California Joins Illinois in Calling for Bush Impeachment
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
Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.
Written by Aaron Brazell on April 27, 2006
Popularity: 1% [?]
Aaron Brazell
Steven Fisher
Ray Capece
Carlos Granier-Phelps
Andrew Feinberg
Mike Dougherty
Chris Bachmann
Leslie Poston
Jerald Sheets
Scott Goldblatt
Mykel Nahorniak
Peter Corbett
Jonathan Dingman
Geoff Livingston
Jeremy Toeman
Rachel James
Chris Parandian
Warren Sukernek
Joseph Hauckes
Shana Glickfield
Vinnie Garcia
David Nick
Duncan Riley
Carol Ott
Darren McLaughlin
Mike Oliver
Rico Masterson
Lou P. Nuts
That’s a liberal not a democrat. Democrat is party affiliation. Liberal is worldview.
be technical if you want, the two are nearly identical
By the way, you’re going to have to do better than that, Jesse.
By the way, I do hope you understand that neoconservatism is not conservatism. You do know that right?
Make sure you explain that to Zell Miller or Rudy Giuliani… ;-)
do better than what? arguing my case? It’s not like I expect to convince you anyways, and you’re certainly not going to convince me
What I don’t understand is these people who think they are so patriotic think we shouldn’t even INVESTIGATE what Bush and his administration has been doing. How many millions were spent INVESTIGATING Clinton over an affair!? Now we have a President who is trampling the Consitution, eliminating civil liberties, making up the law as he goes along, and misled us into going to war in Iraq using 9/11 as a backdrop!
….And all these people who believe they are so patriotic are the first ones to give up their civil rights out of fear! During WWII the entire world was at stake as millions were dying and what did a real leader say?? “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” – FDR… Here’s an older one – “They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty” – Ben Franklin…
Taht’s patriotism…Not blind support for George W. Bush.
and your point is? I never said we should ignore it. I’m saying bush didn’t break the law/shouldn’t be impeached, and had a semi valid reason for doing what he did. you’re saying I’m too scared to care about my rights
as for iraq, that’s a completely different issue.
Jesse: I presume you are privvy to data documenting the fact that Bush <del datetime=”2006-04-27T20:57:36+00:00″>is not guilty</del> did not commit a crime and therefore should not be investigated? If you have acceess to this information, I’m sure there are reportes dying to speak with you.
I’ll flip the question- explain why bush did break the law
He went around the secret FISA court and authorized warrentless wiretapping without their approval…They can wiretap, and then get retroactive approval, and they didn’t even do that. So, who knows who they were spying on and for what reason. Ignoring FISA is a breach of the law, is it not? He’s using “wartime” to justify doing anything he wants.
When you regurgitate all that stuff about giving up privacy because we are at risk of being attacked by terrorists is opening a door that shouldn’t be opened.
Obviously, you did not read everything in that article. Ask Duncan how much I like repeating myself. ;-)
THEN, he admitted it. :-)
It’s an admission of guilt and impeachment isn’t even necessary. Remove ‘im from office! :-)
Okay, so maybe we couldn’t be that lucky.
I read it, and I didn’t find it a satisfactory explanation.
you obviously want him out. who would you like instead? Kerry? Hillary?
Oh well then. If you can’t see warrentless wiretaps as illegal, I really don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Jesse: You really think this is about the man? This is not about the man, this is about the Office. Don’t forget I voted for Bush in 2000 and endorsed him (though did not vote for him) in 2004. He broke the law.
I’m not backing up wiretapping, I’m not looking the other way on anything, I’m not giving up my personal rights, all I’m doing is saying Bush doesn’t deserve either impeachment or getting thrown out of office.
The one man who I think is behind a lot more of this than people think and who very well might have broken countless laws is Donald Rumsfeld
Jesse: You make no sense at all. On one hand you’re saying you’re not giving up personal rights, but yet its okay for NSA to wiretap Americans illegally without any kind of oversight?
On the one hand you say you’re not backing up wiretap, but it’s been done so it’s okay?
