We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. Click here to find out more. Allow cookies
x
LOG IN HERE
Username
Password

arrow Register here

Forgotten password?

THE CHATTER BOX

 
 
 
  The Chatter Box : Blathering On
 
 
 
 
Messages 1 2 

High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by KMeadows on 13 May 2007 5:42pm
 
Just wondering what some thoughts here would be on this:

On Thursday, May 10, 2007, Lawrence Wilkerson, speaking on National Public Radio, proposed impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wilkerson is a Retired Army Colonel, the former Chief of Staff at the State Department from 2002 to 2005 under then Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Vietnam War veteran, the former Acting Director of the Marine Corps War College at Quantico, and currently a teacher of national security at William and Mary College.

After an interruption, Wilkerson continued: "The language in that article, the language in those two or three lines about impeachment is nice and precise it's high crimes and misdemeanors. You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."

From: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22349

CNN picked it up: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/12/more-on-wilkersons-impeachment-call/

When I first heard about this, I thought it would just slide under the table, but now CNN's done a bit on it, so I'm wondering if this might infiltrate the big media and grow legs. I admit, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part. :)

Just wondering what some thoughts on this are...
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by tucsonmike on 13 May 2007 6:07pm
 
To impeach them now would be crazy. The process would be so drawn out,it would drag deep into the 2008 campaign. Remember, once out of office, what is to say they cannot be tried in a regular Federal court by a jury "of their peers," not the U.S. Senate?

Remember something about the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans wanted to HUMILIATE him, not REMOVE him. Why? If they removed him, Al Gore would have had a two year head start on HIS presidency.

 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by canaveralgumby on 13 May 2007 6:45pm
 
For one thing, we ought to have "no confidence" votes like other nations' legislative bodies.

I think most people would agree that what Bush and Cheney, Runsfeld and Rove have perpetrated is infinitely more damaging, more serious and more criminal than a tryst in the Oral-sorry-Oval Office. (Even in these dark times, I make inappropriate jokes.)

When a well-intentioned police officer makes an error in judgement which costs one life, that officer is held to account.

How is it that a series of deliberate, planned lies and conspiracies, which have cost over a hundred-thousand lives and oh yeah my nation's standing in the world maybe permanently, for the profit of Haliburton, can go unaccounted for?

I have written to my representatives (for what good it does) that there ought to be a law: claiming under oath that one "does not remember" anything should be tantamount to purgery, or at the very least, contempt. Reagan started it with Iran-Contra. It is the definition of contempt. "I know you know I'm full of it and I don't care."

We shall see...

And where are the anti-war protests? There is no conscription. Were the people in the 60's, whom I have held in such high, heroic regard, only protesting to save their own asses? Where is the concern for our fellow citizens?

K, sorry I answered your question with more questions.

 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by sighthound on 13 May 2007 8:13pm
 
In the last legislative session, a Congresswoman did introduce a bill for impeachment but it got little coverage then and went nowhere. (Sorry, I forget her name.)

We'd have to make sure both Bush and Cheney are impeached at the same time so we didn't end up with President Cheney. It's worth a try. We'd then have President Pelosi.
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by tucsonmike on 14 May 2007 1:52am
 
Cori, I hate to say it, but I suspect more and more many, not all of the 60's protestors were doing it to protect themselves.

Remember something else about Vietnam. It was the poor and working class who ended up going there. Then said working class kids were spat on when they came home.

Not sure what the difference is today.
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush, Cheney and Harper by Lounge Trekker on 14 May 2007 3:43am
 
From the outside looking in, I'd say the American people are being taken down a road few want to ride on.

Did I say outside? Figuratively speaking, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has both his hands inside George Bush' pants doing more than just giving him five. And he's bent over so Dick can fondle him.

A bit of a right wing Christian circle jerk going on.

Shameful behaviour for a so-called Canadian I didn't vote for!

Lounge Trekker
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by arty_farty on 14 May 2007 11:12am
 
thanks for that lovely mental image pete.

still it is pretty horrible watching the leaders of different countries playing kiss up to a powerful idiot.

bush has everything, why does he need more?
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by johnnythemonkey on 14 May 2007 12:48pm
 
LOL Arty, I was going to say the same thing to Pete !
As for Bush et al , they should be tried for crimes against humanity.
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by KMeadows on 14 May 2007 4:08pm
 
As much as it would be sweet to see President Pelosi (wouldn't Hilary just lose it?), I would be afraid of the possible political repercussions in '08. But then, if Bush continues to veto Iraqi spending bills left and right, further thumbing his nose to a population who is sick of the war, maybe they really won't mind if they get booted. Again, I recognize that it's my fantasy thinking that's obscuring my more practical thinking. Is it really too much to ask to see these guys booted and tried? At this point, I hardly think so.

Oh, and I too have been bothered from day one with the lack of real opposition to the war, and it's especially galling now, when everyone's done an about-face (once they realized gas prices aren't going down, we're ridiculously in debt and getting worse, and dang! People are actually dying!). Everyone's angry...but very quietly, in their kitchens, reading the paper. Then they hop into their SUVs and head out to work, or a picnic, or whatever. And yes, I do think it has a whole lot to do with the fact that we haven't been asked to sacrifice anything (with the exception of a few constitutional rights). If we start having to make some real changes because we are being affected directly, there'll be riots in the street. Or, at least, I would hope so.

Note of Stephen Harper...my mom's Canadian and recently returned there after 30 years or so here in the States. The guy she's dating is a good friend of Harper, so when I go to visit, I have to keep my complaints on mute. *cringe* It was bothersome to see the Canadians vote him in, and now we've had to watch France make the same mistake. Hasn't everyone been paying attention to the mess we're in over here?!
 
Re: High Crimes for Bush and Cheney by arty_farty on 14 May 2007 4:18pm
 
it just goes to show that politics dosn't work. just under 100 years ago only certain men could vote and all politicans cared about was keeping hold of their money, power and privalages. nothing's changed today exept more people are eligable to vote.

and all we do is vote on promices that hardly get kept or ignored while the people we voted for follow their own personal vendettas. its a stupid thing to keep doing, so why do we do it?
 
Messages 1 2 




  Reply to this post:
 
 
  Username 
 
 
  Password 
 
 
 
 
  Register here
 

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a discussion theme.
Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).

To start a new discussion topic:

Write the name of the topic in the 'Subject' box.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To join a discussion topic:

Click on the discussion topic of your choice.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To edit your message:

You can edit a message at any time after posting it as long as you're signed in.
Click on the 'Edit your message' link above the message.
Make your desired changes.
Click 'Submit'.

If you find you don't want to change the message after all, click on 'Return without changes'.

To set a chatmark:

Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).
Click on the "Set chatmark" link on the Chatter Box pages. This will set the time at which you have logged in.
Click on the "Go to chatmark" link to see all messages posted since you set your chatmark.

You can set your chatmark at any time and as often as you like.