Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 6th, 2008, 01:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
intangible child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 12,699
Why I Believe Bush Must Go by George McGovern

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.



After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.



Today I have made a different choice.



Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.



But what are the facts?



Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.



From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.



In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.



All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.



I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?



How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?



It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
intangible child is offline  
Old January 15th, 2008, 09:06 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
sgtdmski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Poplar, MT
Posts: 2,181
Hmmmm deceiving Congress, is that anything like deceiving the Judicial Branch???? Now where in the hell do Republicans get the idea that President of the United States can lie and get away with it?????





ANSWER:::::: FROM THE DEMOCRATS AND PRESIDENT CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Nice try George, you still lost the election. But you failed to cry out when Bill did it, so why didn't you temble then and heed Jefferson's observation????????????



dmk
sgtdmski is offline  
Old January 21st, 2008, 08:55 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
intangible child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 12,699
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 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:



1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.



2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.



3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.



4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.



5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.



6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.



7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.



8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.



9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."



10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.



11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.



12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.



13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.



14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.



15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.



16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."



17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.



18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.



19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.



20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach:



http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/bushpdf.pdf
intangible child is offline  
Old January 24th, 2008, 08:27 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,911
I like ya Sarge, but you gotta look at this!!!



OhDear



THE LEGACY OF GEORGE W. BUSH’S PRESIDENCY

The Country He Inherited, The Country He Leaves Behind





OhDear is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 06:38 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski
Hmmmm deceiving Congress, is that anything like deceiving the Judicial Branch???? Now where in the hell do Republicans get the idea that President of the United States can lie and get away with it?????





ANSWER:::::: FROM THE DEMOCRATS AND PRESIDENT CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Nice try George, you still lost the election. But you failed to cry out when Bill did it, so why didn't you temble then and heed Jefferson's observation????????????



dmk


So, how old was Bill Clinton when Tricky Dick said "I am not a crook".
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 06:46 AM   #6
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,694
Oh who the fuck cares? It doesn't matter who is elected president. The world is controlled by a few fat, bald, cigar-chomping, and very rich men. Only a bloody fool would believe that the President of the United States has any real power.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 07:01 AM   #7
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 17,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
So, how old was Bill Clinton when Tricky Dick said "I am not a crook".


27 years old. He would turn 28 later that month.



Nixon uttered the famous words shortly before he resigned in 1974.



24 years later tomorrow, Bill Clinton said these famous words: "I did not have sex with that woman."
highway80west is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 07:57 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by highway80west
27 years old. He would turn 28 later that month.



Nixon uttered the famous words shortly before he resigned in 1974.



24 years later tomorrow, Bill Clinton said these famous words: "I did not have sex with that woman."


And if " a certain Senator "( who gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe,)would have been elected President, we could maybe have the quote, " I did not have sex with that man."



I personally tire of the Clinton jokes. I do not believe in Hillary's ability to run the country, but stand by my conclusion that Bill Clinton is a brilliant mind.



OhDear
OhDear is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 08:15 AM   #9
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 17,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhDear
And if " a certain Senator "( who gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe,)would have been elected President, we could maybe have the quote, " I did not have sex with that man."



I personally tire of the Clinton jokes. I do not believe in Hillary's ability to run the country, but stand by my conclusion that Bill Clinton is a brilliant mind.



OhDear


Hear, hear. You mean a President Hillary Clinton (a she or he?) might say those words in the year, say on January 26, 2014 (if it goes two terms).



(Good Lord Have Mercy, I'll be 60 years that day).



I know they do get old, but these jokes won't ever stop, OhDear. On another thread, who would not want to see the Clinton and Obama camps keep on fighting, while Edwards just quietly move up in the polls. The fighting between the two camps is nothing short of childish, I dare say.



Beautiful avatar you have, Bon.
highway80west is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008, 08:20 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,911
Here is my Senator. And if I am blessed by God, angels and fairies, I should someday be able to say, "Here is my Man!!!"







Heck I even made him my friend at Myspace.



But here is a very good article by him and it addresses Mr. Edwards ...who he probably will not endorse. Nor shall I.



I love Russ Feingold's integrity.



His reasonable leadership.



His hard work.



And his good looks!



Quote:



Q&A: Feingold charts course



He's hoping to make progress on five key domestic issues in 2008

The Post-Crescent



Sen. Russ Feingold has a plan. Getting ready to head back to Washington as Congress is about to resume, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin has compiled a list of his top five domestic agenda items for 2008: a health care proposal, changes to the No Child Left Behind Act, improving public financing of presidential campaigns, strengthening the Clean Water Act and giving the president line-item veto powers.



He acknowledges none of the proposals are actually going to get passed this year, but he wants to at least move the needle on them. Build some critical mass to present to the new president.



In an interview with The Post-Crescent editorial board, Feingold discussed those proposals, the war in Iraq and the current presidential campaigns.



Here's an edited transcript of his interview:



On the listening sessions he's been holding around the state



When I see people at these town meetings, they seem the most down, the most distressed than I've ever seen people overall, in 25 years of elected office. They're very frustrated with the administration and just feeling bad about government. So I've just started saying to them, "Hey, there's going to be a new president in a year." And people just smile.



On health care



It's the No. 1 domestic issue that's brought up at the town meetings. Lindsay Graham, who's a senator from South Carolina, and I have come together on a proposal. I support universal health care for all Americans. He doesn't, necessarily. But we agree that we ought to have a commission that allows three or four states to win a competition to become pilot projects to show their vision of how they can move toward universal coverage in their state.



