English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In his latest column, called "Impeach George Bush?" Buckley spells out what Clinton was impeached for, without going into the personal context of the investigation.

He then goes on to dismiss meaningful and important charges against Bush in proposed articles of impeachment, as "everything this side of a parking ticket".

Those charges include waging an illegal war of agression, deliberately misleading Congress and the American people in reasons for waging war, breaking FISA law by spying on American citizens without getting easily obtainable warrants, breaking international treaties which, as such, are the law of the land in America, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Buckley describes Nixon's impending impeachment, before he resigned, as "inevitable."
It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that the scale and magnitude of Bush's offenses make Nixon look like a boy scout in comparison.

2007-10-27 14:56:16 · 7 answers · asked by dontknow772002 3 in News & Events Media & Journalism

Furthermore Buckley suggests that anyone who thinks Bush deserves impeachment is some kind of unreasonable crackpot, residing somewhere out on the lunatic fringe.

Fact is, nearly twice as many people support Bush's impeachment now than people supported impeachment of Clinton back in 1998.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18164

2007-10-27 15:01:06 · update #1

Jerry, I appreciate your resentment, but conservatives and liberals alike are disenchanted, to say the least, and I think people need to come together at this point, Bush and Cheney are drumming up World War 3 now, by all appearances, drumming up a bombing campaign in Iran, using the same methods they used for the Iraq invasion, repetition in the media of their scare-mongering, and completely distorted talking points, etc.

Some of the most virulent Bush critics come from the true conservative mindset.

People like Paul Craig Roberts, for example, Ronald Reagan's former Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. Read any one of his columns here, and you 'll see what I mean:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts-arch.html

2007-10-27 15:10:02 · update #2

Steel Head: Oh? And do you see that the value of the U.S. dollar is now at par with Canada for the first time in 30 or 40 years? This is due to borrowing for the 2 trillion projected dollars for the Bush wars, mostly from Asian banks. This acts as a tax on Americans, who need more dollars to pay for goods, especially foreign goods, of which America is now more dependent on.

Do you see that the military is stretched very thin now, troops on their 4th or 5th tours of duty, National Guard over there, leaving less resources to deal with emergencies at home, where they should be?

Do you see that the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions have caused the opposite of what they were intended to do, causing only more anti-American sentiment worldwide?
Don't just take my word for it, Rumsfeld's Pentagon said so:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_120704V.shtml

2007-10-27 15:18:33 · update #3

Many people would disagree with you, some of whom have in fact done their research.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bush+articles+of+impeachment&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&vc=&fp_ip=KR


Your 'legal argument' looks highly technical and evasive, if it is valid at all, and seems to miss the obvious. There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, the latter would trump. Bush did in fact, knowingly lie, or deceive, when presenting certain 'evidence' against Saddam Hussein, and when addressing the warrantless spying against Americans. Overall, I think it can be successfully proven that Bush violated his constitutional oath, and that his crimes (Al Gore even came out and said Bush acted illegally in the warrantless spying, and I'll take his word over yours, sorry), and also that his actions have done great harm.

Only reason they aren't impeaching Bush is that they don't want Cheney to take his place, so they are working on a Cheney impeachment instead.

2007-10-28 11:54:00 · update #4

(above comment intended for 'Desertviper')

2007-10-28 11:55:03 · update #5

7 answers

Buckley is and was a CIA operative and so any opinion of his is colored by the light of his vows to and oaths to lie or decieve to protect the government and act as an agent for the CIA read one of his dry books and see inside his MIND

2007-10-27 15:01:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I've always wondered about Buckley, he's definitely an elitist, I heard him say some nasty things about disabled people years ago.

Frankly I was no 'fan' of Dick Nixon's , I danced around my living room the day he resigned. But compared to what this Bush administration has done , it does indeed make Nixon's crimes and misdemanors look almost trivial.

I do not understand why the House and Senate have not started articles of impeachment.

2007-10-27 15:03:29 · answer #2 · answered by Lizzy-tish 6 · 1 0

Hate to disagree with you. To begin with, the Congress passed an authorization to carry out offensive military operations against Iraq. so I can't see the illegality of the action. There was no misleading of the Congress since the very reasons listed in that resolution are also contained in the Iraq Liberation Act which was enacted in 1998.
Section 314 of Public Law #107-108, passed in December of 2001, amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and permitted warrantless electronic surveillance up to 72 hours. In so doing, it mirrored that which was contained in Executive Order # 12949 which was signed by President William Jefferson Clinton on February 9, 1995.
Our treatment of illegal combatants in this war go way beyond the requirements contained in the Laws of Land Warfare (Geneva Conventions). In prior conflicts those who carried out combat without wearing distinctive uniforms with no discernible chain of command and an aversion to openly brandishing their weapons in public were exectuted on the spot. For that is the very defintition of illegal combatant in the Geneva Conventions.
I don't mind these calls for impeachment of George Walker Bush. However, I do take issue with those who call for it without doing the research needed to sustain their charges. The same pattern of stupidity which was carried out in the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton.

2007-10-27 17:50:43 · answer #3 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0 1

William F. Buckley is a GIANT intellect of our time.

He is not readily understood by those whose IQ is NOT a bit higher than average.

When trying to focus clearly on his genius through the cloudy smudged glasses of the Far Left Wing Liberal Anti-America Irrational Bash/Hate Bush Liberal Ideologues, one sees readily the Left Wing Liberals complete inability to see reality at all ... except the MoveOn George Soros version which now dictates the entire Democratic platform.

Impeach Bush? ... just another feeble attempt of Democrats to again create ISSUES instead of Bi-Partisan solutions.

2007-10-27 15:06:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I have eyes and I think (as my Dad used to say when he thought I was full of shiat) you are whistling dixie. I see the Deranged hatred of bush syndrome has fully infected you...lol...give it a rest, he's got 14 months left, then we'll see if anyone can do better.

2007-10-27 15:12:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

William F. Buckley has a lot more intelligence go for him in stating a case than you do.

Than again why should I bother you with reality.

2007-10-27 15:09:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

He's a conservative, so the answer is most definitely and emphatically "NO!"

2007-10-27 15:01:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers