The organization hosting the website http://impeachbush.org/ now claims that over 483979 people have signed their petition to impeach Bush.

Here is a link to an excellent overview of the impeachment process: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/impeach.htm

The House of Representatives voted on the Impeachment of Nixon, but he resigned before the Senate hearings, and was later pardoned by President Ford.

The Senate voted 55-45 not guilty to acquit Clinton after the Monica Lewinski scandal.

Here is just a few of the Articles of impeachment listed at the impeachbush.org website. For the full list, visit:
http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageSe...me=VTI_articles

Snips from the Articles of Impeachment:

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 tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

4) 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.

17) 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.


Questions to debate?

Do these three accusations constitute grounds to begin the impeachment process?

Should The House of Representatives begin the process to impeach Bush, Why, or Why not?

No matter how many times you make this topic...the answer will remain NO.

We had a big poll in November, and most of the people in the country believe Bush is doing an ok job.

Yes, it does, if that is what the people wish.

They should, because clearly, the american people are not able to handle making a choice that is good for the world community. (lack of education, perhaps lack of common sense, whom knows why) And if not, it is very likely Bush will be behind making the world less safe then it already is.

Right...the American people are able to handle making a choice that is good for the American people. And in terms of worldwide safety...a democratic Afghanistan looks a lot safer than it once was and so does a now free Iraq. The question is will the worldwide community continue to neglect the Iraqi people if the new government asks for help. What justification would such nations have forholding support if a democratically elected Iraqi government asks for assistance?

Bush should not and will not be impeached. If the people wanted him out they would have done it at the polls.

Ofcourse, the american people are not able to, it would demand to much effort from their side, both intellectual and physical, but this was not the question.





I am sorry to tell you, but United States is not the center of the world. Perhaps you did not know this? (And nor is Tellus, if you know what Tellus is.)

Here we go again.....

Quite frankly I'm getting a little sick and tired of this kind of garbage. Antny, I'll type this real slow for you. G E T O V E R I T. Bush won, the election is over, he is President. Your silly "articles" of impeachement are bogus and without merit. Instead of reading your left wing wacko websites, I would suggest you might be better served by actually learning history. For example......



Uh.... No... Nixon was never impeached by the House.

Here's the history of what really happened......




From CNN....



"Seizing power" indeed....




Ohh please....... We have plenty of threads here already about how mean we are to those lovable little terrorists who do things like this.




This is completely bogus, and I'm being kind here..... The ABM treaty as ratified by the Senate had an escape clause for either country (Not to mention it was negotiated with a country that no longer exists - the Soviet Union, not Russia). Bush followed the requirements of withdrawl from that treaty to the letter. The Treaty of Rome was never ratified by the US Senate. Why you might ask?

From this link.......

I'll make it easy for you and underline the good parts......



Duh? Clinton signed it, but he didn't want to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Why the hell would he do that? Well, for one, he knew it wouldn't pass, but he still wants the Europeans to love him. Lots of bucks speaking in Europe, not to mention the book sales.

Back to the "topic" and I use that term loosely......

So, you want to impeach Bush for "rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome
which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court". Over a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate, never even submitted to the Senate?

Good luck with that one.


Oh yeah, your questions for "debate"........

Do these three accusations constitute grounds to begin the impeachment process?

No, they don't even rise to the level of a Saturday Night Live comedy skit.

Should The House of Representatives begin the process to impeach Bush, Why, or Why not?

No, see answer to #1.

I am not even going to justify your first statement with a civil repsonse.

As to your second statement...it is you who made it seem like the US is the center of the world by implying the American people should elect someone who is "good for the world community." I did the opposite saying the American people will elect a president who is best for them...just like every other democratic nation on the face of the earth.

Do these three accusations constitute grounds to begin the impeachment process?

Personally, I think it would be interesting (but mostly in the negative sense) to have impeachment proceedings. However, we would need the equivalent of a Ken Starr investigating the entire history of Dubya's life, public and private. Sufficient negative press via "leakage" and wholesale fabrications (not the merits of the case) would motivate the Congress to follow through on such an action.

Should The House of Representatives begin the process to impeach Bush, Why, or Why not?

