Go to Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Add a comment
- Go to Bush Has Committed Impeachable Offenses, These Bloggers Agree.............
Writer, Yes they underestimate the
Power of a strong defense
Power of a strong defense. defense.
posted by
kingmi
on March 20, 2006 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Brettnik, Thanks for commenting.
Communicating about it helps.
posted by
kingmi
on March 20, 2006 at 6:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Sincerity Anna, Thank you for thinking of me!
posted by
kingmi
on March 20, 2006 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
"Russ Feingold achieved a thirty point increase in his approval rating among Democrats, after offering a resolution intended to lay the groundwork for an impeachment bill against George Bush."
Hardly a surprise given the far left tendencies of the party the last few years. And yet his colleagues stayed away in droves.
I say, go right ahead. Make George W. Bush the one and only issue for the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, thereby demonstrating total ignorance, total apathy or both concerning real issues.
posted by
WriterofLight
on March 20, 2006 at 4:41 PM
| link to this | reply
P.S. nobody can really stay away from this stuff---
it will affect all of us for a very long time
posted by
brettnik
on March 20, 2006 at 3:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Just because the Dems don't have anybody to rally them or any good
candidates to field does NOT mean that the man in office and his compadres are NOT selfish men who are motivated by greed who have set up things as far as both foreign and economics and environmental policy are concerned which will ROB THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BLIND and completely CREATE A GULF BETWEEN THE CLASSES for years to come, as well as eliminate our children's birthright to the improvement of civilization with each passing generation (by the original 1780's definition: LIBERAL). I don't care what the Dems have or do. Just because the one side is bad doesn't mean the other side must be saintly. None of it makes Bush less of an intellectual midget, opportunistic giant or all-around smirking-as-he-lies son of a smarter, opportunistic liar ("Read my lips..."). Sorry for the rant. I just saw an hour's worth of interviews of troops in Iraq and I think it's the saddest, scariest thing I've ever seen. These are BOYS, and many of them not very bright and with no real economic future. They joined the army for economic, psychological and social reasons (not patriotism) and we are now resigned to let them get killed off in a war of attrition here, and soon in Iran, with no end ever in sight. THEY don't see an end in sight and they are on the ground. As one trooper put it, the West Pointers tell everybody they can do anything, but then they actually sit in an office and make a phone call while we get sent to where the help was requested. WE die. THEY don't.
posted by
brettnik
on March 20, 2006 at 3:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi,
Oh geez....I try to stay away from this stuff...lol...very interesting, nonetheless...
posted by
SincerityAnna
on March 20, 2006 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
saroo, Agreed. Bush knows the American people are with him on this one...
posted by
kingmi
on March 19, 2006 at 12:02 AM
| link to this | reply
blogflogger, they smell blood because of Bush's low numbers...............
Kingmi - Why would you say “the sharks smell blood”?
A minority of approve of Bush which means a MAJORITY disapprove of him. That makes them the majority NOT sharks.
Only 24 legislators singed the offer of a censure. That's a minority.
If we didn’t have this stupid war between the parties we could all work toward what is best for the country, the best roll for us to play in the international community, and hold ALL of our elected representatives to a higher standard.
You are right. Perhaps we should change the constitution to require a mixed government coalitionj instead of all dems or all repubs.
Nixon was to be impeached for illegal wire-tapping, but Bush should be let off the hook? Monitoring may be a great tool, but we have a legal process in place to facilitate it. Bush ignored in, and lied to the American people 3 years after the program was in place, and stated publicly that every time they wire-tap they do it with a warrant.
America was attacked on 9-11 and the congress approved all necessary means. Making statements in front of the kleeg lights talking from memory in front of reporters it is easy enough to misspeak. I can scarcely remember my own name when I'm on stage, much less all the verses to Nights in White Satin.
I think censure is an appropriate step to curb Bush’s cowboy behavior as well as warn future presidents that we are not a gullible naïve public. We expect our officials to function within defined law. If the laws don't work we "fix" them, we don't employ classified programs to "work around" them.
Perhaps in a time of war we do work around them, especially if there is a general law like the Patriot Act. I think you are the one who is disingeuous to think that we can legislate cures for modern problems. Waiting on lawmakers is what got us into this problem in the first place. In our present system of majority rules, no one takes responsibility and things happen. Being able to be flexible is what is going to win this war, and my guess is, the cowboy nature that you refer to, is more of a belief system, that someone has to stand up and take action in a crisis, in spite of condemnation from the home team. and if you want to impeach me, or kill me or whatever, then bring it on -- but not while I'm taking it to them. -- kingmi
Posted by on March 18, 2006 at 12:49 PM (permalink)
posted by
kingmi
on March 19, 2006 at 12:01 AM
| link to this | reply
sarooster - So you think the current and all future presidents ...
... should be able to do anything they want, via a classified program, even if it defies current law? (You didn't actually respond to my points, you went off on a tangent about how bad the Democrats will look if we hold the president accountable for his actions, which in and of itself, is a sad state of affairs.)
posted by
blogflogger
on March 18, 2006 at 8:45 PM
| link to this | reply
If Democrats need any help selecting candidates from you Republicans ...
they'll let you know!
posted by
fwmystic
on March 18, 2006 at 8:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Blog,
I think censure would be a wondeful avenue for the Democrats to take. This will insure their second place, and remember second is last in this country, for years to come.
posted by
sarooster
on March 18, 2006 at 5:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi - Why would you say “the sharks smell blood”?
A minority of approve of Bush which means a MAJORITY disapprove of him. That makes them the majority NOT sharks.
If we didn’t have this stupid war between the parties we could all work toward what is best for the country, the best roll for us to play in the international community, and hold ALL of our elected representatives to a higher standard.
Nixon was to be impeached for illegal wire-tapping, but Bush should be let off the hook? Monitoring may be a great tool, but we have a legal process in place to facilitate it. Bush ignored in, and lied to the American people 3 years after the program was in place, and stated publicly that every time they wire-tap they do it with a warrant.
I think censure is an appropriate step to curb Bush’s cowboy behavior as well as warn future presidents that we are not a gullible naïve public. We expect our officials to function within defined law. If the laws don't work we "fix" them, we don't employ classified programs to "work around" them.
posted by
blogflogger
on March 18, 2006 at 12:49 PM
| link to this | reply
blipps, thanks & welcome. I'll be over to read yours in a few
posted by
kingmi
on March 18, 2006 at 10:03 AM
| link to this | reply
That is right!
You sure got me thinking on this matter. We need security not more terrorist attacks. If Bush keeps this up we'll end up in disaster soon. I like your blog. It will be added to my favourites. Keep up the good work!
posted by
blipps
on March 18, 2006 at 2:43 AM
| link to this | reply