HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should Dubya have been im...

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:13 AM

Should Dubya have been impeached?

n/t

82 replies, 4859 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should Dubya have been impeached? (Original post)
Dpm12 Mar 2013 OP
IdaBriggs Mar 2013 #1
kairos12 Mar 2013 #75
hlthe2b Mar 2013 #2
dwilso40641 Mar 2013 #3
Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #4
TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #25
TheMadMonk Mar 2013 #38
RC Mar 2013 #79
randome Mar 2013 #5
forestpath Mar 2013 #6
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #7
sinkingfeeling Mar 2013 #8
baldguy Mar 2013 #9
Still Blue in PDX Mar 2013 #21
karynnj Mar 2013 #10
RobertEarl Mar 2013 #13
karynnj Mar 2013 #19
RobertEarl Mar 2013 #47
loyalsister Mar 2013 #41
RobertEarl Mar 2013 #52
NightWatcher Mar 2013 #11
leftyohiolib Mar 2013 #12
RussBLib Mar 2013 #14
s-cubed Mar 2013 #15
raccoon Mar 2013 #72
1-Old-Man Mar 2013 #16
larkrake Mar 2013 #18
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #17
karynnj Mar 2013 #22
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #71
Aerows Mar 2013 #20
Still Blue in PDX Mar 2013 #23
Cleita Mar 2013 #24
brooklynite Mar 2013 #33
Cleita Mar 2013 #40
brooklynite Mar 2013 #45
Cleita Mar 2013 #46
brooklynite Mar 2013 #48
Cleita Mar 2013 #54
brooklynite Mar 2013 #55
Cleita Mar 2013 #56
muntrv Mar 2013 #26
DinahMoeHum Mar 2013 #27
putitinD Mar 2013 #28
Warpy Mar 2013 #29
Kalidurga Mar 2013 #30
brooklynite Mar 2013 #31
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #43
brooklynite Mar 2013 #44
Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #68
MoonRiver Mar 2013 #32
XRubicon Mar 2013 #34
grantcart Mar 2013 #35
NealK Mar 2013 #36
heather blossom Mar 2013 #37
haikugal Mar 2013 #39
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #42
Terra Alta Mar 2013 #49
johnp3907 Mar 2013 #50
liberal N proud Mar 2013 #51
Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2013 #53
magellan Mar 2013 #57
brooklynite Mar 2013 #59
magellan Mar 2013 #63
brooklynite Mar 2013 #64
magellan Mar 2013 #65
Solly Mack Mar 2013 #58
Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2013 #60
lonestarnot Mar 2013 #61
Gemini Cat Mar 2013 #62
Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #66
doc03 Mar 2013 #67
MiniMe Mar 2013 #69
OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #70
WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #73
and-justice-for-all Mar 2013 #74
KansDem Mar 2013 #76
leveymg Mar 2013 #77
raging moderate Mar 2013 #78
Flashmann Mar 2013 #80
Recursion Mar 2013 #81
Spider Jerusalem Mar 2013 #82

Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:15 AM

1. Yes. On September 12, 2001.

 

Failure to perform his duties.

Everything after that was just ... disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:20 PM

75. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:15 AM

2. Cheney should have been tried as a war criminal. Dubya too, but I'd have been content just to

hold Cheney responsible. Dubya will go down in history as a putz and a mere puppet to Cheney--I do believe. Further, I think he KNOWS this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 AM

3. Yes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 AM

4. Yes, but the Republicans had already salted the earth, making that near impossible.

We had just come off the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans for extremely petty and partisan reasons.

Had the Democrats attempted to impeach Dubya, there was the risk that they would have simply been viewed by independents as wanting payback for the Clinton impeachment mockery. Even though there were actually legitimate grounds on which to impeach Bush, unlike the case with Clinton. Which is a damn shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:13 PM

25. Chasing the mystical independents is little more than a rationalization for acting in bad faith.

See 2009-2010, where the refrain was in full force and they turned around and voted for the Tealoons and liberals were blamed by the Turd Way coalition.