Should they? Hmm.... I've read the accusations and they are tenuous at best. In order for the "should" to be qualified, I would need an independent council to investigate Dubya and his staff in thorough and excruciating detail. Only if the evidence justifies it should impeachment be considered. As we all know, however, the mere existence of an independent council investigation implies guilt in the court of public opinion (just ask the Clintons). Nevertheless, I suppose a case could be made for an independent council investigation.

Your statements contradict each other. First, you say the impeachment process should begin if that is what the people want. Then, you say that the people are not capable of making the choice. Which is it? Personally, I'm troubled at the thought of taking power away from the American people.

Should The House of Representatives begin the process to impeach Bush, Why, or Why not?

I didn't agree with Clinton's impeachment, because it was basically done along party lines. I'm going to pass on the question of whether or not Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, this is really a moot point. When Richard Nixon resigned, it was because he had lost support within his own party. "Mr Conservative," Barry Goldwater was chosen to deliver the bad news to Nixon--that is, unless he resigned he would be impeached and convicted. Unless Bush does something so utterly stupid that he loses support of his own party--and I personally think he's perfectly capable of such--then I'm not holding my breath on this one.

To press on the proceedings of impeachment on President Bush would be foolish at this stage in the political arena. Has President Bush violated any American law provided the request of such action? For that matter, has President Bush done anything to wrong the American people other than "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?" To break a treaty should not be an insult to our country, it should be celebration. Our leader does not value foreign trade, or economic ties with other nations, instead he values above all the life and freedom of his own people. If the President has wronged any of his people to merit the impeachment proceedings that are being called into question this land will remembered as the land who impeached a general in the time of war.
During war you do not remove a general from the battle field, if not for his commands for the gusto he inspires. The President is a symbol to our soliders of goodness and the keeper of freedom. If George Bush were removed I doubt not the continued slaughter of our American soliders. Plus if George Bush were impeached many people would not be happy with he sucessor. I try to like everyone no matter what polls tell me. Even though Bush's approval ratings are scores above the Vice-Presidents I still like him for being a firm believer that freedom is not free. Though, the masterminds of these movements are anti-anything-Bush, my question for them is why would you put his most ardent supporter at the helm of America? Dick Cheney is a passionate political figure who could undoubtedly keep the agenda of President Bush to a tee. The supposed broken laws the President violated are no more than propaganda used to foster how horribly we're doing in the cause of freedom and the war with terrorism.

Interesting little hornets nest this is. For those of you who consider the '04 election to equate the peoples' stamp of approval, I have to say that I have seen enough evidence to lead me not to have that much faith in our electoral process at present. Some of you speak with the same kind of certainty of the guys running the Ohio voting machines had when predicting delivering Ohio to Bush. I am skeptical of the whole premise. Furthermore, The polls indicated that a large percentage of Bush supporters believed that Iraq actually had WMDs and that Saddaam and Osama were connected. Both lies told by the Bush/Cheney campaign of misinformation, and echoed through the corporate media. It's hard to give validity to a vote by a misinformed, mislead public.

Secondly, I think that if Clinton, and Nixon comitted crimes that were impeachable offenses, it would seem that the scandals of this administration certainly warrant a critical look. The torture scandals at Abu Girab got pinned on the rank and file soldiers, but we all know that soldiers follow orders. Who then is really responsible? The invasion and occupation of a soverign nation, resulting in the death and maiming of houndreds of thousands of Iraqis, and as of today, over 1500 American lives, based on a false pretense, and sold to the American People on Fear certainly seems like an impeachable offense. I can't recall the death toll of the Lewinski scandal, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't comperable.

Thirdly, If we here in America truly value our precious security, we should take a hard look at what the world thinks about us now. If we do not want more terrorist attacks, we should address their grievances, WHY are they our enemies? I believe that the policies of the Bush admin are creating more and more enemies that will spend their lives trying to bring America down.

From Osama Bin Laden's speech transcript the Al Jazeera translation, not the CNN version (on a side note, that is an interesting comparison to make)



BTW, it doesn't help that the unabashed American support for Israel's zionist policies is exacerbated by things like this: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED...cb5c/story.html

If we here in America want to be safe, we should show the world that we do not support actions like the Assault on Fallujah, or the Abu Girab tortures. We should Impeach the man at the top, just like any business, accountability goes to the top. That's a nifty little Republican catch word, but It does not apply to themselves, only others. If we as a nation continue to allow these types of abuses, it will generate millions who will spend their lives searching for ways to get even. I hardly call that making things more secure.

Antny, I have resisted responding so far, but your last missive is a bit too rich to resist. Am I right in that you are quoting Osama Bin Laden and his "reasons" for blowing up the World Trade Center in trying to make an argument to impeach our democratically-elected president? I will keep this civil, but it's tough!

I'd like to call your attention to the actual resolution by Congress that authorized force, which listed many reasons for this authorization. I'm only selecting a few here, but it's a lot more than "Iraq had WMD." Since regime change in Iraq was made public policy in 1998, would you suggest that we also impeach Clinton as this was passed on his watch?

Apologies for the long quote, but there is some good stuff in here which I've underlined for you speed readers.



Having read all of that, I'm sick of reading that "we only went to war over WMD" from the anti-war side. It's just not true, there were a whole littany of reasons, with WMD falling into the hands of terrorists being the most compelling.

And lastly, regarding your passing reference to the Ohio election and dismissal of Bush's re-election as a mandate...you are aware that:
- GW Bush won the popular vote by 3 million votes?
- John Kerry won several states by margins much closer than Bush won Ohio (100,000+) ? If you add up Kerry's winning margin in New Mexico (6,000), Wisconsin (11,000) and New Hampshire (9,000), they equal less than 1/4 of Bush's winning margin in Ohio. Heck, Oregon and Minnesota were closer than Ohio. And there are actual, documented and indicted individuals being charged with crimes in Wisconsin and other states. Unlike Ohio, where vote fraud would have somehow been a mass conspiracy including Democratic elected officials in several cities and counties to be a reality.

In closing, I vote "no" to impeachment, I don't buy your arguments for a second, I'm insulted that you are concerned about the "motivations" and "root causes" of terrorists beheading people but I do find the conversation nteresting.

Thank you for your civility. I was qouting Bin Laden in an attempt to illustrate what I believe is one of the major the underlying causees for hatred of America in the Middle East. If their main issue is American support for Israeli actions, and we have the Israelis on our side in the Iraq War, as mentioned in the link I provided, It certainly seems to me that that will indeed, promote more terrorism, not less. It seems a bit absurd to me to believe that we can go to the Middle East, and squash all of the terrorist cells and there by make ourselves safer. We are dying just by being there, and, from my viewpoint, creating an entirely new reason for future terrorists to seek to harm us. I guess I should highlight that 9/11 was almost 20 years after the incident that Bin Laden cites. That's a long time to hold a grudge.

I am actually impressed that Kerry got as many votes as he did. The Bush campaign did an absolutely amazing job of decimating his character. The war of 527 PAC's was UGLY, and the Bush side played harder and better. I guess the power of FOX and FOX affiliates probably had a pretty signifigant impact on things. Fair and Balanced, right. If you believe that, you are truly a sucker. Unfortunately, they have an amazing following of diehard viewers who think they are the greatest. Check out the movie Outfoxed sometime. The Number One rated major media station was COMPLETELY BIASED throughout the entire campaign. Not only biased, but at a psy-ops level of sophistication. PBS hardly offers a comparable dissenting voice, nor CNN. I truly don't believe that the '04 vote can easily be called a fair democratic election.





Well, thanks for the qoute. That is the first time that I've ever seen that list. I guess our media must not have done a very good job covering the facts. I am left wondering, though, if it was the UN resolutions that we went to War over, why was it not covered by the media that way, and why did the UN not support it? The "anti-war" side isn't happy about being lied to by their government, and the media. Maybe they truly thought that Iraq had WMD (I doubt it) but they knew that Osama and Saddaam weren't buds. That was pure propaganda. People are rightfully angry at the lies told to promote this war. I also note that Iraq was not a real threat to the United States, despite what the quote says.

