Why can't Bush be impeached for lying about WMD's?

Clinton lied about getting head and got impeached. The girl did it willingly and there were no problems. Bush said alot of crap and started a war , A WHOLE GOD DAM WAR!! based on a lie. Thousands have died based on a lie. I think we got a little more on Bush than they had on Clinton.

We need to get out in the streets people!

would have stopped the invasion of Iraq.

I have my doubts on what demonstrations can do in our culture today. Most take place on empty downtown streets were few, if any, people are incovenienced by the well behaved, primarily middle class, demonstrators.

successful. Organized consumer boycotts ( eg. choosetheblue.org),designed to influence gov't foreign and domestic policy, have MUCH more potential, tactically speaking.

Hopefully, interest will grow.

Do nothing spineless democrats who are so afraid of offending anyone that they never stand up for anything.

Once we get our party back on the right course we'll get the house back and then we'll raise hell.

The republicans must pay the price for thier sins. The people have to take control of the party back.

The most effective way you and me can help our country is to fix the Democratic party first.

The media lies to Americans, daily.
How's about going door-to-door with fliers to get the truth out?

unprecidented effort by the GLBGT groups in St Louis to knock on doors against the anti gay marriage amendment. People went door to door every Saturday.

Voters passed the anti gay marriage thing by an overwhelming margin.


Fast forward to the 2004 election....SEIU and other groups in Missouri did a lot of door knocking trying to introduce people to Kerry. A co-worker's son (age 24) worked with America Coming Together on Election Day and he said he had never encountered such disorganization in all his life. He knew little about Kerry, except that he was not Bush. They were given no talking points. He was paired up with a partner and told to go knock on doors and encourage people to go out and vote (the doors they knocked on were supposedly already vetted as being Kerry supporters).

While St Louis City and St Louis County went blue (as did one or two other counties in MO), the rest of the state went red and thus Bush won the state. There is a deeply ingrained religious fundamentalism in Missouri.

I don't know how to reach people in this time of too many hours spent at work and too little time spent reading newspapers or other non sports/entertainment related media.
It does seem many people see little difference between the two parties and until the majority of those who don't bother to vote do see a difference, nothing will change. Most people rightly believe that politicians care only about those who write the large checks.

Just not feeling optimistic these days. Although not optimistic I continue the fight.

and stared into the face of corrupt, vengeful, hypocritical smear mongers.

But, I do feel your pain!

he lied to congress in his state of the union speech and I think that's an impeachable offense. Even the document sent to congress justifying the Iraq War resolution was filled with lies. It officially linked 9/11 to Iraq.

It will never happen though. We do not live in country of laws now. We live in a punditocracy.

Edited to add: Read anything at findlaw.com by John Dean over the past 3 years and he'll explain it completely.

not a criminal process. Other than removal from office, there is no other penalty. Anybody can be impeached for anything, practically speaking. Spitting on the sidewalk? Impeach him!! 'High crimes and misdemeanors' is a pretty elastic term, don't you think?

Even if Democrats controlled Congress, it would very unlikely to see an impeachment of W solely on the grounds of WMDS. Totality of the circumstances, likely; especially when one considers the non-hunt for Osama, the fracturing of the Atlantic Alliance, the blatant violations of law, and the willingness to pander to extremists.

WMDS alone would not provide enough reason for virtually any Congress because of the tradition of respect for each branch's areas of competence. Congress, since 1945, has generally been unwilling to challenge the authority of the presidency in foreign affairs. While a Democratic Congress would likely repeal the Iraq War Resolution and force the administration to commit to an endgame, respect for the office of the president would preclude a serious attempt at impeaching the president solely for foreign affairs.

In the first paragraph, I said totality of the circumstances would prove vital while talking primarily about executive power. In the second paragraph, I said it was unlikely that any Congress would impeach a president solely over foreign affairs. Are these reconciable? Yes. One incident isn't enough in the foreign affairs department. A consistent history of deception, incompetence, and an unwillingness to properly set national policy would be a lot more likely to meet the constitutional standard.

but the fact that the administration deliberately distorted, lied, and otherwise 'cooked' the intel to concoct a fraudulent threat to justify the war. An independent Congress could actually investigate what happened in the run up to the war, and if it uncovered proof that the administration lied its way to war, that certainly qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.

