Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
bad hammy wrote:Impeachment as a tool has been used just twice, and both times were highly political farces. If it was going to be used responsibly then using it against the current President is certainly worthy of consideration (but so were a number of Presidencies in the past).
Here's a better question: Why wasn't Reagan impeached? In his role as Commander-in-Chief, he willfully sent ships to the Persian Gulf in direct defiance of a congressional order to not do so. Big-time impeachment grounds going back to a foundational section of the Constitution designed by the Founding Fathers to keep a US president from assuming the powers of a monarchy.
The answer--cynics gear up, here--is that Reagan was late in his second term, the quintessentional lame duck, and the Democrats (and others) believed impeaching another president so soon after Nixon would not be in the best interests of the country. To those who just came in, this was back when terms like The Common Good was still relatively real among legislators (see Locke, Jefferson, et. al).
And given Reagan's popularity with the US citizenry, plus the ability of the GOP to "market" the move as an anti-American/partisan action toward a patriotic president trying to protect the interests of the country overseas, doing so might backfire politically for the Dems in the '88 election. Reagan wasn't known as The Teflon President for nothing.
Beyond Reagan, it is always harder to muster domestic support regarding controversial international affairs. Impeachments pretty much have to be cut-and-dried US affairs: Nixon lies about Watergate, Clinton lies about his fling, etc. Anything happening beyond our shores usually finds the general populace siding with the people in charge (and politicians falling in line) until further notice. Present Iraqi war, for example.
My point is that impeachment, for many reasons both selfless and selfish, is never attempted lightly. Even when cut-and-dried, as it was with Reagan, for example.
Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war and initiate funding laws. The President has the Constitutional duty of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a global military presence and repositioning of military assets, whether Congress agrees or not, is not a "cut and dried' high crime or misdemeanor.
Mennisco wrote:One of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years.
And that, my friends, is why we can't have this board open year-round. I don't even like Bush, but I sure as hell won't have my sitting President referred to as that.
Why???
What if he is "one of the biggest criminals in the last 100 years"? Shouldn't people be allowed to say so. I'm not saying it's the case but in the land of free speech I don't see why anyone should be offended by someone simply voicing there opinion about the President.
I think Americans in general are far too deferential over the office of President. You have good presidents and bad ones, saints and skanks, law abiding and criminal. Just because someone has reached the highest office in the land it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be as accountable for their actions as everybody else and respect shouldn't just be given to someone because they happen to be in charge they should have to earn it.
You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
jazzcyclist wrote:What should we do, instigate a coup?
Is that really your first course of action?
No, the first course of action in a democratic country is to get involved in the democratic process by writing your Senators and Congressmen, donating money to candidates and causes you like, volunteering your time to causes and candidates that you like and voting. I've done all of these things.
Belief in democracy means respecting the system even when you don't get the outcome you like. I believe in democracy, unlike Bush who refers to Hugo Chavez, who is a buffoon, as a dictator, despite the fact that he came to power in an election that even his opponents called free and fair. Bush also boycotted and refused to recognize the Palestinians' Hamas government, despite the fact they also won a free and fair election. To his credit, Paul Wolfowitz is the only notable neocon who immediately called for the U.S. to recognize Hamas, and said that it was mistake to punish the Palestinians for how they voted.
So that's how I feel about democracy. What would be your first course of action?
jazzcyclist wrote:No, the first course of action in a democratic country is to get involved in the democratic process by writing your Senators and Congressmen, donating money to candidates and causes you like, volunteering your time to causes and candidates that you like and voting. I've done all of these things So that's how I feel about democracy. What would be your first course of action?
Exactly what you said! Anyone that does as you have is NOT complicit (IF crimes were committed) .
Vince wrote:Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war and initiate funding laws. The President has the Constitutional duty of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a global military presence and repositioning of military assets, whether Congress agrees or not, is not a "cut and dried' high crime or misdemeanor.
The US was not in a time of war in the mid-eighties.
Sending ships to an area (to politically pressure a country) CAN be considered an act of war, which is why Congress enacted an order for Reagan to not do so.
Defying a direct order of Congress is an impeachable offense, period.
Vince wrote: You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
Er, you seem to have completely misunderstood my whole post and in doing so made my point for me
Vince wrote: You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
Er, you seem to have completely misunderstood my whole post and in doing so made my point for me
Vince wrote:Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war and initiate funding laws. The President has the Constitutional duty of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a global military presence and repositioning of military assets, whether Congress agrees or not, is not a "cut and dried' high crime or misdemeanor.
The US was not in a time of war in the mid-eighties.
Sending ships to an area (to politically pressure a country) CAN be considered an act of war, which is why Congress enacted an order for Reagan to not do so.
Defying a direct order of Congress is an impeachable offense, period.
Congress has no authority over the military, or the President, period.
Vince wrote:Congress has no authority over the military, or the President, period.
??!!
You obviously have never been in the military!
Money talks and Congress holds the purse strings.
and Congress has stymied a President many a time.
Vince wrote: You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
Er, you seem to have completely misunderstood my whole post and in doing so made my point for me
Great observation!
Not really...see the words, "deferential to any politician or political office"...which you explicitly accuse Americans of being deferential to.
Vince wrote:Congress has no authority over the military, or the President, period.
??!! You obviously have never been in the military! Money talks and Congress holds the purse strings. and Congress has stymied a President many a time.
Vince wrote: You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
Er, you seem to have completely misunderstood my whole post and in doing so made my point for me
Great observation!
Not really...see the words, "deferential to any politician or political office"...which you explicitly accuse Americans of being deferential to.
I say that Americans can be too deferential to politicians. You say no they aren't and then go on to give me reasons why both you and Marlow are just that.
You are, what is know in my house sir, as a 'Constant Clean'!!!
Vince wrote: You are ill informed and might try to get to know more about the U.S. from places other than media sources. Most people in the U.S. aren't deferential to any politician or political office. Name one crime Bush was convicted of while serving as President. I'd defend my neighbor as well as a politician if some idiot called him "one of the biggest puppet criminals in the last 100 years" even if convicted of no crimes. Marlow, if I remember correctly, also served as a USN Officer. He quite understandably would hold the office in higher esteem.
Er, you seem to have completely misunderstood my whole post and in doing so made my point for me
Great observation!
Not really...see the words, "deferential to any politician or political office"...which you explicitly accuse Americans of being deferential to.
I say that Americans can be too deferential to politicians. You say no they aren't and then go on to give me reasons why both you and Marlow are just that.
You are, what is know in my house sir, as a 'Constant Clean'!!!
You obviously don't know the difference between man and office, and free speech and bullshit.