Now, as our nation's reputation grows as an oppressive, aggressive nation, we will create more enemies for ourselves unless we stand up against it here, in our own backyard. The tension around the world is mounting. China, Russia, Iran, Syria North Korea, much of Europe, Africa, everywhere things are tense. America right now is looking like the aggressor, and I don't think that it's creating a safe future. Quite the opposite. I do believe that it would go a long way towards a safe future for us to condemn a President that wrongfully Invades a soverign Nation, and who utilizes torture, indefinate detention, and who knows what other methods of extracting information. He even tries to stack the Courts with justices like Gonzales who rationalize the Geneva Convention not to apply. I really think this is bad news for our future, and impeachment is the only means to stop it from getting worse. I haven't seen an argument yet that makes me wonder if it's the right thing to do.

So, we should just change our entire policy because a group of thugs demand it of us? What if the terrorists hated us for our friendship with Great Britain? Would you propose breaking ties with them?

Killing terrorists does not create more terrorists. Fairly simple equation. By killing them, there are less. They hate us because of our democracy. Zarqawi himself said democracy was evil. They would hate us no matter our policy.

And in terms of Bin laden's statement. You are right, 9/11 is 20 years after the incident. But are we forgetting all the terrorism that went on without retaliation throughout the 80s and 90s?



Blah Blah Kool-Aid Blah Blah



1) UN resolutions was "not" covered by the media (though i am pretty sure it was) because they are sensationalistic and care only about the big stories. WMDs were the big thing and thats what they focused on.

2) I am not going to get into the definition of lying and going off bad intel

3) Nobody ever said Saddam and OBL were buds...but that there were connections. Zarqawi definately had a connection and evidently still does.



Then condemn him. Vote him out...o wait! You Anti-bush rhetoric has been heard time and again and it does not change the fact that the American people think he has the strength to lead us in this war on terror. It may be some fantasy of yours that he be impeached...but it is just that, a fantasy.

Yes, the resolution essentially boils down to a few arguments for invasion:

1. humanitarian
2. threat of WMD
3. support of terrorists (hosting Al Qaeda & money to families of suicide bombers)
4. violations of interpretations of certain UN resolutions & cease fire accords

There is only one point which is unambiguously arguable: number 1. The remainder have been proven false (WMD) or have ambiguous implication and interpretation. But, on the whole, I agree with carlitoswhey that there were more reasons offered for invading Iraq than just WMD. Now, whether or not the reasons were proven and, if proven, they were sufficient for justifying invasion is the ultimate divide between pro-invasion and anti-invasion folks.


Hmm....interesting you brought that up. Wasn't Clinton impeached at about that time?


I guess I'm confused. How are you "insulted" by someone trying to analyze the justifications for another's actions?

I agree though that there is insufficient justification for impeachment of Dubya. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some justification for bringing in an independent council to investigate. Intelligence failures (leading to war) & torture scandals being two reasons I can think of immediately.

While I do think if a credible case could be made that President Bush knowingly took the nation to war based on erroneous and contrived information that would be grounds for impeachment, no one has established that credible case. That just leaves a failure of leadership on Bush's part, but while appallingly stupid and a waste of lives and money, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes."

A president should never be impeached for frivolous and blatantly partisan motives such as when the Republican majority in the House of Representatives rammed through articles of impeachment against President Clinton when an official censure would have accomplished far more.

That addresses the topic at hand. Now to the one thing written in this thread that disturbs me more than anything else here.



Maybe I'm just a naive, xenophobic and unsophisticated Ugly American, Antny, but I am not getting your point here. The insinuation here seems to be that by not reaching out to the Bin Ladens of the world we brought the events of September 11, 2001 down on our heads.

Is it your contention that by not "addressing their grievances" Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are somehow justified in hijacking airplanes, killing passengers, turning planes into bombs and sending almost 3,000 people to their premature deaths?

The argument can be made that the United States has not always acted wisely and well throughout the world. Clearly, there are numerous examples of America siding with dictators over democracy, oppression over freedom and what benefits a comfortable few over a needy and deserving many.

But nothing justifies mass murder. No cause is a excuse for the slaughter of innocents. For terrorists like Bin Laden, the ends mean far less than the means. The effect far outweighs the cause in importance. Is there more than the United States could have done and should have done to aid the Middle East? Certainly.