I maintain almost all of them are as fixed as declared partisans and the rest are so fickle and rudderless that they cannot be pursued other than picked up along the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:30 PM

38. Which may well have been the point of the whole sorry episode.

 

Make it impossible to impeach one of their own for even the most egregiously impeachable offenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:04 PM

79. Looking back, I wonder if that was not the real reason they did it.

 

To indemnify the coming bush administration. Whatever, it worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:29 AM

5. Is Good preferable to Evil?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:32 AM

6. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:33 AM

7. Yes

 

And handed over to the International Court of Justice to stand trial for war crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:39 AM

8. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:42 AM

9. He should never have been appointed in the first place.

 

Given that he was in office illegitimately, he should have been removed as soon as possible. Instead, we got eight long years of intentional & deliberate enforced economic devastation & war. It will take America about a century to repair the damage done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:39 PM

21. + 1000! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:43 AM

10. It would never have succeeded - even in the House

The charges would be accurate - he did mislead (lie) Congress and the American people into war with Iraq. By 2007, when we first had control of the House and Senate much of the country thought the war was a "mistake".

However, we were still fighting that war. Impeaching Bush would have indicted the UNITED STATES - not just Bush - and would have declared a war - that we were still fighting - illegal. Our country's mythology is that we are uniquely good. This is believed not just by Conservative Republicans (in a time when we have a Republican President.) Most of the US history kids learn in grade school and High school is completely sanitized.

The Republicans would instantly turn the question of "impeachment" to one of whether the US intentionally started an illegal war. On DU, that would not matter --- but for most Americans they would not go there and would take the position, that right or wrong, the motivation was to make us safer "especially after 911".

I suspect that many Democrats, from the more purple or red areas, would vote no. I also think there would be even more false equivalence given than there was - that Democrats saw the same thing and saw Saddam as a threat. (In 1998, there was a Senate resolution - that the Clinton State department supported and lobbied for - that listed the various crimes of Saddam and essentially said the US favored him out of office. The big difference is that was no support given to a war and none was on the table. This WAS when the US bombed Iraq and when the inspectors left.)

I suspect that there would be a very anemic vote in the House for it - essentially vindicating Bush. As it would fail the House, he would not be impeached and there would be no Senate vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:56 AM

13. wow, that is sad, your description of America

 

Sad that America is now the land of 'Getting Away With It',.

The public is so brainwashed it allowed our government to create war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:36 PM

19. I spoke of a specific period in time in our Congress

Do you disagree?

I was not saying it was right - or what I would want. I think it takes a lot for people who weren't paying that much attention to believe that their own country did something that wrong. It challenges what many grew up with - especially if you grew up in the 50s or before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:58 PM

47. Right, No disagreement

 

You correctly label Americans as not paying attention. And not wanting to face the truth.

And down the drain we go! You do see where all this is leading, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:56 PM

41. Well said

The post 9\11 love unity and endless pledging allegiance was still very fresh. The love it or leave it defensiveness was no longer just coming from the usual suspects.

I think you're correct that impeaching Bush would basically be indicting the US as a whole. People don't under stand the impeachment process. It has been reduced to petty action against a president that some people dislike. Many people would have seen it as a distasteful retaliation. Remember how Clinton's ratings went up when he was impeached?

I'm glad the Democrats didn't do it, because it would have made it easier to come up with the reason to impeach Obama as they keep hoping for. If they even try it now, it's a "now they go again" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:12 PM

52. Really?

 

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

You are willing to coddle the criminals because it might make them mad and they might say bad things?

I get where you are coming from, LS, but the crimes go unpunished and for that America suffers greatly. Obama doesn't need to lead this, congress should, but Obama could do a whole lot in the background, and he should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:45 AM

11. Yawn. What's next, is air good?

Thanks for the thoughtful debate topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:54 AM

12. what kind of question is this? now? well it doesnt matter nancy said impeachment is off the table

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:00 AM

14. not just yes, but hell yes

Lying us into a war; torture; warrantless wiretapping. All three justify impeachment.

Any one of those three items would have had a Republican Congress falling all over themselves to impeach if the President had been a Democrat at the time.

Democrats are just too even-tempered for their own good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:07 AM

15. Yes and no.

Yes because he certainly deserved it. No because the country wasn't ready to believe what he and his cronies did.

Look at what is finally coming out about Nixon's and Reagan's treason. Most people haven't hear of it and probably wouldn't believe it still. I think Johnson was dead wrong to not expse Nixon. We might be a better country today. He made a judgment call, thinking the exposure would destroy Americans faith in their government, but he unleashed the destroyers of our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to s-cubed (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:07 PM

72. Can you give us a link? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:08 AM

16. Yes, but then so should Obama

Anyone who thinks that the planned killings (authorized kill list approved by the President) of American citizens without due process, which requires a Judge and jury and delivery of a verdict and sentence, is not an impeachable offense is out of their mind. Obama did it and he should be removed from Office for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:42 PM

18. please grow up

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:44 AM

17. Should a, Would a, Could a, but until 2006, it wasn't possible because Republicans controlled the

House.

