Today is National Impeachment Day. For those of you who disagree with the job President Bush has done and will continue to do, please call attention to the administrations impeachable offences today on your blog. If you can't do that, put up a sign in your front yard, in your window, on your car, or write it on your forehead. Here are just some of the reasons why President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached:
President Bush pressured the EPA to clear the area around Ground Zero so that construction crews and first responders would get to work earlier.
The Bush Administration has consistently denied the existence of Global Warming until recently, and has taken no steps to improve the condition of the planet.
President Bush and his Administration completely mishandled everything involved with Hurricane Katrina, including the evacuation, the housing of survivors, and the clean-up effort.
President Bush introduced and The Patriot Act, which puts no limits on what the government can do to form a case, arrest, and detain a US Citizen without telling them what they're being accused of or allowing them access to a lawyer.
President Bush ordered the illegal wire-tapping of US Citizens.
.
Presdident Bush allowed the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghrab.
President Bush and his Administration initially lied to the American people about why we were going to war with Iraq, and has continued to lie about the purpose of the war, the management of the war, and what is happening to our soldiers.
And let's not forget:
3,334 US Soldiers have died in Iraq
24,912 US Soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
THANK THE LORD FOR GEORGE BUSH!!!
I'm kinda missing your point about the EPA. He should be impeached because he... wanted ground zero cleaned up sooner rather than later?
To what extent are you referring when you say, "President Bush has signed a bill to bypass The Writ of Habeas Corpus, which war Presidents have done in the past, but never to this extent."
Was it wrong then? Why weren't those Presidents impeached? Why doesn't the same reasoning apply?
Global warming is an impeachment issue? What a farce. Totally different ball-game there. Nice try.
Hurricane Katrina? That mishandling can only be credited to the Mayor of New Orleans and Louisiana's Governor. They were the ones in charge of overseeing it all.
Wait. Dubbaya was there at Abu Ghrab to "order" it? Hmm sounds kinda fishy to me. What PROOF is there that he indeed ordered it?
Ah yes... I was waiting for this to come up earlier.. BUSH LIED. *sigh* So old. So fake. Such folly.
Yes. I was wrong then. If they suspended it illegally like Bush did, they should have been impeached as well. I'll do some research on that. The same reasoning does apply.
Yes. Global Warminn is an impeachment issue. The President lied AGAIN about the existance of an environmental concern that could spell disaster for the human population as a whole.
He appointed friends who were unqualified for the job and as a result a lot of people died and thousands were displaced.
Do you really think something like Abu Ghrab happens and te President doesn't know about it? Did you not watch the news during the scandal.
Why is saying that he lied such a folly? Can you prove that what he said is true? Can you give me clear evidence that there was a credible threat against America. You say this is folly and yet you fail to give any reason for your belief. For further evidence of mine, see my most recent post.
And read this: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
I don't know how to write HTML code. I know. I should learn.
IB - Which lord would that be? The lord of the underworld? Exactly what are you thanking him for? What has this president done that is so godly?
As an avid christian-gamer you should be able to see the problems well enough to realize there are those who can honestly make this case as it has been made for such less so many time times prior.
You know, denial is not just a river in Egypt!
UWL:
Obviously, because George W. Bush is the Spawn of Lucifer, he can be blamed for natural disasters and isolated incidents of debauchery by army personnel? You seem to think he is omniscient about anything and everything as if he's sitting in front of a wall of tv's watching everyone go about their daily lives. What is this, the Truman Show?
As to Global Warminn:
Do you find it odd that during the 70's, there was an enormous outcry against Global Cooling. Ironic that there seems to be the same fear, the same insomnia, the same seemingly irrational frenzy going on now over the exact opposite ecological situation. I find that intriguing that back then there was all this "scientific" support for it, yet now there are those that are saying that it was actually rising. Contradiction?
So my point, in terms of the Presidency, is that the US is not the only nation that can be contributing to the man-made factors of Global Warming (regardless of how major or minor that contribution is). So to try to punish one man for something that can't even be his fault (China and Russia having huge industrial yards themselves) only shows that there are those who want to tack anything they can onto a list of "grievances" in order to take down their enemy, no matter how irrelevant those things are to actuality.
As to lying:
I'm saying that it is folly because the reasoning is fallacious.
1. If George Bush lied, then no WMD's would be found in Iraq.
2. No WMD's were found in Iraq.
Therefore,
Bush Lied.
