Impeachment: America's Only Hope

"It may not be popular with the public. It doesn’t matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right."
– Vice President Dick Cheney

The rule of law, the will of the people and the constitutional system of government have been overthrown in the U.S. in a silent coup which happened under the noses of the American people, frightened into acquiesence by propaganda. Losing control of the legislative branch of government next week will, rather than chasten this cabal, encourage it to just to throw off the last constraints of representative government and launch full force into its putsch at home and its wars of conquest abroad.

Elections, Supreme Court rulings, legislation will no longer have any restraining effect on these extremists who all but mock anything which tries to get in the way of their jihad.

The only hope any longer of stopping them before they turn the entire Middle East into a cauldron of hatred and misery in the next two years is impeachment because they believe themselves to be above any system of government and any body of laws at this point, answerable only to their own ideology.

Somebody give Bush a blowjob, so the US people can impeach him :stuck_out_tongue:

Umm, wouldn’t impeachment mean that that very same Dick Cheney becomes president- or are you planning to impeach him too?

I’d be quite satisfied if a Democrat-controlled House or Senate launches investigations into how Iraq got started, who was responsible for screwing it up, and where the money went- if they can summon up the guts in face of a full-out right-wing assault and the hand-wringing of the Bush-fellating MSM over all this unseemly partisanship.

[quote=“MikeN”]Umm, wouldn’t impeachment mean that that very same Dick Cheney becomes president- or are you planning to impeach him too?

I’d be quite satisfied if a Democrat-controlled House or Senate launches investigations into how Iraq got started, who was responsible for screwing it up, and where the money went- if they can summon up the guts in face of a full-out right-wing assault and the hand-wringing of the Bush-fellating MSM over all this unseemly partisanship.[/quote]

“. . . 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.”
– Article II, Section 4, U.S. Constitution

While a comprehensive investigation into the fiasco in Iraq is indeed past due, I’m more concerned about what the Cheney administration plans to do during its last two years in power in which it considers itself beyond the reach of anything and anyone.

[quote=“MikeN”]I’d be quite satisfied if a Democrat-controlled House or Senate launches investigations into how Iraq got started, who was responsible for screwing it up, and where the money went…[/quote]Such investigations would be useless. Can you really imagine, say, Sen. Clinton, asking serious questions about why she failed to ask serious questions in the run up to war, about why she got it so wrong? Not everyone did. Impeachment would be the route to go if it meant a full repudiation of the idiocy and arrogance of the past 6 years, but the elected ‘leaders’ are there yet; the best they could manage would be an investigation into the mismanagement of Iraq and the ‘war on terror’.

"The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy"order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn’t actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn’t like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

What’s going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world’s oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed–but until now largely theoretical–prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran. . . ."

" . . . The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet.

First word of the early dispatch of the “Ike Strike” group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress. . . . "
– The Nation magazine

"Eisenhower Strike Group Arrives in 5th Fleet
Story Number: NNS061031-02
Release Date: 10/31/2006

From USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group Public Affairs

USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, At Sea (NNS) – The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG) entered the Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations, after transiting the Suez Canal Oct. 30, on a deployment in support of maritime security operations (MSO). . . .

U.S. 5th Fleet, headquartered in Manama, Bahrain, is responsible for an area encompassing about 2.5 million square miles of water including the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean."

I think you underestimate the power of simply voting and/or waiting people out. The U.S. has endured plenty of awful presidents without ever actually having a successful impeachment (though Nixon probably would have been impeached had he not resigned). Besides, at this point what’s done is done, and Congress will swing towards the democrats, and Bush’s power will continue to gradually wane, and in a little over two years we’ll have a new guy to complain about.

I think you underestimate the determination of the Bush administration to do whatever it chooses during the last two years it’s in power. If the previous four years should have taught you anything, it’s that the current executive branch is willing to go to extremes never before experienced in American history.

“It may not be popular with the public. It doesn’t matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”
– Vice President Dick Cheney

Let’s hope that we see a bit more of that determination. First, cutting spending and reducing the size of the federal government. Second, social security and medicare/medicaid reform. Third, reforming education. More vouchers. More charter schools. More school choice. Fourth, Syria and Iran. Then, if he does that all in two years, you can have the next presidency. I will be more than satisfied to see the Democrats give us something new. Er, they do have something don’t they? One can never be sure…

Let’s see what happens with the mid-term elections. If it walks like a lame duck, quacks like a lame duck, then it’s probably a lame duck. Quauurrrrk

Hopefully the rest of the world won’t notice and won’t take advantage.

I think universal healthcare is one of the key goals, not just medicaid reform.
To make government smaller, create a stronger FEMA and get rid of the bloated Homeland Security.

Check out this amazing online poster: 2007 Visual Guide to Where Your Taxes Go (1.8mb .jpg) or a link to the same pic here or here

Let’s hope that we see a bit more of that determination. First, cutting spending and reducing the size of the federal government. Second, social security and medicare/medicaid reform. Third, reforming education. More vouchers. More charter schools. More school choice. Fourth, Syria and Iran. Then, if he does that all in two years, you can have the next presidency. I will be more than satisfied to see the Democrats give us something new. Er, they do have something don’t they? One can never be sure…[/quote]

Yes! Six years of same fellow Repooblican government Guys! No progress?

May next two years with different government guys be BIG progress for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of U.S. and A!

What has Bush done that’s truly unprecedented?

Adams passed the alien and sedition acts
Jefferson unilaterally declared war on the barbary pirates
Monroe started (or at least pretended to start) interfering in other nation’s politics with the Monroe doctrine
Andrew Jackson expelled a massive population of Native Americans from their homelands
Lincoln declared martial law in Maryland
Grant’s administration took corruption to a new level
Teddy Roosevelt helped Panama secede from Columbia. “I stole it fair and square!”
Franklin Roosevelt broke precedent and got elected 4 times, during which time he passed the most extensive economic legislation ever seen at the time, attempted to pack the courts in his favor, and started the atomic program.
Truman dropped the bomb.
The 60’s had the Vietnam “quagmire”
The 70’s had Nixon and watergate
The 80’s had a little of everything
The 90’s had desert storm, Bosnia, and Somalia.

And that’s just a small taste…so tell me what’s really new here?

[quote=“redandy”]What has Bush done that’s truly unprecedented?

Adams passed the alien and sedition acts
Jefferson unilaterally declared war on the barbary pirates
Monroe started (or at least pretended to start) interfering in other nation’s politics with the Monroe doctrine
Andrew Jackson expelled a massive population of Native Americans from their homelands
Lincoln declared martial law in Maryland
Grant’s administration took corruption to a new level
Teddy Roosevelt helped Panama secede from Columbia. “I stole it fair and square!”
Franklin Roosevelt broke precedent and got elected 4 times, during which time he passed the most extensive economic legislation ever seen at the time, attempted to pack the courts in his favor, and started the atomic program.
Truman dropped the bomb.
The 60’s had the Vietnam “quagmire”
The 70’s had Nixon and watergate
The 80’s had a little of everything
The 90’s had desert storm, Bosnia, and Somalia.

And that’s just a small taste…so tell me what’s really new here?[/quote]

What’s new is that a single administration crossed most or all of those lines and threw in a few additions of its own such as unprovoked invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, state-sanctioned torture, a permanent suspension of habeas corpus and the right to trial for anyone by mere presidential fiat, the establishment of permanent foreign gulags. All this in an age in which those earlier trangressions by U.S. presidents such as the quagmire in Viet Nam or internment without trial were supposedly ‘lessons learned’ not to be repeated.

Oh?

Unprovoked? Spookster…

I am sorry but is the current policy of the US government one that supports or approves or condones torture? I am struggling to find that. In the past, waterboarding was used very rarely and apparently it was quite effective. Had one or two singing like a canary all to great effect but that is no longer allowed so where is this state-sanctioned torture that you speak of?

“mere” presidential fiat. How many cases like this have occurred so far? Two? Oh dear. And all with great scrutiny… Tremble America… Your values and rights are under assault. Actually, in this case, I could see a worry about dangerous precedent and all that but you have to admit with all the wolf crying by the opposition regarding the Patriot Act, no one takes their concerns seriously anymore. That is a pity because in this case you do have the POTENTIAL for abuse of the system. Like I said, too bad though that no one takes all the screaming about lost rights seriously anymore and for that you can blame the hysteria on the left.

permanent? I thought most of them were shut down with the prisoners transferred to Guantanamo. Yes, that one has been open nearly five years BUT why is that? Aren’t we have a bit of a problem transferring these prisoners back to their home countries ironically because we cannot guarantee that they will not be tortured?

What was the true lesson of Vietnam? According to the North Vietnamese generals, it was that the American public was the weak link in our projection of force. The North Vietnamese categorically support the view that they were militarily defeated first during the Tet offensive and then during the military invasion of 1972. The calculated gamble was that they would defeat America through public opinion and they did. Are you sure that you want to call us to learn the lessons from Vietnam? Because if you do, I don’t see how it supports your argument.

Now, onto one conclusion. IF and WHEN the opposition is willing to admit that real security risks are involved and that the Bush administration has a duty to protect America and its citizens from further attack then maybe we can have a realistic discussion about the checks and balances that need to go into such a system. But all the hysteria and shrill gloom and doom portrayal of America as a Germany about to fall under the sway of Nazi Bushitler all while crowing about how they are going to hand this administration its ass in the midterm elections… Well, pardon many of us for just not taking such views seriously or the posters themselves.

Well said Fred.
I do hope that some of the ‘younger’ posters on this board will learn the important historical material you have presented.
I will offer this in regards to the re-establishment of a “SWIFT” program of intel gathering.
The Cost of the Times’ SWIFT Story

It clearly shows the fallacies on which the hysteria about “WE’RE LOSING OUR RIGHTS” was based.

[quote=“fred smith”]

Let’s hope that we see a bit more of that determination. First, cutting spending and reducing the size of the federal government. [/quote]

Cutting spending :roflmao: That’s a good one. This is the Bush admin you’re talking about, isn’t it? The very same administration that has sent govt spending levels soaring.

According to the official US budget papers (you can download a PDF at the Whitehouse.gov website), not only has the Bush administration spent more money than any previous govt, not only have they turned a budget surplus into a record deficit, they’ve also managed to knock 2.5% of GDP off the amount of money they’ve received.

I think cfimages that you may be under the misconception that I disagree with you about Bush’s profligate ways. Nothing has incensed me more than the growth in spending and for what? Democrat support? please. Strike away.

Sorry, the way you wrote it sounded like you were applauding Bush’s spending policies. My bad.

More sedition from the New York Times:

" . . .For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate."
NYT editorial