After 2006, no one had the political will to investigate.

Even had they impeached in the House, he would never have been convicted in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:39 PM

22. We took the House and Senate in the Nov 2006 election and they took office in 2007

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:04 PM

71. In June of 2008, Kucinich and Wexler took impeachment to the floor of the House with 35 articles

This was the last of several attempts. The House voted 251 to 166 to send it to the Judiciary Committee. IMHO, it died there at the hands of Democrats that did not want the political fallout of an impeachment hearing in an election year, and because nobody in power really wanted to impeach him, anyway. Pretty sad state of affairs, but these things are never just about high crimes and misdemeanors. After the victory in 2008, nobody cared to investigate the crimes of the previous administration.

John Conyers, who strongly advocated impeachment before 2006, stayed mostly quiet after 2006.

Clearly, there was a decision in elected leadership of the Democratic Party not to go that route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:38 PM

20. He and Cheney

 

should have been JAILED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:42 PM

23. Immediately, if not sooner.

The world would be a far different place had President Gore been allowed to take office.

I am probably more bitter over the s/election of pResident Bush than over any of the wrongs that have been done to me personally in my life, and there have been a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:44 PM

24. Tried as a war criminal, impeached and charged with treason by allowing

the Supreme Court to circumvent the Constitution in how a President is elected, and appointing him instead. It goes without saying that his whole administration should have gotten the same judicial treatment as accessories to his crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:20 PM

33. How did he "allow" the Court to do anything? He was only a candidate at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #33)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:54 PM

40. Did you not follow what was going on at that time or were you in a cave

in Anarctica? He got daddy's SOS, James Baker, to stop the legitimate recount in Florida. Then his lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of the USA that had no jurisdiction in a state (FL) election dispute and the SCOTUS, essentially crowned him king. The whole story is out there if you care to Google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:54 PM

45. Explain to me what the CRIME is, and what evidence you have to prove it...

"we all know" isn't admissable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:56 PM

46. What? I'm a prosecutor now?

I'd say leading us to war with lies is a pretty big war crime for starters. Why are you a Bush backer? Shouldn't you be on another forum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:04 PM

48. Not a Bush Backer...I believe in the Law whether it's on my side or not.

...and yes you ARE the "prosecutor" if you're going to say Bush should be charged with crimes...because if its not provable under the LAW, you just acquitted him, which is a worse condition than you have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:17 PM

54. There are laws out there but no one has the cojones to charge him and Cheney with

war crimes. Our Atty General should be doing it or Congress. It's their job. I have no idea what they are afraid of. My big hope is that the Hague tries them. I believe once we are out of Iraq, entirely, the Iraqis can file a complaint with the Hague and I hope they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #54)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:20 PM

55. What-is-the-Law???

Here's the United States Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

What you think SHOULD be against the Law and what IS against the Law are not the same thing.

And by the way, the US does not participate in the International Criminal Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:24 PM

56. There are several replies on this very thread that will address your poutrage.

I myself am fed up with this silliness. This is a message board not a court room. Buy bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:14 PM

26. Oh hell yeah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:15 PM

27. Yes.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:17 PM

28. YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:17 PM

29. Yes, on many grounds

First, when he ignored all the conditions placed on going to war in Iraq and simply ordered the troops in instead of letting Blix finish the job and submit his report.

Then, on his policy of overriding Congress through executive order and "signing statement."

And finally, for abrogating the Geneva Conventions, a treaty this country had strictly followed for over a century and which has saved lives in war, enemies knowing that surrendering to American forces would result in humane treatment.

Because he wasn't impeached, his evil will continue to live on. Unfortunately, his own party was in charge and too corrupt and short sighted to do the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:18 PM

30. No the Supreme Court should have been impeached.

Then we wouldn't have to worry about whether GW should have been impeached or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

31. For what "High Crime"?

If you think "yes", please don't offer up "lying us into a war". It's unethical but not criminal unless he's under oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:57 PM

43. for mass murder

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:03 PM

44. So you believe Roosevelt and Truman should have been convicted as well?

I'm not comparing WW 2 to Iraq; I'm observing that the Congress gave Bush authorization to engage in military action in Iraq, and killing outside the US, while deplorable, is NOT a US crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:13 PM

68. It is essentially a US crime under international law.

And can be tried in any country participating in the passage and enforcement of said laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

32. YES, OF COURSE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:22 PM

34. You ok with preemptive war?

I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:23 PM

35. Bush isn't as stupid as people think he is


With his father's experience and advice I expect that Bush's moral misdeeds probably never crossed the line of legal action, he was too smart and had too many lawyers reading everything he signed.

