Vermont votes to impeach
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, March 9, 2007 02:42
VIEWED: 5496
PAGE 4 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, the President doesn't need any authorization from, or clarification to Congress to use military force.
"
Hang on......hang on.........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....hang on.......oh geez.....hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so then WHY did Congress create the War Powers Resolution?
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,
Where's the final part of Phase II of that report?Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Saying that this statement wasn't a lie is arguing by semantics. Bush had been told repeatedly that this claim was wrong. So his lie is a lie of omission. An accurate statement would have been, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is counter to all the evidence that our own intelligence agencies have looked at."
I can guarantee that if I had tried out this line of defense on my mom it wouldn't have worked, "Mom, Tom next door claims that I did not break the window."
Your false analogy aside, it's still not a lie. You can argue how improper it is to put that into the SOTU speech all day long, but it's still not a lie. The Brits still stand by their findings, even if our own CIA won't stand by it.
A more apt analogy.. " Mom, Tom next door says that Billy down the street has illegal fireworks" .
Tom might be wrong, or right, but is it right to tell your mom unless YOU know for sure what Billy has? If you're dealing in a SOTU speech writing, or rumor spreading, that's one thing. But in the world of Int'l Intelligence, it's a different story.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. " b
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A more apt analogy.. " Mom, Tom next door says that Billy down the street has illegal fireworks" .
Tom might be wrong, or right, but is it right to tell your mom unless YOU know for sure what Billy has? If you're dealing in a SOTU speech writing, or rumor spreading, that's one thing. But in the world of Int'l Intelligence, it's a different story.
Okay. Let's run with that analogy. What if you know exactly what information Tom is basing his claim on and you know that that information is bogus. And you have been told repeatedly that you can't use that information to make the claim yourself. And you still go ahead and repeat Tom's claim. What does that make you? I'm voting for chicken.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, if a bunch of racists get together in some other small town somewhere and decide that the USA should re-institute slavery, that would be all right with you all?
Fortunately, as a representative democracy, it requires a majority of our elected representatives, not just a bunch of folks somewhere, to pass laws, or impeach a president. The Democrats have managed a majority in both Houses. If the Congress decides to impeach, fine. if a group of people at a town meeting decide to, that's interesting, but nothing else.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geez Geezer - they just voted a resolution. All they are doing is telling the country where they stand. I wish more communities would do the same.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
What if you know exactly what information Tom is basing his claim on and you know that that information is bogus. And you have been told repeatedly that you can't use that information to make the claim yourself. And you still go ahead and repeat Tom's claim. What does that make you? I'm voting for chicken.
First of all, where is it written that that info is bogus ? Just because the CIA can't verify it, doesn't mean it's bad intel. As I've stated before, and unless you can show me otherwise, I understand that the Brits STILL stand by their intel on Niger and Yellow Cake uranium.
The key elements are a) is the intel bad ? b) how do we know its bad ? and c) at what point do we know whether or not it's bad intel? There's nothing I've seen which indicates there was bad intel in the SOTU address, OR that Bush knew it was bad, and used it anyway. And the President, not the CIA , writes the SOTU address. If the CIA doesn't like something he says, they're free to say so,but it's still his speech.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ? I saw none posted.
Well, technically , none were POSTED, but this is the resolution that they voted for in Middlebury, Vermont:
"We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.
The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.
George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's say he wasn't sure if the WMDs were there or not. He sure as hell pretended to be convinced when he told everybody to go to war, so he was lying, right? If I'm not sure if there's still any pizza in the fridge but tell you there most certainly is, I think that that would fairly be classified as me lying. So even if Bush didn't have his facts straight (and I'm not saying he did), saying he had some intel and therefore wasn't lying doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Causal:
Editted to add: spun, selectively interpreted, and others, I don't necessarily deny. I definitely think it's the case that he paid attention to the intel he wanted to. Just don't go to making the assumption that he knew, conclusively, what was and wasn't there.
And I still don't see why the weapons inspectors were rushed out of there before completing their inspection, if Bush was unsure then surely he would've preferred finding out for sure before engaging in a war that could eventually show that he didn't know what he was talking about. That, as much as anything else, makes me suspicious of his motives.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes and No. Yes, through the House of Representitives. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. No, by means of arbitrary and partisan based acts like what VT seems in love with.
"We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
Quote:Nope, sorry. There's no evidence to that point, and in fact, there's multiple findings to the contrary.
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
Quote:The actions this administration have taken during war are far less intrusive and more in the open than FDR during WW2 or Lincoln during TWBTS.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
Quote:
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.Quote:
Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.Quote:
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights
Don't know the specifics of this case, but while there 'may' be some merrit to this, it's ridiculous to hold the President and VP accountable for this sort of case.
VT is wasting their time, and anyone elses who bothers to pay attention.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME