None of which constitutes "high crimes or misdemeanors" so zip it, already, & move on to your next pathetic excuse for another diatribe.

Daiwa

The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime. Wasting ¾ of a Trillion dollars on a war that was not needed and has not made us safer is a High Crime! A Misdemeanor is a crime less then a felony. Bush and Cheney have committed MANY such crimes. The determination of a High Crime or Misdemeanor is what Congress judges it to be.

Time to take your lies and distortions apart, I am sorry not to have done this sooner but I was sick in bed the last 3 days and did not have the energy to play your silly game.



You told the truth that the NIE said there were not nuclear weapons. Your distortion was simply put making it hard to dispute unless people took the time to deal with your distortion. The president never said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The President did say that we did not know what he has been doing since he kicked out the inspectors and it was safer to assume the worse than assume the best because he was trying to reconstituted his weapons programs. We could not account for the WMD he admitted he had that were not destroyed. So technically you are correct there was not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq. Cute distortion also known as a lie.



Yes, we risked getting bogged down in a protracted war in the middle east, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that the war began in 1993 and we did not start fighting it until 2003 so we were already bogged down in a war for 10 years we just ignored it until 2001 and did not try to fight it until 2002. You admit that we did not have the troops to fight this war but the enemy was already setting up a new base camp in Iraq to replace the one they were losing in Afghanistan. If we waited for the troop build up you demand we would not have the people to start to kick them out until 2012. So it seems your solution is to wait another 10 years before we go after a serious threat. Forget the 500 tons of yellow cake that can be used to make dirty bombs a plenty. So in those ten years we wait to build up our troops we risk having nuclear material spread around the United States because yellow cake in small batches will not be picked up by detectors unlike atomic bombs. Great military strategy you have there.



Secretary Powel did say overwhelming force was needed. The fact that we took the country and ended the war in 6 weeks tells me that we had the overwhelming force. If you remember when President Marcos was deposed the Filipinos stormed the Presidential palace and other places claiming that it belonged to the people and they looted what they could. The same thing happened when Saddam was taken down. The difference is that we had Iran sending in troops to keep the area destabilized. That was not the war with Iraq it was the war on terror.



Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage is not all that good since he was wrong about that as evidenced by the 20,000 still photographs and 50 hours video of flowers, candy and cheering people as we entered and took control of the nation. Another lie or distortion told by you. Oh yeah, wasn't he the one that leaked Mr. Wilson's wife to the press then got immunity and let the world think that Mr. Libby did it?



Former Army Chief of Staff was not fired as you continue to lie about. His time was up, he was scheduled to retire and the President wanted someone who would be there to see the war through the end. The people that wanted to use more troops were the ones that Rummy said he wanted to get rid of to revamp the military because the war on terror would not be fought in the conventional way. Since you say you were a colonel in the Army then you would know that the military fights three types of wars. Conventional, where we fight a country or countries. Bush wars where we fight a Vietnam type war and non-conventional wars where there is no nation we are fighting terrorist scattered around the world. If you expertise is conventional war and we are fighting a non-conventional war you are not equipped to fight this type of war. But you would know this with you extensive military experience right? I mean you are a colonel and I was just a sergeant and I know this.



The Gulf war was a different type of war. You should know this because of your extensive military knowledge. What destroyed Saddam in the Gulf war was the fact that he was fighting with WWI tactics against WWII tactics. Your suggestion is to fight a non-conventional war with WWII tactics. Different war different tactics unless you want to lose the war.



All were proven wrong, just cause you quote facts does not make your conclusions factual. You distort the facts to fit your conclusions. You lie when you can’t find fact to back up your conclusions. You ignore any facts brought to you that don’t agree with your lies. You have no intellectual honesty. Not once have I seen you admit to being wrong even when the facts prove it and the articles you quote are proven to say the opposite of your conclusion. You can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

IslandDog

YES

However the ONLY President that Congress can impeach is the one currently in office.