But the mistakes of George W. Bush do not supercede the sins of Osama Bin Laden. It's easy to call for Bush to be impeached because if he is a evil man a process is in place to get rid of him.

How do we get rid of the Osama Bin Ladens of the world, Antny? By impeachment?

[

Well, I guess we shouldn't prop them up anymore. Remember, both OBL, and Saddaam were hoisted high and mighty by the good ole USA. We used OBL to help Afghanistan fight the USSR, handing them their Vietnem, and perhaps breaking the backbone of the USSR. Saddaam was our weapon against Iran. Both of these men were propped up by the USA. I'll leave the interpretation up to every individual, but I do think that is a pretty signifigant point to make. Perhaps we shouldn't be involved in the process of supporting these guys in the first place?



Yes, you effectively summed up my case. NOTHING justifies MASS MURDER, yet somehow, that statement doesn't apply to us? We have killed more innocent Iraqis than OBL did in 9/11, but Iraq wasn't behind 9/11. Al Quaeda was kept out of Iraq b/c of Saddaam's secular authority. Iraq wasn't killing innocent Americans, yet America has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.



We will never know without a full investigation, and that will only come with a hearing. The 9/11 commission did it's piece, but it didn't address the Iraq war per se. I've had friends die in Iraq. I want to know what forces were behind this stupid war. I do believe that Bush has comitted "high crimes". I believe the killing of innocents, and the torture of innocents rests on his shoulders, along with the neo-con hawks who have pushed this whole affair on America through a clever propaganda campaign that Geobles would've been proud of.

Yes, I would say that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, and are in the process of ensuring future attacks. For a comprehensive list of how our foreign policies have effected the world, take a look at Chomsky's work. He's been blasted by the Conservative side, but his work is certainly worth reading. Even if you don't agree, it never hurts to see another perspective. I certainly disagree with some of his rhetoric, but at least he is thinking outside the box.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

Sure is a long time. The people who you are trying to understand, reach out to, counsel, want you dead. They want Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, crushed and it's people vanquished. The best way to defeat these terrorists is actually to defeat them. Words just don't have the desired effect. Now, if you are talking about moderating the Saudis that are spreading Wahhabbism, you and I could agree on that as a 'root cause' for terrorism. But to say that we should somehow abandon Israel to comfort the terrorists, when their stated goal is to kill Jews, you and I can't agree on that. After all, as someone noted, we pulled out of Saudi and did terror stop? No, it stops when the Saudis kill terrorists.



"Our media must not have done a very good job covering the facts." Now you're coming around!!!! So why would the media not want you to know the actual reasons for authorizing war in Iraq? The reason this is significant is...drumroll...the media is liberal! They have an agenda! They hate president Bush! These things matter in how a story is presented.
Pew Survey 2004



Ah yes - Fox News? They are nothing but cheerleaders for Bush! For sake of argument, let's say that you are right. But then you state "The Number One rated major media station was COMPLETELY BIASED" and your argument falls apart. Fun facts for you:

Fox News Channel has about 3 million viewers per night, watching the opinion shows - O'Reilly, etc. Their "biased" news coverage with Britt Hume has about a million viewers. The most viewers they ever had was just over 7 million, during the RNC coverage. Contrast this with the nightly news viewership (and this is only national, excludes local news). Nearly 30 million people watch (liberal) Dan Rather, (liberal) Tom Brokaw, (liberal) Peter Jennings every single night. What the heck does Fox News have to do with anything, when nearly 30 million people, ten times as many, watch liberal journalists deliver the news on the other channels? Who is really in the disinformation business?
News Ratings

(edited to fix rating #'s)

Just thought I would throw my two cents as well. The terrorists do not hate America for it's support of Israel, and they have said so many times. They hate Israel for it's support of America.

They hate America for it's tolerance and freedom.

As for the war in Iraq, are we not forgetting the Acts of War committed the Iraqi government like attempting to assassinate one of our former presidents? Shooting at US aircraft, nearly sinking an American warship (USS Stark)? So exactly who started this war in the first place?

