipped."

Quote :

"Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News. "He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this.""

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html


Doesn't that tie Bush into a cover-up?

10/19/2005 3:11:18 PM

Was that before or after this:

Quote :

"In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum.""

10/19/2005 3:32:26 PM

cheney, scooter, rove...these peopel will all be gone really soon

why impeach? nobody thats left matters.

10/19/2005 3:44:48 PM

^That's true. We could just spend the next 3-4 years watching Bush wander aimlessly and drunk.

10/19/2005 3:49:51 PM

^ Sounds just like Yale. Except replace 3-4 with 4-7.

10/19/2005 4:06:49 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172768,00.html

Tom DeLay has a warrant out for his arrest (on those money laundering charges). Not really related to this thread, but I thought you all would like to know.

10/19/2005 4:27:38 PM

Quote :

"The "impeachment" word on FOX You heard it right. On Brit Hume's panel today as the segment was closing Mort Kondracke said: (Newshounds) Mort: "...the predicate for the 'I-word', impeachment, started being brought up by the left wing...(eyebrows raised), honestly." Hume, who sniffed his derision, and said "That's it for the panel. Shut up!" Then he laughs and says stay tuned ..."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/24.html#a5538

10/25/2005 9:22:13 AM

With the Senate's part 2 investigation of the use intelligence by the White House, and "Scooter" Libby's indictment, Impeachment proceedings could begin in '07.

11/14/2005 12:20:10 PM

Lay off the crack, man.

11/14/2005 8:38:13 PM

I know you feel betrayed by our president, Wlfpk4Life. Bush violated your trust, but you just can't bring yourself to break up with him.

He lied to you, and you believed in those lies because you believed in him. It's ok to leave him, you can do it.

11/15/2005 12:31:45 PM

If the Democrats take power in 2006, I can imagine them pushing the impeachment process. They would have to be very careful though to not make it look like partisan witch hunt however, less the Republicans start to strongly object and thus create an even bigger mess.

That, and they'll have to impeach Dick Cheney first. If they don't, then when Bush is axed, Cheney will have some time as President of the United States, and I can't imagine Democrats wanting that man to even have the title "President" in front of his name for a single second.

11/15/2005 1:58:36 PM

Truthfully, I don't think the country wants to go through another impeachment process. Maybe Bush will just resign.

11/15/2005 2:15:05 PM

Right.

Resign.

11/15/2005 4:08:32 PM

^^^^its ok, the john birch society is still fighting the good fight for him. theyre gonna rise up and destroy those evil UN bastards and give us all freedom.

11/15/2005 4:10:04 PM

Quote :

""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." "

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

11/15/2005 4:25:56 PM

Quote :

" Barron's editorial calls for Congress to consider impeachment RAW STORY Print This | Email This Barron's editorial page editor Thomas G. Donlan penned a column for Monday's edition entitled "Unwarranted Executive Power" which calls on members of the House Judiciary Committee to investigate if the Bush Administration violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and to either change the law or consider impeachment, RAW STORY has learned. Barron's Magazine is a weekly publication for investors published by the Wall Street Journal. Excerpts from the subscriber only editorial: Advertisement # ...Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved. Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ. Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment. It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law."

12/26/2005 11:14:05 PM

this is stupid. bush briefed members of congress about this, both democrat and republican. he was hardly acting tyrannical.

If those members of congress had a problem with it, they could have gone into closed session and done whatever they needed to do to curtail his actions.

but they didn't. so STFU

[Edited on December 26, 2005 at 11:26 PM. Reason : s]

12/26/2005 11:25:37 PM

Quote :

" One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. "

12/26/2005 11:48:16 PM

Quote :

"Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in U.S. By Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 23, 2005; A04 The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post. Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution. The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute." There is one other statutory authority for wiretapping, which covers conventional criminal cases. That law describes itself, along with FISA, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation. But Moschella argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Such eavesdropping, he wrote, necessarily included conversations in which one party is in the United States. Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history. As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks. "Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused." Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Republican legislators involved in the negotiations could not be reached for comment last night."

Eat it.

