Must right-wingers be totally blind to the valid reasons to impeach Bush?

Question

Here they are:

Abuse of power:

-- Violating Habeus Corpus; denying Due Process of Law to detainees.

Violating our Constitutional system of Checks & Balances and Separation of Powers by:

-- Frequent and excessive use of signing statements, detailing what he will and will not enforce. He is not a legislature. His job is to enforce ALL the law.

-- Keeping Congress, which has a Constitutional role in oversight, in the dark on many matters.

Obstruction of justice:

-- Ordering subordinates not to testify to Congress (ignoring subpoenas), withholding requested documents.

Breaking the law

-- FISA Act. Illegal wiretaps.
-- The law prohibiting outing of CIA personnel.
-- Violating our Treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions with illegal detention, torture, and renditioning.

If you believe in the Rule of Law, the office of the Presidency MUST be restored to its Constitutional limits. Otherwise you set in stone what a President can do and get away with. I

Someday, probably soon, we WILL have a Democratic President. Do you want this person to have the expanded powers that Bush ilegally seized?

I forgot this:

Implementing the Theory of the Unitary Executive, which hold sthat the President as Commander in Chief is above the law, answerable to no one, and has unchecked, unsupervised, unlimited powers.

He's a President, not a Generalissimo, although I suspect the latter is what American rightists really want.

Answer 1

Scourge; I asked this question earlier too outlining the possible reasons why Bush may not have been impeached.
This is what I came up with;

Bush's invasion March 19, 2003 was approved by a (Democratic) Congress. Bush had staunch support from Americans calling for the terrorists to be brought to justice in lieu of 9/11. I'm assuming what occured was Congress would NOT go against the will of the people who were advocating and applauding Bush and his "war on terror." This is what caused the domino effect. Next, came the swinging pendulum favoring Bush.

At this point Bush already had the support of the people, so how bad would it look if (Democratic led)Congress shot down the President's proposal of attacking any country "who harbor terrorists." The moment the momentum swung into Bush's favor was the exact moment Congress lost control, ultimately giving Bush free reign. What would look even worse, is if they tried impeaching Bush, which would basically go against the will of the people.

Congress realized it fudged up and fudged up bad. There was no stopping this horrific train wreck they created. I think that's the sole reason that he was never impeached.

Edit; didn't realize you answered the question. Anyways, that's the answer I drummed up.

Answer 2

No, or Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and thrown in prison. It isn't too late to do that either. Bush was the man behind Fast & Furious. Then we have the insider trader information and we have on tape Boehner passing out checks from the Koch brothers right before they voted on a bill which favored the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers, the oil barons who funded the tea party. And Boehner says there is no tea party in congress. Ha!

Answer 3

Okay let's try thinking out your points.....

1) The Constitution provides from protection of AMERICAN citizens. The detainees are not citizen's, therefore they have no rights.

2) Where exactly does it say how many signing statements you can have?

3) What exactly did they not know? Post a creditable link please.

Chew on those a while, provide some feed back and we'll cover the rest. Don't want to overload you....

Answer 4

It's hard to believe in the Rule of Law if it isn't based on the Constitution. Without the Constitution, there is no law.

Now, if you agree with that, please cite what part of the Constitution permits the existence of the DEA, FDA, ATF, HUD, and SSA.

Answer 5

The right-wing invented terrorists will just pretend lopp your head off and send the fake video to Al-Jeezera.


I assume we're talking in fictional terms because you cannot possibly be serious.

Answer 6

These are is biased, partisan, Democrat Party talking points. They have no substance.

If another terror attack takes place because of Democrat Party disloyalty, the leaders should be held criminally liable.

Answer 7

correct me if i'm mistaken... but the 'right wingers' are not in the majority, are they? it only takes a simple majority to impeach (not the conviction, more like the indictment)

Answer 8

They don't want to admit that they made a mistake by supporting him in the first place.

Answer 9

Well I guess if he detained Habeus Corpus, that means your *** should be in jail. See ya later, dude.

Answer 10

But, But don't you know it's all Clinton's Fault.