(I think I remember seeing this on UL's blog... but anyways)
The problem? Due to the very setup of the argument, #2 MUST either support the antecedant ("if George Bush lied") or deny the consequent ("then no WMD's would be found in Iraq").
#2 supports the consequent, therefore it must be categorically rejected.
There are other reasons that can explain why the WMD's were not found, and lying isn't automatically the answer, just as "Jesus" isn't automatically the answer to any theological question.
Furthermore, being that it is setup incorrectly, we cannot say that the conclusion MUST be true. Hence, the burden of proof does not lie on me to say that he didn't lie, but on those who claim that he did.
Impeachment is a legal matter, after all. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
(and by "proving" I mean showing that he consciously and maliciously deceived the world community.)
CY:
Clearly, I am be thanking the bane of life itself...
Come, Come, now. You know better.
haha. Nice one-liner. I like that. It doesn't affect me, but I like it.
Well, today is the day after the "momentuous" National Impeachment Day. Wow. Everyone seems to be hung over from all the festive impeachment parties going on last night.
By the way, what happens at an impeachment party? Do people burn the American flag or effigies of George Bush? Do they fire their AK-47's in the air and shout "Alla' Akbar!" Sing "Joan Biaz-esque" songs on how evil George Bush is around bon-fires, roasting tofu wieners?
The only thing that would be meaningful to me is to eat "Clinton Cookies" served on "Andrew Johnson" paper plates?
What a day. Let's make it a national holiday.
Hey UL, Still apologizing for your lord and savior $hrubc0? I don't get it. Aren't you and your boy supposed to be worshipping at some church today instead of the church of bush. I guess worshipping a magic man in the sky isn't that different from worshipping a moron in the whitehouse. They are both meaningless expressions of fear.
IB - You are just regurgitating your dad's anti-global warming idiocy. Go back a few thread and witness his dissassembly.
Reasons to impeach Bush? Here's a few:
- the outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who dealt with containment of nuclear materials. as revenge against her husband for opposing the Iraq invasion.
- A series of lies about why war should be pursued in Iraq. A war which has so far cost over 400 billion dollars, or over $5000 dollars in tax money from my family alone
- extraordinary rendition and torture of prisoners, before a cowardly congress "legalized" such behavior.
- violation of various treaties by fiat, including the geneva convention regarding treatment of prisoners and occupied lands; Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter (regarding "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"; and various other lesser treaties, such as the Kyoto Accord. Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be overturned by presidential whim, but by congressional design.
- signing statements where the president declares his intentions to deliberately ignore laws which have been passed by Congress - the "deciders" as laid out by the constitution.
- War Crimes.
- the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, thereby damaging the credibility of the other 85 (Q: what did they do to keep their jobs?)
- illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping activities against U.S. citizens, accompanied by a flipant dismissal of FICA.
These are things that we know about, that have managed to be pried out an administration more secretive even than any during the Cold War (and this secrecy began before 9-11, so dont make that lame excuse).
But hey, just for the sake of arguement, lets say that none of these things were done with the knowledge of George Bush. Let's say that, like the cluster-fuck with FEMA and Katrina, Dubya was not directly involved, but safe in his bubble at the top of the pyramid. Shouldnt egregious incompetance also be grounds for dismissal. Republicans are so hot on running government like a business; would they put up with this kind of incompetetant management in a company they owned stock in? Hell, no!
Well, I'm a stock-holder in the United States of America, I own 1 share, like every other person does, and I think the CEO is an incompetant boob. Fire him, fire his ass now!
Do you find it odd that during the 70's, there was an enormous outcry against Global Cooling.
Except there wasn't. There was talk about it, since it was known the CO2 acts as a blanket and we are adding to it much more rapidly than nature does. But it was also known that the process was poorly understood. Would the enhanced CO2 trap heat? Or would it prevent heat reaching the ground?
The science was not in at the time. Now it is much more clear. Human activity is probably causing about half of the observed warming in recent decades.
Usually the argument goes that science was wrong about the earth being flat, it was wrong about the sun orbiting the earth, and therefore must be wrong now.
If science is wrong, stop driving your car, since it is the result of scientific discoveries. They must be wrong, as has just been proven above. It would be irresponsible to put your family at risk in a car which has never been proven to work.
I don't know how to write HTML code. I know. I should learn.
To do italics, type <i> before and </i> after.
Sorry, that was just the start, I was trying to preview to make sure I got the angle brackets correct, and on the third attempt hit publish instead of preview.
To do a link, you type:
<a href="http://www.google.com">text that shows in blue</a>
That will appear in the comment as:
text that shows in blue
Davy;
Yeah, your a stockholder alright. And you own .0000000003% of the shares. Big deal.
Impeachment for imcompetence...that's new. How about impeachment because a small minority of leftist hate him. That's a good reason. Let's only have presidents where everybody likes him or her.
Bud:
You missed the point, I think. There WAS hysteria. I read all about it in my weekly reader in the 60's. The evil U.S.A was polluting the air, blocking out the suns rays and causing a cooling effect that would, if unstopped, bring in another ice age! Gasp! Oh, mother, hide the kids!
Hysteria is the common thread that IB sees in all this. As to science being involved, I'm still waiting for people to explain the shrinking ice caps on Mars...could there be a connection?
Nah. Then where's the political leverage in that?
No, at the time, it was a much smaller concern than acid rain. I remember some of this because I did a grade school project on pollution.
Scientists were pretty clear on the mechanisms of acid rain. The greenhouse effect of CO2 was known, but there was no consensus on what effect additional CO2 might have. It might result in more clouds which could block sunlight or it might increase the amount of heat trapped.
There were not thousands of scientists agreeing that there was a problem and what its effects could be. The scientists "screaming" about it then were about the same number that are climate change sceptics today. We were not seeing records set year after year in the weather.
The temperature changes on other planets are used to estimate the natural cyclic solar variation. What we are seeing on earth is an increase over and above that. According to the IPCC, human activity is probably causing about half of the observed increase in the last century. Much of it at the end of the century since the emissions are growing and they accumulate.
Who is IB's Dad?
Bud,
THANK YOU!!!!
Oh, look, I've been reduced to a dimunitive! O, woe is me.
"How about impeachment because a small minority of leftist hate him. That's a good reason. Let's only have presidents where everybody likes him or her. "
a) it's called an "election"
b) as opposed to the overwhelming support to impeach Bill Clinton...
among Republican faithful.
Only.
CY:
I'm very intimidated. I bet you can see me quivering, due to that I obviously can't think for myself being that I'm agreeing with someone you are at odds with.
Frankly, I have followed the threads, and I still hold to my point that Global Warming is NOT an impeachment issue. I'm open to the scientific debate of it (which is never about "consensus"), but nothing I see in the argument tells me that any sort of punishment for any human involvement can be thrust upon one man's shoulders. I.E. President Bush
My goal with that is to only point out the lame attempt to tack on extra wordage to this list. Nothing more.
Bud:
Indeed it would be hasty to say that since "science" was wrong about earth's flatness (and lack thereof) and heliocentric orbit, that it is automatically wrong about Global Warming. That is not what I am trying to say.
My thing is that there must have been some sort of trends that scientists saw that led them to believe in Global Cooling. Trends of cooling greatly differ from that of trends of warming, correct? There is a certain amount of reasonable doubt there, and it cannot be immediately dismissed.
Daveaway:
"-signing statements where the president declares his intentions to deliberately ignore laws which have been passed by Congress - the "deciders" as laid out by the constitution."
It's called "veto".
A "veto" is called a "veto". A signing statement, such as has been used and abused by George Bush, involves signing a bill, then interpreting how he will implement it, regardless of congressional intent. Bush has vetoed only 1 bill (soon 2), but has made signing statements on hundreds of bills. They are not vetoes, however much they may act like it, and there is no mechanism for congress to override his veto, except to pass yet another law, and since it would be a law that would essentially be like the one Bush has declared he will ignore, what would be the point in that?
Bush, through these statements, has usurped the "deciding" power of the congress. The president is not The Decider, he is the Implementer of congressional decisions. The president does not get to interpret these laws either, for that is a usurpation of Judicial powers. George Bush has not upheld his oath of office, especially the part about the constitution.
here, read this
One more thing, which probably no one will see, from a comment on David Brin's blog:
"Signing statements are illegal. The President has the duty as all citizens do to determine constitutionality of a law. The ONLY legal remedy is to veto a bill amd send it back to the legislature. See Article 1 section 7 clause 2.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
No signing statements, it's veto or not. Period.
Post a Comment