That's why I used a broad range of examples. The only honest impeachment hearings held were those for Nixon and those were broad as hell.

Need to add in the results of the war and the half-assed job in Afghanistan. As well as the failure to hold together a viable coalition to go after Al Qaeda.

Your post would be the center of the arguments, though.

also bought the WMD lie hook line and sinker (and when that party's presidential candidate stated that knowing what he knew in the Fall of 2004, he still would have given Bush approval to invade Iraq) it would be difficult to garner enough support in that party to initiate an investigation. There are far too many Democrats willing to appease Bush in the name of getting along.

What we need in the US is a real oppositional party. The bosses have two parties and now the workers need theirs.

is too busy drinking kook-aid, investigating steroids, holding special sessions and ordering new rubber-stamps (the old ones wear out after 4 or 5 years from continuous use)

Is there another way to bring about a "regime change"? I'm sure Richard Nixon knows the the answer... when the only tool you have is a burgeoning war machine, everything starts to look like a war.

Shrub could have done as Rummy did and met with Saddam, shook hands and talked things over.. I'm sure Saddam would have forgiven the U.S. meddling in the M.E. its skewed foreign policy and cut a deal. Remember the man was writing romance novels when shrub decided he was an "imminent and immediate threat".

Everybody knows this was all about shrub's wanting to go to war, and had nothing to do with the facts....

www.truthuncovered.com

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

This special Mother Jones investigation late last year detailed how, only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq. Here is the inside story of how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.

By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest

January/February 2004 Issue

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=officeOfSpecialPlans

Complete timeline of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
2001-2003
The US intelligence community—most notably the intelligence gatherers working in the Pentagon offices under Douglas Feith (see September 2002) —bases several of its intelligence assessments concerning Iraq on information offered by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and by Iraqi defectors provided by the INC, despite warnings from the State Department and some CIA analysts that the lobbying group cannot be trusted. (Inter Press Service, 8/7/03; Guardian, 7/17/03; Salon, 7/16/03; New Yorker, 5/5/03; Independent, 9/30/03; Mother Jones, 1/04 Sources: Unnamed administration official, Greg Thielmann)

Some of the INC's intelligence on Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's supposed ties to terrorists are reportedly funneled directly to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney by Francis Brooke, the DC lobbyist for the group. (Newsweek, 12/15/03 Sources: Francis Brooke, Memo) Brooke will later acknowedge that the information provided by the INC was driven by an agenda. “I told them , as their campaign manager, ‘Go get me a terrorist and some WMD, because that's what the Bush administration is interested in.’ ” (Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pg 230) Brooke had previously worked for the Rendon Group, “a shadowy CIA-connected public-relations firm.” (Mother Jones, 1/04)
People and organizations involved: Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Dick Cheney, Francis Brooke Additional Info
Statements

Vince Cannistraro

“The Iraqi opposition, particularly the group led by Ahmed Chalabi, whose intelligence was underwritten by the Pentagon, played a crucial role in informing the Pentagon ... with information that looks, from this vantage point, like it was fraudulent, in many cases was fabricated, and the most benign interpretation was that it was just flat wrong.” — June 2003 (ABC News, 6/16/03)

Scott Ritter

“Our guys working this area for a living all believe Chalabi and all those guys in their Bond Street suits are charlatans. To take them for a source of anything except a fantasy trip would be a real stretch. But it's an article of faith among those with no military experience that the Iraqi military is low-hanging fruit.” — October 2002 (Knight Ridder, 11/1/02)

“The UN stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the mainstream US media, which give prominent coverage to sources of information that, had they not been related to Hussein's Iraq, would normally be immediately dismissed.” — January 28, 2002 (Christian Science Monitor, 1/28/02)

Commentaries

Vince Cannistraro

“The INC's intelligence isn't reliable at all. Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, (creating) cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches.” — Before March 19, 2003 (Independent, 9/30/03)

This is one of the many reasons we have to push for a democratic House of Reps in 2006 - we have to push really hard!!

impeached "indicted" not convicted! indictment - does not mean guilty. By Seemorehead!

he has his other rethugs protecting an impeachment vote

I dont think so. President Clinton was charged with perjury, which is a felony. The act of oral sex, was not the charge. He denied having participated, while under oath during a formal legal deposition.