Paladin77

We are not talking about the American legal system we are talking about removing a sitting President from office by the Congress! You are the one that does not, as usual, know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the impeachment process that it presided over by the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court is not part of the American legal system? Please explain this to me. Poor ignorant me was under the impression that all laws are based on the constitution of the United States. Or are you tossing out the constitution as well as the laws written by Congress. How nice of you. Does this mean that you are now in charge of the planet as well? Are you sure you are an American? I don't mean to insult you but you say you spent 30 years in the Army yet you don't know basic military strategy, you say you were in the private sector for an additioonal 30 years but you don't seem to understand how business works, you say you are an american but you don't seem to know the basics of our laws or how the government functions.

It seems the only justification you have for impeachment is that you don't like him. If that were the case then there is not a president ever that would not be impeached. What laws did ne break. For Mr. Johnson there was a clear set of laws he was charged with and he survived by one vote. For Mr. Clinton he lied under oath and survived conviction as well. He was however found guilty of breaking the law and lost his law license. So again I ask you what laws did Mr. Bush break?

Please provide members of Congress that made this claim prior to the vote.



As soon as Mr. Baker becomes an elected official with the powers to go to war I might want to listen to him. Had we gone in and taken Iraq over in 1991 we would not have to be there today. But Mr. Baker was one of the people who demanded we stop the war too soon.



You still have no understanding of war or how it is fought. Fine, We did not have half a million troops, the Democrats said they would not support an increase in troops even after 9/11. We had to go to war and we go with what we have. You want to look at this with hindsight not the light of reality. It was demanded that we draw down our forces after the Soviet Union fell and we continued to draw down those forces until well after 2001. Mr. Bush tried to raise troop levels but was calld a war monger after the China problem. So the liberals held us back for years on troop levels but you seem to think it is the Presidents fault. Good one hack.



Yeah but did you graduate? Allow me to show you the whole picture. We were short on troops for 10 years, we were attacked and for the first time in 12 years we chose to fight because not fighting would be worse. This is evidenced by the bipartisan support to go to war. No one on either side of the isle mentioned nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war. Could we have used the extra troops? Yup, but we did not have them so what do you suggest we do? Continue to allow Saddam to support terrorist after 9/11? Continue to allow Saddam give safe haven to AQ? Continue to allow Saddam to publicly state that he would give or sell WMD to terrorist including AQ? All because we don’t have enough troops to stop him and provide peace? We stopped him and shut down the training camps that AQ was using in the country. Sorry col but your big picture seems very small in comparison to the facts we faced at the time. You see col political hack I was on the war planning staff for the Middle East from mid 1978 to 1979 and the planning staff for the west pacific from mid 1979 to 1980 I was also a member of the RDJTF the forerunner of SOCom. You can’t be seriously saying that we should not go to war just because we don’t have enough troops to win the peace when we are threatened. We did not have enough troops in WWI but our going to war ended WWI and WWII we did not have enough troops to fight the war in the Pacific but we won that war with just the USMC and on Brigade from the Army while in Europe the entire US Army plus one Brigade of Marines, the only war we had enough troops was Korea and we got our butts handed to us for most of the war. When attacked we do the best we can with what we have. In fact there has been only one war in modern times where we did not get our butts handed to us and that was the Gulf war and had Saddam attacked while we were still building troop levels in Saudi we would have lost that war. One constant of the last few wars was the media saying that we are going to lose long before the war started. Remember the “experts” said that we would need 50k body bags for the first week of the war? four years later we have lost 3000 plus people and that is seen by idiots as a disaster. Please keep in mind that any war we risk losing people, remember the problem with the training accident during WWII where we lost a few thousand people in one day? Or the thousands we lost on D-Day? In war people die, usually in large numbers on both sides. In this war we lose a very small number of people on our side and thousands of people on their side but you claim we are losing and the President should be impeached. Sorry but the big picture it too big for you to see.



Very good you passed your 5th grade civics class. You missed one minor detail, the person being impeached has to first break a law of some kind. This is what you have been asked over and over and you still refuse to answer. What law did he break?

For what crime!  You dismiss everything posted to you and result to personal insults.