12/27/2005 7:28:38 AM

hahahaha....thats laughable

12/27/2005 8:41:19 AM

they couldn't be reached for comment because they were laughing hysterically

12/27/2005 8:47:04 AM

^ Tell me honestly. What should happen that would make you stop acting like a fucking moron?

12/27/2005 9:04:16 AM

dude. are you serious - you think this shit is impeachable?

at worst, they'll just be forced to throw out of court any information gathered improperly

12/27/2005 9:09:21 AM

I'm not talking about impeachment. Of course, THAT is stupid. I'm not saying you should support it. However, I'm amazed at all the whores willing to give up everything, all in the name of "preserving our way of life".

I guess that's how Germany circa 1930 started. No, I'm not saying OMF Bush=Hitler. It's just obvious that the Americans are also not genetically immune to totalitarianism.

12/27/2005 9:29:15 AM

I disagree with what Bush did.

But the democrats aren't really using this issue very well to push for impeachment. they're continuing to sound like the boy who cried IMPEACH!

"Bush landed on a carrier - Impeach HIM!!"

"Bush read a book about a goat - Impeach HIM!!!"

etc. etc.

12/27/2005 10:57:46 AM

One day you're going to make a slight bit of sense.

Until that day, LOL@U

12/27/2005 11:12:09 AM

Quote :

"owever, I'm amazed at all the whores willing to give up everything, all in the name of "preserving our way of life"."

please tell me...in the past week...what have you been forced to do differently??

12/27/2005 1:34:31 PM

In the past week, I've been partying every night in Moscow bars. I plan to continue to do so for another 2 1/2 weeks.

The Democrats are impotent - there's no denying that. However, even if you choose not to support anything they do, you gotta vocally oppose the current administration. I don't think searches or wiretaps without warrants is exactly a joking matter.

12/27/2005 3:38:58 PM

uh huh....i have no idea what you just said


so...what exactly have you given up??

12/27/2005 3:58:47 PM

the democrats, with their hysterical cries for impeachment, have completely destroyed any value in opposing the administration on this.

12/27/2005 4:13:58 PM

all the democrats are jealous that they're boy Slick Willy got impeached but Bush won't

12/27/2005 5:35:31 PM

Quote :

"That wouldn't be prudent. Impeaching the President would mobilize his base and put them squarely behind him. This was the lesson learned from Clinton. Goerge W. would have to do something that is a clearly violation of Federal law to be impeached."

Would authorizing illegal wiretaps qualify?

12/27/2005 8:28:21 PM

nope....cause it was legal

12/28/2005 9:08:22 AM

it may not be legal - that's up to the courts to decide.

the very questionable nature of its legality is enough to nix any hopes of impeachment.

can't impeach someone for doing something that hadn't yet been determined to be illegal by the courts

[Edited on December 28, 2005 at 10:06 AM. Reason : s]

12/28/2005 10:06:25 AM

Quote :

"the democrats, with their hysterical cries for impeachment, have completely destroyed any value in opposing the administration on this."

This is stupid. If you weren't a partisan whore, you'd realize one normally opposes things on the merit of the said things. Not based on who else opposes them.

12/28/2005 11:00:26 AM

more holier than though bullcrap...

if you werent such a partisan whore you might realize that the democrates oppose anything this republican president does and will jump at any and every chance they get to cry "impeach"

12/28/2005 11:44:20 AM

Quote :

"more holier than though "

LOL

12/28/2005 11:51:57 AM

thats right...dont act like you are above the fray

12/28/2005 12:03:25 PM

Quote :

"If you weren't a partisan whore, you'd realize one normally opposes things on the merit of the said things. Not based on who else opposes them."

yes, i realize that. I also realize that whereas I do oppose this stuff, its a waste of time and effort to be vocal about it because I would just get lumped in with said hysterical democrats.

now, if they'd responsibly oppose the administration, we could possibly effect some change.

[Edited on December 28, 2005 at 12:07 PM. Reason : s]

12/28/2005 12:06:52 PM

Goddamn I hope he gets impeached. It would be the single dumbest thing that the Democrats could do. The American public would realize how irrelevant this is and his approval rating would shoot up to 70%, just like Clinton's did.


Bush for Impeachment '06!

1/3/2006 4:35:51 PM