I still don’t think Bush is going to escape impeachment like I called for in December. My conservative readers scorn impeachment because their boy can do no wrong. I still don’t understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off. That’s fine.
The California State Legislature has moved to pass legislation calling for the impeachment of Bush and Dick Cheney. The lawmaker introducing the measure is Paul Koretz of L.A.
The resolution, in the words of Koretz’s press release, “bases the call for impeachment upon the Bush Administration intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives and casualties; exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard; conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the ‘Federal Torture Act’ and indicating intent to continue such actions; spying on American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Agency Surveillance Act; leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, and holding American citizens without charge or trial.”
I think a lot of this is political posturing and I don’t agree with alot of what is said. My sole reason for calling for impeachment is based on NSA eavesdropping and civil rights. Read the article I linked to and the comments that followed.
Source: CensureBush.org
Stumble it!
About the Author: Aaron Brazell is the lead editor of Technosailor.com and a social media expert. His passion is to see companies and individuals use the internet and web technologies wisely and effectively to promote their brands and companies. He served as Director of Technology at b5media from 2005-2008 and is currently an independent consultant.
Add New Comment
Viewing 15 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Spying on America? If that's what you want to call it go right ahead, and if you want to get rid of it, go right ahead, and if you want to start digging that bomb shelter, I suggest you do that ASAP, because the terrorists are going to stop at nothing to attack this country. complete privacy, which was lost years ago, in case you didn't notice, has a heavy price, including, in this case, loss of security
and just what is going to be accomplished by impeaching Bush? It would be an embarassment to the country and a victory for the french and the arabs, and nothing more
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
You didn't read my article then did you? It has nothing to do with not liking him. I think he's a fairly likable guy. It has to do with the rule of law, the same way the Clinton impeachment was about lying under oath (not a blowjob like A.J likes to think). There is no legality to the NSA eavesdropping without a warrant. The argument has already been made. Read it.
If the right to privacy can be used to justify abortion rights, it certainly can be expected as a basic tenant of American liberty. If you're so willing to give it up, I suggest you go turn yourself in to the FBI so they can document your life, take fingerprint and DNA samples of you and place a tracking device on your car. I, for one, am not willing to simply give up civil liberties because some guy from texas and his gangster adviser say it's necessary. If it's necessary, run it through your own Republican Congress and have the Constitution amended to remove the 4th amendment. Until then, yes, I expect privacy.
Since when has this been a popularity contest in the world. This is a nation of laws and three branches of government, not one that can do whatever he wants. Give me a break.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Oh I read your article. So you like Bush, fair enough. That wasn't really the main argument for either of us, but this:
The issue, though, is that we both have a completely different view on this. I don't think he broke the law. It was a little sketchy, but I don't think he did anything illegal. You're coming from the opposite direction, so we're just going to end up going in circles.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but the idea that allowing abortion is giving the mother privacy is one of the lamest excuses ever to circumventing constitutional law
I'm not saying I enjoy loss of privacy, merely that I'm not "naive" (if you will) enough to think I ever had it.
That still doesn't answer what you expect impeachment to accomplish. It will embarass the country, be a victory for the enemies, and be a huge battle won for the likes of John F'ing Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Michael Moore.
I don't like any of those three
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
2. How is it a victory for enemies? I thought the real war was a battle over ideals. Was not aware it was a battle over George Bush. In that case, let's hold steady because the 2008 election will mean the end of terrorism because George Bush will be out of office. Please.
3. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. Who cares? It's not political. It's legal.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I don't think a law has been broken, and I don't think there is any integrity missing from the current oval office.
Like it or not, anything involving this presidency and this regime is going to be all about bush. at the moment he is the face of the nation. having congress impeach him is a victory for those all over the world who hate him and hate what he's done
For being a legal issue it's remarkably partisan
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
All of a sudden, privacy means a loss of security, and we should all give up our privacy for little if any security? Where does this logic come from? Didn't Ben Franklin address this already?
Fearmongering!
Name one single shred of evidence that supports the idea that being spied upon by the NSA directly prevents terrorist attacks. How about basic old ordinary police and intelligence work! You know, the boring kind that doesn't result in a ruined morale, wrecked legal code, and the sort of bullcrap that went on in all those "other" countries like the Soviet Union and East Germany. They had the absolute best of intentions with keeping tabs on their citizens. You see how that turned out, don't you?
This crap has got to stop - the "post 9/11 terrorist addiction" robs taxpayers of both money and freedom and offers a fig leaf of a shadow of a half-assed promise of "security" and "safety".
It's insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
What hypocritical garbage. Can it! Grow some nads and be a Republican of merit, not a Republican of convenience!
There, I've said my piece. And now I need to count to three. Or ten! Twice!
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
2. Okay, so it's a victory for those who hate him. It's a victory for a nation built on justice as well.
3. Yes it is partisan, as was Clinton's impeachment. NAturally. I don't think anything can be done in Washington that isn't partisan these days. AND it's still a legal issue. Wow... 2 for the price of one.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Hey, hey... HEY! ;-) I happen to be one of thos pro-gun conservatives and I obviously haven't fallen in love with this stuff.
Damn... preach it.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
BUT
I think the legality is far too grey to say Bush is a criminal
and
Bush hardly deserves to be impeached for this, which was what the original argument was.
It’s insulting to see the same right-wingers who decried and deplored relatively mild gun laws as evil pre-emptive desecrations of the sacred right to keep and bear arms suddenly fall in love with the idea of pre-emptive laws concerning communications and terrorism and then up the ante by many order of magnitude with a pre-emptive WAR!
I don't think I follow your logic here. Being anti gun laws doesn't really have a ton to do with Bush getting impeached over this
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Aaron, you brought up abortion rights, and that's a good point: abortion ends as many live daily as terrorists did on 9/11. Sounds like "penny wise, pound foolish" to me.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I still don't understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off.
I...I don't quite know where to begin on this one, so I'll take the bait- how is Bush more liberal than clinton?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Ooh, ooh! I've got one!
No Child Left Behind.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Also, Clinton was guilty of doing nothing economically, which is exactly how we ended up in a 90s boom. Low government interfereance, high private sector performance.
Also, Clinton never increased the size of government as Bush has.... can anyone say Department of Homeland Security?
Added: +1 on NCLB
Add New Comment