Cheney on the other hand had his fingerprints all over everything including Plame and interfering with specific intelligence procedure.

We should have started low, gotten people to flip and worked our way up. We might have gotten as far as Cheney but I doubt that there was a culpable action that would prove 'high crime'.

Turning intelligence on its head would not have been a crime as long as there was one credible intelligence source that agreed with what he wanted to do.

Interfering and blocking intelligence, which Cheney certainly did, would have been impeachable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:26 PM

36. Yes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:27 PM

37. YES YES YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:51 PM

39. Yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:56 PM

42. yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:07 PM

49. yes.

and Cheney as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:07 PM

50. Yes.

That was an easy one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:10 PM

51. He should be in JAIL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:12 PM

53. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:28 PM

57. Definitely, without respect for its chance of succeeding

Many of the lies - and liars - would have been exposed for what they truly are during the hearings, and we might not be contending with those criminals in Congress today. And it would have shown the world that we still have principles, and who among our political leaders still uphold them.

Not impeaching - not even bothering to hold an investigation - has proved nothing but that the mockery and distrust of our country and its hypocrisy is entirely justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:56 PM

59. Just like the Republicans showed "we still have principles" by impeaching Bill Clinton, right?

Impeach Bush, fail to get 67 votes for Conviction, and in the minds of most voters, he's been acquitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #59)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:03 PM

63. Are you seriously comparing lying about a BJ to lying this country into war?

Maybe you can't tell the difference between a witch hunt and prosecuting real high crimes and treason, but most people can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:06 PM

64. No; I'm being realistic, rather than emotional.

NEITHER is a chargeable crime, NEITHER would result in conviction in the Senate, and the result of a Senate acquittal would be the perception in most voter's minds that Bush was innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:09 PM

65. We disagree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:31 PM

58. Yes.

And tried for war crimes. And not just him, of course.

He and Cheney both admitted to torture. Waterboarding is torture and absolutely anyone pretending it isn't is a liar or a fool....or complicit.

Alas, America has a hypocrisy problem. Not to mention wanting to believe it is something it isn't. "Good guys" don't torture. Nations who actually value human rights don't torture. And they don't pretend they didn't know better or that somehow it's debatable or that it is somehow legal to do the illegal because some obsequious toadie says it's legal. (A nation with integrity indicts the toadie as well.) And they don't pretend that sending money to tsunami victims somehow washes away the war crimes. (i.e. that doing a good somehow mitigates the war crimes committed)

Oh, well. Not like it matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:59 PM

60. is the sky blue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:00 PM

61. He should have been jailed, and he still should be.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:02 PM

62. Yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:10 PM

66. Impeached, tried for crimes against humanity and hanged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:12 PM

67. Absolutely and Cheney, Rice and Powell should be behind bars

with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:45 PM

69. They should have impeached both Bush and Cheney

Does no good to impeach Bush without impeaching Cheney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:50 PM

70. How do you impeach a guy who was never elected? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:08 PM

73. Yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:12 PM

74. Fuck yeah!!! straight to prison at that! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:24 PM

76. Yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:39 PM

77. And promptly.

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

3,000 plus Counts of Negligent Homicide with Depraved Indifference to Human Life, Conspiracy, and a number of included charges. As quickly as they could convene a Grand Jury after September 11. They could start adding charges as soon as they got sworn statements from those who knew the details of how it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 02:35 PM

78. Yes. And Dick Cheney as well.

And possibly the Supreme Court justices who actually listened to the preposterous lawsuit claiming that Al Gore would do irreparable harm to George Bush by persisting in his legal right to have ALL the votes counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:13 PM

80. Should Dubya have been impeached?

At least....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:20 PM

81. Congress knew the Iraq arguments were BS but voted yes anyways

Hard to make a convincing argument for impeachment with that crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:24 PM

82. "Should" is irrelevant

Splitting on party lines? There were never the votes in the House to pass a bill of impeachment, and there were never the votes in the Senate to secure a conviction had such a bill of impeachment passed. "Politics is the art of the possible," as Bismarck said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread