BF2S Forums Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

lowing wrote:

I will bet you are the only one who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Let me spell it out for you: you say...

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.

You frame it like there are only two choices, in case that isn't obvious enough for you.  "President, or the terrorists.  Not with the president?  You must be with the terrorists."  Got it?  Good.

I say:

spastic bullet wrote:

Okay lowing, time to come off the fence.  Do you want to fuck Richard Simmons, or Tom Cruise?  Don't tell me you don't want to fuck Tom Cruise, because that's just the kind of thing Richard Simmons loves to hear, believe me.  You either want to fuck Tom Cruise or Richard Simmons, so which is it?

See how it's exactly the fucking same thing?  It's called a false dilemma.  Rejecting one option does not involve choosing the other by default.  Do you understand?  Good.

Now, the other thing you assumed nobody else gets, just because you don't:

lowing wrote:

My stance isn't to say that that video is propaganda...It is the realities of who we are up against. It isn't some made up monster that we invented to get support.

This is exactly my point.  How do you think we can watch these videos?  Were they captured in a daring raid?  No, the terrorists released them as propaganda.  They want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.  And by some bizarre coincidence, you also want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.

The point is (a) we know.  And (b) why is it that both you and the terrorists want everybody to see these videos, and for exactly the same fucking reasons?  Now, what were you saying about somebody being the terrorists' ally?

anonymous neg wrote:

Today 20:33:52      -1      Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?      You are a true idiot... With Hitler? No thanks

Can you read?

Well I believe I need to respond to a negative Karma I got.

I posted in the beginning:
Getting back on Topic,

What did Bush do that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." 

It is not enough to say you want to see Bush impeached, but you need to back it up according to the US Constitution (and the previous times any president has been impeached).

I received a negative Karma with the statement:
US Constitution States we do not attack countries unless attacked... Iraq did not attack us wake up.

In response,
What specific article and section does it state that?  The Constitution establishes the criteria to follow when bringing the US republic to war (Congress declares a citizen president leads).  I believe you are confused with what Constitution states and what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote as he made the point that when it comes to bringing the United States to war, it would have to be a responsive war to an attack (and it would have to be short).  If you don't believe that is true, look at the pretense for every American war.  USA has always been the victim of something.

Yet, the point you obviously missed is how law works in the US.  The Constitution is not something written in stone as the founders left it open (i.e. something called "Ammendments").  Furthermore, with the establishment of judicial review and the growing of prominence of courts in government affairs a principle of "precedence" comes into play.  Basicly, in the past Presidents have led us into wars and conflicts (false pretenses aside) without a true "declaration of war" from Congress.  Furthermore with Bush, he was given powers by Congress to carry out war. 

This settles then the constitutional legality of the issue.  Now the real problem comes from an apparent abuse of the war-time powers granted to Bush from Congress.  However as you DID NOT even try to "wake up" and see the real problem I'm going to have to stop here. 

It should be noted that the post was not to defend the Iraq war but try and bring out some intelligent observations and criteria on how to impeach a president.
Remember the only president to get impeached was because he fell into a trap by Congress, which in the end did not qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors."

In summary (I guess if you've read this far down)
Don't just negative karma me.  I want to have something of a conversation instead of just trading of insults like everyone else likes to do.

First off thank you for reposting.

Now a clearer, slightly less unbiased view of what the Supreme Court really stated:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … sion_x.htm

Btw the actually supreme court decision, this is why I will never be a lawyer (Keep on killing them trees)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Also before I begin a thing a bout the Geneva Convention(s):
Ultimately, Geneva Convention was never supposed to be something applied unilaterally but upon the principle of reciprocity.

General Provision, Article 2
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

As neither the Taliban or Al Q. have accepted the Geneva Convention(s), US nor her allies are legally bound to uphold the G. C.

But back to the my response,

The ruling is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration's attempt to bring some form of prosecutions to the Gitmo prisoners.  Basically it just said they can't do it that way, but they could still do it with a more Congressional involvement. 

The article you reposted reaches for something that isn't quite there.  As the Geneva Conventions don't hold up in this current "War on Terrorism" therefore there really are no "high crimes and misdemeanors."

What we have here instead the US government evolving.  It is setting limitations and the proper procedure of prosecuting.

Now what you may want to bring to the table is that by the US being a leading power in the world, it should instead live up to the principles behind the Geneva Convention.  Personally, I want justice to be done.  If it can't be done through military tribunal, then lets find another recourse.

For good measure, here is my own biased link:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=13908

joewardog wrote:

Reminder,
What is right is not always law, and what is law is not always right.

Sure, but it's a project.  And I think we can all agree it's good to move the law in the direction of what is right.  Instead of just to the right. 

joewardog wrote:

Now a clearer, slightly less unbiased view of what the Supreme Court really stated:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … sion_x.htm

Not sure you meant to say that, but I think it's true anyway.  The link BN posted was more informative and slightly less biased than the usatoday story.  Not only did usatoday leave out huge chunks, they even gave more column space to the dissenting view.

joewardog wrote:

For good measure, here is my own biased link:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=13908

The tone of that article is "liek somebody set up us the bomb", except less nuanced.  Right up until near the end, that is, where somebody chimes in with:

SCOTUSBLOG wrote:

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it.

In other words, they agree with BN's linked article that the ruling has serious implications.  They just disagree about whether it's a good thing.

Personally, I think Bush forced them into this.  Guantanamo is an affront to American ideals, and by not processing the detainees as either criminals or POWs, Bush has made the whole country vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy.  The Supreme Court don't like that.

This is going to be interesting.

joewardog:  The US is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which includes the right to liberty.

The US is legally bound to stand by any international agreements it has signed.  It is not the international communities concern whether internal structures were followed.

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

I will bet you are the only one who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Let me spell it out for you: you say...

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.

You frame it like there are only two choices, in case that isn't obvious enough for you.  "President, or the terrorists.  Not with the president?  You must be with the terrorists."  Got it?  Good.

I say:

spastic bullet wrote:

Okay lowing, time to come off the fence.  Do you want to fuck Richard Simmons, or Tom Cruise?  Don't tell me you don't want to fuck Tom Cruise, because that's just the kind of thing Richard Simmons loves to hear, believe me.  You either want to fuck Tom Cruise or Richard Simmons, so which is it?

See how it's exactly the fucking same thing?  It's called a false dilemma.  Rejecting one option does not involve choosing the other by default.  Do you understand?  Good.

Now, the other thing you assumed nobody else gets, just because you don't:

lowing wrote:

My stance isn't to say that that video is propaganda...It is the realities of who we are up against. It isn't some made up monster that we invented to get support.

This is exactly my point.  How do you think we can watch these videos?  Were they captured in a daring raid?  No, the terrorists released them as propaganda.  They want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.  And by some bizarre coincidence, you also want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.

The point is (a) we know.  And (b) why is it that both you and the terrorists want everybody to see these videos, and for exactly the same fucking reasons?  Now, what were you saying about somebody being the terrorists' ally?

I see what you are saying now. Now my question becomes if we ALLLLLLLLLL know how "ruthless" these groups are, why are you not will to stand toe to toe with them and defend yourselves against them?

I admit to taking the position of 2 choices, fight or succumb. IF you have a third option I am all ears. Please don't come back with diplomacy, since negotiating with terrorists is not an option ( of which I agree)


 

Xietsu wrote:

Lowing is a crazy man devoid of all sensibility. Don't even try spastic, because on top of not understanding true logic, he won't comprehend your sarcasm either.

What happened to your thesaurus dip shit??

Please explain the true logic in caving into terrorists demands and bending to their every whim. You "peace at any price", crowd are really something.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

That is why I said your comments lead me to believe the way I mentioned.I also challenged you to clarify your position of which you have yet to do.

So, casting a country in a negative light = calling it fascist, and casting terrorists in a less negative light than others = calling them victims?  For someone as wise and learned as you so love to tell us all the time, you have an awfully black and white view of the world.

Uhhhhhhh ya bubbalo, when you cast America in a "worse light" than the fucking terrorists, I think it is reasonable to ASSUME, who you are supporting............Again, for the third time, if this is not the case, clarify your position for us. Or are you just going to stay with the rest of the liberal think tank and offer criticism with no solutions, or better ideas?

Bubbalo wrote:

I would have thought my position was pretty clear.  But, for those a little slow on the uptake:

US:  Is not the center of all that is good in the world, and is just as capable of doing wrong as anyone else.

Terrorists:  Whilst their actions cannot be condoned, this does not necessarily mean their cause is not noble and/or just.

Besides which, to assume I support one side because I consider them better than another brings us back to the whole black/white issue.  And when have I argued that terrorists in general are better than the US?

BTW, what happened to this:

lowing wrote:

I am done with your ass bubbalo.

?

Ok to turn it around and use your own tactics against you. Please show me where I said the US IS the "center of all that is good in the world". Or might you be ASSUMING I think that way based on my posts??

So whenever ya wanna get real, and stop your tap dancing you may do so.

So far as the international community is concerned, they are legally binding.