IslandDog & Drmiler

What crimes-- Murder, lying. Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons from the 2002 NIE and they told Congress and the American people we were in danger from Saddam attacking us with something they knew Saddam did not have-- THAT IS A LIE and that LIE was used to send our troops into a war that has resulted in 3,100 deaths. Thus Murder and Lying. The GOP tried to impeach Clinton for lying about his sex life that did not result is ANY deaths. The Lies Bush and Cheney told resulted in the death of 3,100 Americans and the injury of over 22,000.

In addition the investigations show that Billions of our Tax dollars are missing in Iraq. Since he is the person in charge and who has appointed the key staff that are to be safeguarding our money he should also be charged with misappropriation of Federal Funds. All he needs to have done is committed either a High Crime (Murder and Lying) or a misdemeanor to be impeached. There is also the issue of violating the FISA Act. and not enforcing immigration and tax laws which is his responsibility.

Yet you have no legal basis to do such a thing. So much for civil rights, or legal rights. You sir are worthless.



So the billions misapproprated by Katrina victums means that we should arrest the Governor of Louisiana, all past and present Mayors of New Orleans because they were given money to fix the levies but spent it elsewhere. Shall I go on you hack?



You can thank Mr. Clinton for this, the liberals say that lying to the American people is not an impeachable offence. I know you think your smart but for an 80 year old man you are real dumb. The reason that there is a 5 year hold on a covert case officers name after they stop being covert is to protect the other officers. All the people she worked for or with while she was covert would have been replaced by the end of 5 years. it was 8 years since she was covert. Contort the lies one more time you might get it right. No laws were broken you wanker. From now on I will only post to point out a lie if I see it. I am not going to kill more electrons dealing with someone who's reality check was never cashed.

Paladin77

You do not get it. An Impeachable offense is what the House considers justified to bring a Bill of Impeachment against the President. Then the Senate acts as a jury to determine if he is guilty. It has NOTHING to do with the court system.

drmiler

The Allegations is when the House brings a Bill of Impeachment. The trial to prove guilt is in the Senate. There is more then enough cause for the House to bring the Bill of Impeachment. When the evidence is presented in the Senate we would see if 2/3 of the Senate decided that the President was guilty and thereby removed from office.

Baker Street,

Give it a rest, this guy is a one note samba all he knows is the word impeach. Laws don't matter, rules don't matter he is a spoiled 80 year old that wants what he wants nothing else matters. If he were serious and honest, two things of which I have doubts he would have layed out his case in his article and debated the points. He has no points, look how long it took for him to actually give reasons he thinks the President should be impeached and they are all bogus.

And you can't get more than three or four legal experts in a room without an argument over the Patriot act. The issue is wiretapping FOREIGN phones, and whether or not you shut down the tap if an American calls them. You don't think the Congress would nail Bush for that if they could? They can act as judge and jury, sure, but there requires a CRIME to be committed beforehand, and no one can even pin down whether anything criminal was ever done.

As for the CIA agent thing, they can't even convict Scooter Libby of that, rather they are chasing down some misstatement. If there was a crime there the proper authorities would have been successful LONG before now. The fact is that Bush is in charge of the intelligence wing of the government, and all the maneuvering about what should and shouldn't be declassified and used as propaganda is just semantic.

You didn't write your original blog about wiretaps or Plame, you're just struggling now to find something that can be pinned down as a crime. Impeachment is a grave matter, because it allows the Congress to simply "recall" a president that the American people chose TWICE. You either have a rock solid crime, or you don't do it.

Bakerstreet


No it does not require PROOF before hand that a crime was committed ONLY enough evidence to show Probable Cause. There is more then enough evidence of Probable Cause that both Bush and Cheney broke many laws. What can and should happen is Congress needs to conduct oversight hearings like the BS that Doug Fife was generating at DOD. The testimony in the Libby trial is more then enough to bring impeachment charges against Cheney for attacking Wilson by outing a CIA Agent.

Then let the Senate decide if the evidence warrants removing Bush and Cheney from office. Not a day goes by that does not produce more evidence of just how corrupt, manipulative and incompetent the Bush administration has been over the past 6 years! It starts at the very top and goes down the chain to the people Bush and Cheney appointed.