High Crimes and Treason are the only impeachable offenses listed in the Constitution. My understanding is that "High Crimes" may defined as any felony. What constitutes Treason is defined in the Constitution. Inorder to impeach President Bush, Someone has to be able to document and provide evidence of the commission of a felony, or that the President's actions meet the Constitutional defin1tion of treason. I do not believe that either criteria has been documented to the point that Impeachment proceeding are viable at this point.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

However, as you said, one of the big differences here is that Clinton got caught lying under oath.

don't have the votes. that simple. Concentrate on 2008.

MUCH more important than '08

unless we can stop the ELECTRONIC VOTE STEALING. Plain and simple.

If we don't make an impact in '06. '08 wont matter one bit.

seriously believe that we will have 2/3 of the Senators needed to convict in 2006?? I laugh. Bitterly, of course.

I don't even think we will win any additional seats in the House

is not going to happen. I care about the country and our ability to at least stem the tide of pushing an uncontested agenda.

Don't overlook '06. Do so at your own, mine and everyone elses peril.

You're absolutely right, there will be no impeachment. That's why I think it's a waste of time to wonder if a happens, or b, "can we impeach Bush?" No, we can't.

As I said, I don't overlook '06, I just don't have much expectation that the Dems will gain anything. 'Cause either one of two things is happening. The Republicans have created the slickest election theft machine ever, or there is a conservative revival in this country that is sweeping all in its path. Take your pick.

Republicans are nothing but a bunch of partisan, lying, rabid, scum sucking no good, hypocritical fascist rat bastards!

That's why.

nothing is ever his fault. Must be nice.

And get involved in the 2006 elections.

There are hundreds of ways you can make a contribution.

I'm going to a young dems training on Monday to start getting prepped to work on the 2006 campaigns.

see how that works?

They were wrong. He ws merely repeating what THEY said.. even though back in 03 he said he was basing his statements on DARNED GOOD INTELLIGENCE.

The CIA said:

"We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs."

bush said (lied):

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

"There can be no doubtthat Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly"

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

"We know where they are."

2000 GOP Party Platform;

"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments."

that iraq was the horrific threat...

turns out it was all PNAC lies.

our image around the world and increasing terrorism.

:shrug: I'll never understand it. Nobody died when Clinton lied yet when Bush lied about wmd's (and it's now known) nothing happens to him. He gets passes and the blame is on other people and never him. I'm so freakin fed up with it!!!! :banghead:

Congress is the only body of government able to bring articles of impeachment charges against a sitting president.

The Congress is in control by the republican majority party. (The same party as the president).

The same republican party that controls the Senate as well as the US Supreme Court.

The republicans will NEVER bring impeachment charges against a republican president.

Bush/Cheney/Rove know this, they also know they control public opinion by controlling the republican owned corporate media.

BushCo is quite aware they can lie, cheat and steal, do whatever they like and nothing will become of it.

This will continue for as long as the republicans like.

The republicans control the counting of the votes via the republican owned, operated & maintained electronic voting machines, guaranteeing this.

Until we can get rid of electronic voting machines that are easily manipulated by the republican owners of the machines, do you really expect a change?

More and more electronic voting machines are being put in place all across the country (including California, where Rove seceded in getting rid of the Democrat Secretary of State, convicted of nothing).

The republicans want those last five Senate seats in 2006 to assure themselves five more Senate seats so they can avoid any filibusters by those pesky Democrats.

And the republicans will get those five Senate seats via their electronic voting machines.

Why is Tom DeLay still in office? They changed the rules. It is not democracy at it's best. Corruption trumps democracy.

During Clinton, we're nowhere near that kind of power right now

You obviously haven't been following along. Clinton made up all the false intelligence and poor Chimpy trusted him.