Besides, AFAIK it was ratified.  Which one would expect, seen as how the US President's wife helped write it.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-03 04:16:10)

Bubbalo wrote:

I would have thought my position was pretty clear.  But, for those a little slow on the uptake:

US:  Is not the center of all that is good in the world, and is just as capable of doing wrong as anyone else.

Terrorists:  Whilst their actions cannot be condoned, this does not necessarily mean their cause is not noble and/or just.

Besides which, to assume I support one side because I consider them better than another brings us back to the whole black/white issue.  And when have I argued that terrorists in general are better than the US?

BTW, what happened to this:

lowing wrote:

I am done with your ass bubbalo.

?

I think Bubbalo has some subliminal attraction for the homosexuals. Guys 'round here just can't make enough references to Bubbalo and his rectal region.

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

I will bet you are the only one who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Let me spell it out for you: you say...

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.

You frame it like there are only two choices, in case that isn't obvious enough for you.  "President, or the terrorists.  Not with the president?  You must be with the terrorists."  Got it?  Good.

I say:

spastic bullet wrote:

Okay lowing, time to come off the fence.  Do you want to fuck Richard Simmons, or Tom Cruise?  Don't tell me you don't want to fuck Tom Cruise, because that's just the kind of thing Richard Simmons loves to hear, believe me.  You either want to fuck Tom Cruise or Richard Simmons, so which is it?

See how it's exactly the fucking same thing?  It's called a false dilemma.  Rejecting one option does not involve choosing the other by default.  Do you understand?  Good.

Now, the other thing you assumed nobody else gets, just because you don't:

lowing wrote:

My stance isn't to say that that video is propaganda...It is the realities of who we are up against. It isn't some made up monster that we invented to get support.

This is exactly my point.  How do you think we can watch these videos?  Were they captured in a daring raid?  No, the terrorists released them as propaganda.  They want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.  And by some bizarre coincidence, you also want us to know exactly how fucking ruthless they are.

The point is (a) we know.  And (b) why is it that both you and the terrorists want everybody to see these videos, and for exactly the same fucking reasons?  Now, what were you saying about somebody being the terrorists' ally?

I see what you are saying now. Now my question becomes if we ALLLLLLLLLL know how "ruthless" these groups are, why are you not will to stand toe to toe with them and defend yourselves against them?

I admit to taking the position of 2 choices, fight or succumb. IF you have a third option I am all ears. Please don't come back with diplomacy, since negotiating with terrorists is not an option ( of which I agree)


 

Xietsu wrote:

Lowing is a crazy man devoid of all sensibility. Don't even try spastic, because on top of not understanding true logic, he won't comprehend your sarcasm either.

What happened to your thesaurus dip shit??

Please explain the true logic in caving into terrorists demands and bending to their every whim. You "peace at any price", crowd are really something.

Uh huh, because this is what I was talking about in my post? What the fuck. You are psychotically psychotic.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 04:22:24)

Dude, I think I'm so hot I attract gays too. I've received one too many random massages from those that call themselves "heterosexuals". It makes me feel uncomfortable inside. LOL.

*They're the kind where I'm just sitting around in class or people come over and I'm sittin' around at meh comp and BOOM...SHOULDER MASSAGE! And then I'm like...NOOOOOOO IT CANNOT BEEEEEEEEE!

(P.S. People say I have the type of look where I come off as a hardass, or the "cool guy". Hmm. Who knows.)

(P.S.#2. I just had to vent that oddity because it was getting to me...hahahaha.)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 04:25:52)

lowing wrote:

I see what you are saying now. Now my question becomes if we ALLLLLLLLLL know how "ruthless" these groups are, why are you not will to stand toe to toe with them and defend yourselves against them?

Because that offer is not on the table.  It's all spectacle (e.g. 9/11, beheading videos) and hit-and-run (e.g. Iraq insurgency).  They hope that by provoking the US and others, they can turn their dream of a big holy war into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They need the support of ordinary Muslims and -- because extremists are such hateful bigots -- the only way they can get that is by tricking the US into overreacting.  They then say to other Muslims "look what evil the infidels are capable of -- how can you be so spineless in the face of such evil?"  Sound familiar?

lowing wrote:

I admit to taking the position of 2 choices, fight or succumb. IF you have a third option I am all ears. Please don't come back with diplomacy, since negotiating with terrorists is not an option ( of which I agree)

The third option is viewing the problem from outside the box.  I know it's not as teh seksy as "fight or succumb", but unless your ultimate goal is to wipe out Islam , we have to seriously start thinking about how we're going to discredit al Qaeda in the eyes of the Muslim world.