On the one hand Bush doesn’t deserve to be impeached…blah, blah, blah, but Donald Rumsfeld is behind a lot? Wasn’t it Truman who said the buck stops here?
If Bush didn’t authorize the wiretaps then he is still responsible for his direct reports. But Bush did at the very least know about them because he admitted as much. Doesn’t that make him even more culpable?
Listen to yourself for a minute and ask yourself why you are taking the position you’re taking. It’s so all over the map that you might as well be John Kerry!
You have yet to present a reasonable argument for Bush not being impeached (or at minimum investigated). There’s a rule of thumb in the intelligence business (of which I am familiar given my job) that generally classified infomration taken in part is not usually sensitive but when taken as a whole becomes dangerous in the wrong hands. When you look at one incident of the President’s administration you might say it’s harmless by itself or it’s a mistake. But when you combine everything into a solid timeline and portfolio of failures and shortcoming, one starts to wonder if this man is fit for office.
1) The law (and the constitution, as it applies in this case) clearly state that domestic wiretaps require a warrant
2) Both Bush and his Attorney General have said that such wiretaps require a warrant
3) Bush has admitted ordering domestic wiretaps and specifically refusing to request a warrant, even though he has access to a special court dedicated to just that purpose, and can even wait and request the warrants three days after the fact if he wants to.
Liking or not liking Bush is not the issue. That’s the sort of argument you make in a feudal society, or a despotic one.
Agreeing or not agreeing with his goals is not the issue. That’s the kind of argument you make in an anarchy, or a bastion of corruption.
Here, we have laws. He broke them, and admitted it. End of story.
– MarkusQ
1) The law (and the constitution, as it applies in this case) clearly state that domestic wiretaps require a warrant
2) Both Bush and his Attorney General have said that such wiretaps require a warrant
3) Bush has admitted ordering domestic wiretaps and specifically refusing to request a warrant, even though he has access to a special court dedicated to just that purpose, and can even wait and request the warrants three days after the fact if he wants to.
Liking or not liking Bush is not the issue. That’s the sort of argument you make in a feudal society, or a despotic one.
Agreeing or not agreeing with his goals is not the issue. That’s the kind of argument you make in an anarchy, or a bastion of corruption.
Here, we have laws. He broke them, and admitted it. End of story.
– MarkusQ
I’m jumping into this conversation a bit late, but the idea of impeaching the president for defending the American people and the very Civil Liberites you are arguing about makes me sick… What king of American’s are you? What the F… would you be willing to do to defend YOUR country? When it comes down to life or death I am willing to give up some of me “Civil Liberties”… It’s much better to have a country to live in than to have one destroyed because of little thinkers who are not willing to fight for what we have… Keep this BS up and the day will come when you won’t have the ability or right to spout your BS… Islamofasicism is coming and you can keep up the BS about who did what and who didnt, but they don’t care… They only want you and me and every other AMERICAN DEAD… WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS… GO ahead and put Hillary or Pilosi, or Reid or the ASSHOLE KENNEDY in control… Can you speak Arab?
See this is what is wrong with brainwashed Republicans. Because I question the integrity of a man my Americanism is questioned.
I have no time to have intelligent conversation with you, Mike.
There’s no brainwashing here… If there is its on your part… Bush did this, Bush didn’t do this… What do you have time for Chris? What do you believe Bush should have done with the intelligence he had prior to invading Iraq? The intelligence all of the Democrats had?
Mike,
On 9/11/2001, roughly 3,000 people were murdered. The U.S. has since invaded two nations and is currently overseeing the establishment of new governments in their places.
Since 1/22/1973 over 40,000,000 children have been murdered “legally.” Nothing has been done to stop this.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
I can’t even begin to tell you how stunning those words are. You obviously don’t have a clue about the Islamic goal. If threatening to launch nuclear attacks against us isn’t a threat, what the #@$& is?
That was me. My browser memorized form fields and I didn’t look before hitting enter.
