PeakOil is You
THE Impeachment Thread (merged)
Re: Senator Jim Ferlo Leading Impeachment of Bush?!
by Liamj » Mon 16 Jan 2006, 20:20:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UIUCstudent01', 'S')o, in conclusion, this is a bunch of hype (relatively) for and by state senator Jim Ferlo. He can't do anything but raise awareness via this ad.
Uh, anybody got a better plan?
-
Liamj - Tar Sands
- Posts: 864
- Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Re: Senator Jim Ferlo Leading Impeachment of Bush?!
by Specop_007 » Mon 16 Jan 2006, 22:27:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UIUCstudent01', 'S')o, in conclusion, this is a bunch of hype (relatively) for and by state senator Jim Ferlo. He can't do anything but raise awareness via this ad.
Uh, anybody got a better plan?
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007 - Expert
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Senator Jim Ferlo Leading Impeachment of Bush?!
by Grimnir » Tue 17 Jan 2006, 01:00:32
What is it with Pennsylvania? Now a US Senator from that state, Arlen Specter, is talking about impeachment. He still doesn't have the power to begin proceedings, but he's more highly placed than Ferlo.
- Grimnir
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: USA
The Conyers Report: The Case for Impeachment
by rogerhb » Mon 27 Feb 2006, 16:52:05
The Case for Impeachment
Does anyone know more about this? It seems to be very "under the radar".
{Title edited for greater visibility: Jack}
Does anyone know more about this? It seems to be very "under the radar".
{Title edited for greater visibility: Jack}
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
The Case for Impeachment
by Kickinthegob » Wed 01 Mar 2006, 08:20:39
www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.
A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.
“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law. A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas.
Conyers said:“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.
A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.
“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law. A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas.
Conyers said:“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”...
-
Kickinthegob - Lignite
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
![[smilie=5ziplip.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/5ziplip.gif "5ziplip")