I am not a fan of President Bush, but he has not done anything to warrant his impeachment. The fact the our enemies want him removed seems to prove just the opposite.

There is absolutely no reason why we should impeach George Bush, he's done nothing to warrant impeachment.

No, because there is absolutely no reason why we should impeach George Bush, he's done nothing to warrant impeachment.

CP

I never said abandon Israel, I said we unabashedly support their practices. Isreal invaded, and is still occupying Palestenian territory in Gaza, and the West Bank. That area is perhaps the most critical to the whole of islamic terrorism. For a great overview: http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm This is perhaps the oldest conflict on earth. For the Jewish side, see: http://www.masada2000.org/
America has been connected with Israel in the minds of the Arab and muslim world. The 1967 war nearly tripled Israel's size, and put a large number of Arabs under Jewish control. It's interesting to note that there are more than a few versions of this story around. I don't know exactly what went down, though I've read several accounts. Here is the one that is easiest to understand: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ory/67_War.html It is, however from the Jewish library, and History is always written by the winners. Whatever the case, that entire conflict, and at present, the "Defensive Wall" is a major source of tension, violence and potential for catastrophe in the region. Obviously, the Arabs believe that Israel should not exist, and would be happy to obliterate it. Israel, under their religious doctrine, believes that they have a "god-given" right to the entire region, and would be happy to possess it all.

What I am saying is that America's invasion of Iraq will contribute to creating more and more radical extremist militants in the Arab World who desparately want to harm us. The fact that Israel is helping us in Iraq certainly doesn't help. Are we willing to let our troops be punished for following orders, as is currently the case in the Abu Girab scandal? The world is watching, and it is a very big deal. If we only hold accountable the rank and file guys, what will the rest of the world think?



While the journalists themselves may be "liberal", that doesn't necessarily apply to the guys who call the shots. I don't think the CEOs and BODs are liberal. That is clear for Rupert Murduch, and Newscorp. They are as Conservative as it gets. Time Warner may be a little different, but not much. Anyhow, for a real research project study on the bias of media, done by FAIR go here. It looks like the slant of the media isn't quite as liberal as you would like to make it.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html



Interesting, I had no idea it was that simple. You watch FOX a lot? Come now, the issues are much more complex than that. There are combinations of religious, social, economic, and historical reasons. It has more to do with policy and action than idealogy. It may be the Christians vs. the Muslims...I don't know, but I know it's not as simple as that profound statement. You have bought a piece of propaganda hook, line and sinker.

The US does not and has never 'unabashedly' supported Israel's practices. I suggest that you come up with some sort of proof for that statement.

Israel did not invade 'Palestinian' territory. Please show a single map with any 'Palestinian' territory on it. Until 1967 Gaza was claimed by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan. There was no 'Palestine' period.

As for FOX, nope don't watch it, nor is it available on my channels. No I actually listened to what people like OBL say, how about you? Do you actually listen to their statements? The propaganda is that you believe their lies about social, economic, and historical reasons. They say one thing in English and then just the opposite in Arabic. Why, simple they know that they can get westerns to believe them, and they know that their own people don't believe them at all.

I happen to know because I did grow up in the region, I do speak, read and write Arabic and I listen to what they say, not their press releases.

Could yo ureally compare (liberal) Dan Rather, Tom Brokow, and Peter Jennings to their (conservative) counterparts Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.... I'm hard pressed to believe in the "media is liberal" anecdote.


http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp
snip:





Here's my proof: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_no..._us_support.php



According to this Palestine was a state:



UN Partition Plan 1947: http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm

http://www.palestinehistory.com/history.htm

http://www.palestinehistory.com/massacre.htm Here is their story.

Who's side to believe? There are clearly multiple sides to this one...In most of my historical research, I have found that the lesser know history, preserved by the "losers" is probably more accurate. The winners of Wars usually write the History to shed the best possible light on themselves (not that the losers don't, but the winners get to spread their version). Israel won the 6 Year War in 1967. Those who call themselves Palestinians have been struggling ever since.

I want to be really clear here, I'm not anti-semitic, some of the people I respect the most are Jewish, from teachers to employers. I am looking at the actions of Nations, regardless of race, or religion - though those factors obviously influence the actions of Nations.


