Whoopee, there may be hope yet.

medicineman

New Member
WaPo Moves towards a Bush Impeachment

by Leaves on the Current

Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:47:20 PM PDT

Okay, so they never actually use the i-word. But there's no mistaking what this most infuriatingly supine of major editorial pages has committed tonight, starting with the sly title of the link on washingtonpost.com:
"What Did Bush Know, and When?"
The unmistakable echo, of course, is the Howard Baker question that became the yardstick for Richard M. Nixon's inexorable slide toward impeachment: "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" And that's just what the Post editorial page is demanding to know in tomorrow's editorial--which inches towards a call for this president's impeachment, as you'll see across the jump.

The subject is the now-infamous episode in which the White House pressured a gravely ill John Ashcroft to approve the secret wiretapping program his own staff had already deemed illegal, as James B. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week. Here's what has the WaPo beginning to dance, ever so gingerly, with the ghosts of 1973-74:
It doesn't much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department.
Tomorrow's editorial goes on to deride Bush's dismissal of questions about the episode--"I'm not going to talk about it"--as "so inadequate." Well, yes; but that's not what's interesting here: what's interesting is the language the Post uses to describe the implications of Comey's testimony for the president, and the nature of the inquiry it now demands:
. . . there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.
Yes, Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft's included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more. . . [A]s a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.
It is indeed. Breathtaking enough, the Post says, that though "[t]he president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain[, it] cannot be allowed to happen." On the contrary, it says, public discussion is essential. Breathtaking enough to move the nation towards the real prospect of impeachment?
In a previous editorial, the WaPo had already excoriated the Ashcroft sickbed episode as "lawlessness so shocking [the account of] it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source" than Comey, Justice's former number 2 official. In another, it had already used the word "coverup," the WaPo's own description for the cause of Nixon's downfall. But tomorrow's editorial is different: tomorrow's editorial focuses for the first time squarely on the president. Was his conduct "breathtaking" enough to raise the prospect of impeachment?
The unmistakable implication, with all the weight of the Post's own historical language behind it, is yes.
UPDATE: As others have also noticed, there’s strong additional evidence that the WaPo is moving towards a call for impeachment in the language they use in this editorial to describe the Ashcroft sickbed episode: "the Wednesday Night Ambush."
Unmistakably, it’s a direct and deliberate reference to the Saturday Night Massacre that did so much to end the Nixon presidency.
 

hempie

New Member
they cant touch bush. he hasnt done anything wrong. the dems dont get their way so they throw shit out for the media to feed on. and lets use some logic here. IF he did do something illegal the impeachment hearings would of began already.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
yeah, this is like all their "brave" posturing with bills they know will get vetoed and have no chance of passing...

i wish they'd quit wasting my money playing around like this.



.
 

medicineman

New Member
yeah, this is like all their "brave" posturing with bills they know will get vetoed and have no chance of passing...

i wish they'd quit wasting my money playing around like this.



.
You guys need a refresher course in constitution1-A!
 

hempie

New Member
no real power? the president is the only person that can give orders to nuke your ass. the president is the leader of the world. we the people gave him these powers
 

medicineman

New Member
what has he done wrong? humor me
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
I might add, holding secret hearings on the energy bill and basically letting the energy companies write energy policy. Check out the price of gas.
 

hempie

New Member
1. we had all the cause we needed to invade iraq and remove saddam from power.saddam defied many UN resolutions. he did not launch any attacks before congress passed a declaration of war nor were there any fraudulent claims made leading up to the war in iraq. 2. you're fucking with the security of this nation. if a few have to feel a little pain then so be it. none were killed or died as a result of this so called torture. lights and terrible music on 24hrs a day really isnt that bad. 3. im not going to waste anymore time debunking your conspiracy theories and false accusations. 4. if any of these held any weight congress would of began the impeachment hearings already. 5. this is just propaganda spread by the leftist in office to warp the minds of ppl like you who dont know how to think for themselves
 

ViRedd

New Member
"7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006."

One only has to read this line to debunk the entire article.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
1. we had all the cause we needed to invade iraq and remove saddam from power.saddam defied many UN resolutions. he did not launch any attacks before congress passed a declaration of war nor were there any fraudulent claims made leading up to the war in iraq. 2. you're fucking with the security of this nation. if a few have to feel a little pain then so be it. none were killed or died as a result of this so called torture. lights and terrible music on 24hrs a day really isnt that bad. 3. im not going to waste anymore time debunking your conspiracy theories and false accusations. 4. if any of these held any weight congress would of began the impeachment hearings already. 5. this is just propaganda spread by the leftist in office to warp the minds of ppl like you who dont know how to think for themselves
~LOL, fucking Idiotic~LOL.
 

hempie

New Member
you should probably watch your childish name calling before it gets you into more trouble. i have yet to hear your point of view. just the foolish rhetoric of others. it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. time and time again you have opened your mouth and proven yourself to be a fool, i just wonder when you will finally keep it shut
 

medicineman

New Member
you should probably watch your childish name calling before it gets you into more trouble. i have yet to hear your point of view. just the foolish rhetoric of others. it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. time and time again you have opened your mouth and proven yourself to be a fool, i just wonder when you will finally keep it shut
Words of wisdom from the Idiot,~LOL~.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Hey, Med ...

Your new avatar is really offensive. Only one-tenth as offensive at the Michael Moore avatar though. I honestly think replacing the Michael Moore avatar with a big lump of turd is a big improvement and will add to your credibility tremendously here in the forum. :hump:

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Hey, Med ...

You new avatar is really offensive. Only one-tenth as offensive at the Michael Moore avatar though. I honestly think replacing the Michael Moore avatar with a big lump of turd is a big improvement and will add to your credibility tremendously here in the forum. :hump:

Vi
Well, I can hardly hold my glee in, I've met with your approval on something. BTW Meeting your credibility requirements is not high on my list. I rather thought the avatar amusing. It kind of sums up life. You try and try and then you die and the deed comes to fruition. Ho Ha He He! ~LOL~.
 

ViRedd

New Member
So, the new avatar looks like a schematic for an amplifier. Or ... is it a detailed map of the labyrinth of underground tunnels in Washington that the Democrats are gonna use to escape the thundering herds of people carrying torches, tar pots and chicken feathers?
Vi
 

hempie

New Member
this med guy cracks me up. im surprised he hasnt come back at me with. (i know you are but what am i?) or maybe he hasnt progressed that far yet.
 
Top