For some, it might be a single-payer state, it might be an employer coalition, co-op type of approach. He says health savings accounts; I'm skeptical of it. But the idea is that we would actually have some evidence on the ground of what works and what doesn't.



This has all been a theoretical debate since, God knows, Harry Truman. And it goes nowhere. So we're excited about this. The Heritage Foundation has endorsed it, the Brookings Institution, the SEIU. The Heritage Foundation is very conservative. The SEIU might be the most liberal union.



They all come together, saying, "You know, we think we can show our stuff with this kind of deal."



On No Child Left Behind Act



I'm been trying for years to try to modify it in some way, try to fix it, to make it less onerous.



At every listening session, someone complains about this. It's not just teachers. It's school board members, it's administrators, everybody.



So I've introduced the Improved Student Testing Act, which I think will have bipartisan support. It reduces some of the burden of these tests. It provides alternative options for showing student achievement.



It eliminates this requirement that all the kids have to be at the same level by 2014, which reminds me of Garrison Keillor in Lake Wobegon: "All of the kids are above-average." It's not going to happen.



On presidential campaign funding



People almost forget that we had successful public funding of presidential campaign for something like 25 years.



When Carter beat Ford or Reagan beat Carter, nobody said it was because one guy had more money because they had the same money. The system was working. People opted for it.



It's become outdated, in part because some of these candidates want to spend all they can. But it's also unfair to candidates because they can't spend enough to be competitive, given the limits.



And the real kicker is the primary part. They can't get any of the money in an odd-numbered year. So none of these candidates running in the primaries could opt for public financing and get the money in '07. They had to come into '08 and they're already in these huge primaries.



This bill, with Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Republican and Democratic co-sponsors in the House, would try to get us back to showing that could work.



And, frankly, I would like to see public financing of congressional races. But this would be a good place to start because it has worked in the past.



On the Clean Water Act



Richard Nixon signed the 1972 Clean Water Act. It was understood for decades that that included not just purely navigable waters in the classical sense but prairie potholes, streams and other critical waters.



A couple of recent Supreme Court decisions, very close decisions, have really severely limited this in a way that many people think is a real danger to the protection of the environment, a step backward.



Wisconsin immediately reacted to this under Gov. McCallum and said, "We're not doing this," and on a bipartisan basis overturned it.



But I like to kid around and say we have very smart birds but they don't know when they're flying from Wisconsin to Minnesota or Illinois. We really need a national policy on it.



We're going to be in a real fight on this one but it is bipartisan. The Clean Water Restoration Act is to take us back to that authority. Others will say that it tries to create new, broader authority than before. But we were very emphatic and careful that that's what this really is.



The opposition, I think, is trying to push back the clock to before 1972. So this is an important battle.



On the presidential line-item veto



I've always been a Democrat who supports the idea of a reasonable line-item veto for the president.



I don't want the Wisconsin "Vanna White," "Frankenstein," whatever the latest name is for it. I think that's nuts.



But I do want the president to say, "Here's a bill and these 15 things were shoved in at the last minute and I'd like you guys to vote on it as a separate package."



Now I did support John McCain's efforts on this in the past. It passed but it went to the Supreme Court and they struck it down. It went too far, so we've got to do something that isn't as extreme as that.



Paul Ryan, who's a Republican from Janesville, as I am, we've created something we call the Janesville Line-Item Veto. It's a more modified thing but it gives the president a chance to take a bill in a period of time and say, "Here's 10 things. I want you to vote on these as a package." Congress would be required to vote on it.



We believe the Court will say that's fine. I think this kind of line-item veto, which is narrow, can help us on this earmark thing.



What people in listening sessions are saying about the war in Iraq



Primarily, get us out. They know we can't just leave in two minutes. They fundamentally don't see it as the greatest challenge we have in our foreign policy, which I think they're absolutely right about. They see it as having been a mistake in the first place.



What they're particularly concerned about is the draining of our resources — the money, the weakening of the military, a lot of venom about the private companies, Blackwater. That just comes up all the time.



They kind of see it as a sinkhole situation, where it just seems like our national wealth and strength is being sapped. That's their intuition and I think they're right.



You start talking about Pakistan, you go, well, this guy and his buddies who are planning to kill us, they're in Pakistan, or possibly in Pakistan. But we know where they are and they're not in Iraq.



That's not to say Iraq hasn't become a problem. But when people start thinking about the resources and what we're actually doing and the situation that's obviously developing in Afghanistan, which is very, very dicey, they see this as an odd choice.



And the attempt to say, "Hey, things are getting better," Hillary Clinton said it well in one debate. She said, "We lost 23 people in Iraq in December. What's the celebrating about?"



How long are we going to go forward with this on the notion that we can keep a lid on this country? If anyone really believes you can achieve political reconciliation when there's an occupying power from a non-Islamic country, I disagree. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen as long as we're militarily there with a heavy foot.



On the Democratic presidential candidates



I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.



The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.



When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.



On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary

Probably not.



OhDear



OhDear is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
bush, george, mcgovern



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
George who? Where Is George W. Bush? imaginethat Politicians 13 September 2nd, 2012 04:51 PM
Could George W. Bush end up behind bars? CNN Current Events 25 September 6th, 2009 12:07 PM
The George Bush You Forgot tadpole256 Politicians 0 January 5th, 2009 10:32 AM
George Bush's War on Porn! tadpole256 Political Talk 11 October 3rd, 2005 06:18 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.