Nevertheless, I have not seen anything to convince me that Bush shouldn't be impeached. I still believe that he should. I believe that it may well be the most important decision America can make for it's own security.

Lets see you have 1947 prior to independence and 1988 how about a map dated between say 1949 and 1966 can you produce one of those please? While you're at it perhaps, just perhaps you could name that country's leader and/or capital as well, please?

Israel was attacked in 1967 by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, just because the aggressors lost the war doesn't make them the victims. If the 'Palestinians' were struggling since 1967, why have they been trying to commit genocide against the Jewish residents for the past 110 years? Just because they keep loosing, doesn't make them the good guys.

As for seeing anything to convince you that Bush shouldn't be impeached, shouldn't it be the other way around? He should have done something to be impeached for first. What high crime or misdemeanor is he to be charged with?

In fact Antny, you can't. But you and many others do so by continuing to try to equate the roles of Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings to the very different roles of O'reilly, Limbaugh, etc...Tom, Dan, and Peter are supposed to be (at least that's what they pretend to be) "news anchors" who present the facts (who, what, where, when, and not why) in non-biased manner. Their only "counterpart" at Fox news is Brit Hume. Make of him what you will.

But Bill O'reilly is not a news anchor. His show is clearly of the "opinion" variety and he does not hide it. Rush Limbaugh is not a news anchor. He is a radio talk show host. He offers his "opinion".

I suppose the point you were implying in the quote above may be that in your opinion Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings do not appear to be as "liberal" as O'reilly and Limbaugh appear to be "conservative". O.K. So what? You are still comparing apples to jalepeno peppers as I explained above.



A perfect example of an "opinion" Antny. And now for the facts- Alberto Gonzales has been nominated to be the Attorney General. He has not been nominated to be a "justice" of "the Courts".

Having said that, I believe the original questions for debate are:



I don't think so. Some of the "accusations" are not even "crimes" (rejecting treaties?) and so far the rest of the "accusations" are sufficiently weak and/or absurd that the Dems. in Congress haven't called the question



It's funny you ask this question. If the answer to your first question is yes, then of course any member of congress would be duty-bound to instigate proceedings. They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution etc...

If on the other hand, the answer to question #1 is no, then the only possible reason to "begin process to impeach Bush" would be partisan politics.

In the end however is the reality check: Both houses of congress and their respective commitees are controled by the Presidents party. You would have to get quite a few Republican votes to "impeach" and you would need some very solid "beyond any reasonable doubt" evidence for them to "convict", thus eating one of their own. Regarding the petition's 400,000 plus signatories, I believe GW received just a few more votes than that.

So you're agreeing with me. 10 million people watching Peter Jennings' mindless pap about President Bush is more significant than 3 million watching Fox News. A total of nearly 30 million people watch network news night after night. Those seeking more knowledge read the (liberal) New York Times, or the (liberal) news magazines like Newsweek or Time. Peter Jennings is brought to you by a "news" organization that sent out the following email, hoping to present you a "fair and balanced" piece of election coverage.

Well, it was Yasser Arafat, remember him, won a Nobel Peace Prize. Now, after democratic elections it is Mahmoud Abbas. I suppose their capital would be Jerusalem if they had their way. It is interesting to note that contrary to popular opinion about the Muslim oppression of women, women were allowed to vote, and indeed run for office. Several actually won. It is also noteworthy that Israeli interference was an impediment to the process of elections.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3509.shtml

Here's a most fascinating study of the matter with a ton of articles. It gives both sides a fair shake.
http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IP...pic.php?tid=912



Umm, any number of the 17 listed at www.impeachbush.org. Most prominently, the three that I cited in the beginning of this debate.

Invading and occupying a soverign Nation that was not a threat to the US.

Violations of International standards regarding torture, and detention of innocents indefinitely. I still believe that it accountability goes to the top!

Here's an interesting note. The Articles claim that Bush seized power in violation of the Constitution, not Congress. What does the Constitution say on War?


Rep. Ron Paul, PHD a Republican from Texas had this to say:
- emphasis added.