Mike, we’ve had these conversations more than I care to. The fact is you blindly follow a man whose ideals are nothing similar to yours. You say the alternatives are people like Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi when they are clearly not and you’re being irrationally dramatic about it. There are TRUE c onservatives out there, such as Sen Chuck Hagel for one, that would do a fine job leading the nation in a war on terror and who are true conservatives and don’t buy into this neo-con bullshit of America’s superiority and soveregnty in the world. Because thats what this is. It’s about putting bases in the middle east and Osama and Saddaam are just means to that end. If we were concerned about safety and terrorism we’d be more worried about immigration policy and North Korea. But no, those problems are too big and don’t have the same kind of return on investment that middle east pimping does.
And you buy it hook line and fucking sinker. There is nothing conservative about Bush’s policies and you questioning my Americanism and patriotism because of a man is nothing short of ludicrous. Let’s just change the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to George Bush of the Executive Branch of the government. And to the war in which he stands, one middle east, under America, indivisible, with ill-concieved liberty for all.
I apologize… I’m actually speaking directly to Aaron… A brainwashed Republican… Your Americanism isn’t being questioned, but I would question your motives and your desires for keeping this country secure… Bush has the LEGAL right to do what is needed to defend us from terrorism… What would be your response if he didn’t do everything within his means and we were attacked? Would you question why he didn’t do more? Would you question why he didn’t follow up on that one little clue that might have stop the attack? Oh… But if he had followed your plan he would never have known what the terrorist were planning… No problem. 100,000 dead…
what we really need is to get Tom Coburn elected president.
oh, and aaron, you wanted to nail down my position, here it is:
I don’t like wiretapping.
The legality is grey
Bush isn’t the best president ever
I respect his responsibility to do anything and everything he can to protect this country.
We go back to the origin of my calling for his impeachment. NSA wiretapping.
I don’t buy that he did everything he could. I DO however buy that he did what his agenda-pushing advisors told him to do.
Aaron go F… yourself… I don’t blindly follow anyone, and you have no idea how to follow anyone… Bush is making huge mistakes with the illigal aliens and I am totally against what he proposes to do… It’s the same on the Democrat side so nobody wins… This is not about Conservative or Liberal it’s about having someone in office who will fight for our country.
In regards to Iran… What do you propose we shoud do? Of course in your thinking Bush was wrong to invade Iraq… He keeps you awake at night because your phone is tapped… The evidence keepss pouring in that justifies what Bush did, but because you feel some of your Civil Liberties have been violated Bush is BAD… Impeach BUSH… So Fn… Childish… Grow up… You might live longer…
Of course not… You only have time to spout your “My Civil Liberites are being jeopardixed” posts… Impeach the president because he did what was necessary and LEGAL to defend the country and the American people… Sure sounds like something Reid or Kennedy would have to say…
Since 1978, it is illegal for the Executive Branch to engage in wiretaps apart from the authorization of the FISA court. Congress did not consent to change this with either the AUMF or the PATRIOT Act, so it’s only “legal” if Bush has declared himself Emperor.
In which case there’s no America left to defend.
At time of WAR the President has the legal right to do what is necessary to defend the country… This precedent has been set many times…
Give me a break, Mike. There is no legal state of war. You know this. I know this. Stop making shit up. If there was a legal state of war there would be a Congressional declaration of war. It doesn’t matter if there is a war powers act or not when the Constitution provides for one and only one way for there to be a legal state of war.
FURTHERMORE, since when can the President do whatever he wants in time of war? That is not at all the case, nor has it ever been the case. You’re fabricating stuff.
FURTHERMORE PART TWO, Republicans and Democrats both express reservations in that the war powers act did NOT expressly give the President the right or power to do anything that he wanted. It gave him the power to use military force, which is not the same as civilian agency wiretapping on Americans.
You’re brainwashed.
That’s from a li’l ol’ thing called the Declaration of Independence. It kinda lays out why this country was formed in the first place.
except bush isn’t trying to reduce this nation to absolute despotism.
liiiitle bit of a discrepancy there
Additionally, there has been no Declaration of War since the U.S. entered World War II. AUMF is, by the very fact of its existence, not a Declaration of War. Thus your remark here has nothing to do with this discussion.
I’m jumping into this conversation a bit late, but the idea of impeaching the president for defending the American people and the very Civil Liberites you are arguing about makes me sick… What king of American’s are you? What the F… would you be willing to do to defend YOUR country? When it comes down to life or death I am willing to give up some of me “Civil Liberties”… It’s much better to have a country to live in than to have one destroyed because of little thinkers who are not willing to fight for what we have… Keep this BS up and the day will come when you won’t have the ability or right to spout your BS… Islamofasicism is coming and you can keep up the BS about who did what and who didnt, but they don’t care… They only want you and me and every other AMERICAN DEAD… WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS… GO ahead and put Hillary or Pilosi, or Reid or the ASSHOLE KENNEDY in control… Can you speak Arab?
Jesse:
Yes he is.
Eliminate the need for a Legislature by taking authority that is Constitutionally only theres (war powers).
Eliminate the need for a Judiciary by taking away authority that is only theres (warrants, habeas corpus, etc).
That sure seems like the ascendecy of the Executive branch to me.
See this is what is wrong with brainwashed Republicans. Because I question the integrity of a man my Americanism is questioned.
I have no time to have intelligent conversation with you, Mike.
There’s no brainwashing here… If there is its on your part… Bush did this, Bush didn’t do this… What do you have time for Chris? What do you believe Bush should have done with the intelligence he had prior to invading Iraq? The intelligence all of the Democrats had?
See guys? The terrorists are winning. Bush is scared, and because of that he’s ripping apart the Constitutional framework that made this country what it is, all in an effort to “end terrorism.” This administration is destroying the very thing it claims (or believes itself) to be protecting.
This adminstration is acting like Samara L. Spann.
Mike,
On 9/11/2001, roughly 3,000 people were murdered. The U.S. has since invaded two nations and is currently overseeing the establishment of new governments in their places.
Since 1/22/1973 over 40,000,000 children have been murdered “legally.” Nothing has been done to stop this.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
Muslim jihadists are not a Big Threat to this nation.
I can’t even begin to tell you how stunning those words are. You obviously don’t have a clue about the Islamic goal. If threatening to launch nuclear attacks against us isn’t a threat, what the #@$& is?
That was me. My browser memorized form fields and I didn’t look before hitting enter.
Mike, we’ve had these conversations more than I care to. The fact is you blindly follow a man whose ideals are nothing similar to yours. You say the alternatives are people like Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi when they are clearly not and you’re being irrationally dramatic about it. There are TRUE c onservatives out there, such as Sen Chuck Hagel for one, that would do a fine job leading the nation in a war on terror and who are true conservatives and don’t buy into this neo-con bullshit of America’s superiority and soveregnty in the world. Because thats what this is. It’s about putting bases in the middle east and Osama and Saddaam are just means to that end. If we were concerned about safety and terrorism we’d be more worried about immigration policy and North Korea. But no, those problems are too big and don’t have the same kind of return on investment that middle east pimping does.
And you buy it hook line and fucking sinker. There is nothing conservative about Bush’s policies and you questioning my Americanism and patriotism because of a man is nothing short of ludicrous. Let’s just change the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to George Bush of the Executive Branch of the government. And to the war in which he stands, one middle east, under America, indivisible, with ill-concieved liberty for all.
I apologize… I’m actually speaking directly to Aaron… A brainwashed Republican… Your Americanism isn’t being questioned, but I would question your motives and your desires for keeping this country secure… Bush has the LEGAL right to do what is needed to defend us from terrorism… What would be your response if he didn’t do everything within his means and we were attacked? Would you question why he didn’t do more? Would you question why he didn’t follow up on that one little clue that might have stop the attack? Oh… But if he had followed your plan he would never have known what the terrorist were planning… No problem. 100,000 dead…
what we really need is to get Tom Coburn elected president.
oh, and aaron, you wanted to nail down my position, here it is:
I don’t like wiretapping.
The legality is grey
Bush isn’t the best president ever
I respect his responsibility to do anything and everything he can to protect this country.