Here is an article that is pretty much in line with my thoughts on the whole subject.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0600f.asp

Really folks, in the World community, we look like the Rogue State. What if all the sudden, we find WWIII upon us, and we are the cause? Look at events. Iran, N. Korea, what part will Russia and China Play. Who's with us? Israel, Britian, Australia. Impeachment of Bush may be the best thing we as a Nation can do to prevent a catastrophe. There are clear reasons. Houndreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed without legitimate cause. Some have been tortured when they were not even "terrorists". I say hold the man at the top accountable!

We like to talk about how brutal Saddaam was to get and keep power, but it is not that far from how we got this land in the first place. We used small pox to kill off thousands of Native Peoples. Trail of Tears ring a bell? That was in 1838. Genocide, that's how we got this land in the first place. Now we are exporting freedom by force. Bush says we don't want to tell other people how to run their country, but it's gotta be a democracy. What if they want Islamic Law? What if the 80% Shia majority in Iraq want an Islamic government? Will we depose that one also?

Yasser Arafat why do I know that name, I got you mean Muhammad `Abd ar-Ra'uf al-Qudwa al-Husayni, the Egyptian-right? And when did become the leader of 'Palestine' let's see 1993, so then just who was the leader and/or leaders from say 1948 to 1967 when Israel 'invaded' 'Palestine'? He helped to found the PLO in 1965 to free 'Palestine' from 'Zionist Gangsters' let's get this straight, two years BEFORE the 1967 War the PLO was formed to free 'Palestine'. Now why did they need to be freed from occupation two years prior to the supposed event? And just where this organization formed one might ask? Why in Kuwait, where else?

Jerusalem has been the capital of only one country in the past 4,000 years and guess what it ain't an Arab country.

Actually there was no Israeli impediment to the vote. Sorry but quoting the Guardian, Palestinian sources and Ha'aretz are all the same. Pure propaganda and a tissue of lies. Israel stopped illegal activities in their capital yes, but otherwise did everything to facilitate the vote.

Still waiting for that map.

Now as for the US invading "and occupying a sovereign Nation that was not a threat to the US", well how about the fact that Iraq had already committed several Acts of War against the US? A threat, heck they attacked us several times.

Now for "Violations of International standards regarding torture, and detention of innocents indefinitely. I still believe that it accountability goes to the top!" Sorry but you would have to prove they were innocent first, hasn't been done. Your beliefs do not qualify.

"The Articles claim that Bush seized power in violation of the Constitution, not Congress. " Wrong answer, Congress voted to give him the power to go to war.

After following the thread "Responsibility for Failure, should heads roll" I will not get into the same debate here, at present, nobody has disputed my conclusion there that Bush should be impeached, based on the evidence presented in that debate.

I cannot convince anyone either way, about Israel. What I will assert as fact is that the existance of Israel alone is a thorn in the side of the Arabic world. The actions of Israel (justified as defense) have contributed to that hatred. America is, I believe, connected to Israel in multiple ways. I simply assert that this connection is one of the myriad of factors generating hatred of the US.

The only point of that being stated in the first place was to note that there are factors contributing to "hatred of the US" that are far beyond "they hate our freedom" as Bush would have us believe.

I watched Ward Churchill's speech on C-Span, and he seemed to get it. It is the actions of America through our origional conquest of this land, on through our modern foreign policy that have lead to a very real, very powerful hatred of the United States. If we as a nation are not willing to face that, we will crumble.

For some reason (censored) I cannot find the transcript of his speech. I'd like to. Here is what CNN posted about it. http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/

If you haven't read what he has to say, and all you have seen is the right wing media assault, then I suggest you read what the author has to say, not the media.
http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WardChurchill.html

I still believe that Impeachment of Bush is necessary, and appropriate. There is more than ample evidence. He should be held accountable for the wrongs done in the world by this nation under his administration. He should be held accountable for allowing, and most likely, promoting torture tactics in this "War on Terror". He should be held accountable for his doctrine of "preemptive strike" which has cost thousands of lives, needlessly. He should be held accountable for acting in violation of his Constitutional Oath.

All of these seem to me to be much more signifigant that the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, or Watergate. Impeachment is in order.