Ramsay Clark trying to impeach Bush

[Dreadsox]

From the DRUDGE REPORT:

Meeting Assembled By Conyers Mulls Seeking Bush's Impeachment Over Iraq
Thu Mar 13 2003 10:30:03 ET

House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) assembled more than two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to mull over articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein. ROLL CALL is reporting on Thursday.

MORE

The two-hour session, which featured former attorney general-turned-activist Ramsey Clark, took place in the downtown office of a prominent Washington tort lawyer. Participants said Conyers, who hosted the meeting, was the only Member of Congress to attend. 'We had a pretty frank discussion about putting in a bill of impeachment against President Bush,' said Francis Boyle, an Illinois law professor who has been working on the impeachment language with Clark.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not resist posting this.

 

[Dreadsox]

http://votetoimpeach.org/

 

[deep in HELL]

In the early 70s people laughed when they filed impeachment papers on Nixon.

Bush is probably more deserving of impeachment than Clinton was.

 

[nbcrusader]

It was bound to happen.....

 

[Screaming Flower]

omg how lame.

 

[elfyx]

I signed my support a couple of weeks ago. I read just the other day an article detailing how there is actually a kind of growing, yet silent support for this impeachment by many in Congress. Many congressmen are supporting the effort, but because of the new political galug that is Congress these days, they are understandably quiet about the matter. Nonetheless, there is a serious effort underway. I will try to dig up that article and post it if I find it again.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Bush is probably more deserving of impeachment than Clinton was.

Agree.

Impeaching Bush would be a dream come true for me...

Angela

 

[Screaming Flower]

yeah that's what our already unstable country needs right now. an impeachment.

 

[deep]

Sometimes it is a lot safer if you take the car keys away.

 

[Screaming Flower]

and sometimes it's less safer to change drivers in the middle of the ride.

 

[hiphop]

When they?re drunk, its better to get some other drivers though. After all, everyone might end in a car crash.

 

[melon]

Bush has overstepped his bounds many times, and his lack of respect for the separation of powers written in the Constitution is blatantly obvious. Considering the utter stupidity that brought impeachment for Clinton, I think this is a far better application for this process.

However, I think it is a fat chance in hell that Bush will actually be found guilty. We all know it is a partisan tool anyway.

Melon

 

[deep]

and sometimes it's less safer to change drivers in the middle of the ride.

SF,

Because I have been around longer than most here I have personal recollections of historical events.

In 72 one of Dick Nixon's campaign slogans was "Don't change horses midstream". His opponents revised it to "Don't change dicks in the middle of a scr*w"

 

[elfyx]

When they?re drunk, its better to get some other drivers though. After all, everyone might end in a car crash.

Yeah Bush doesn't have quite the clean record with drunk driving, symbolism aside. But I do wonder what Freud would have to say about this lol.

Bush DUI
What Drinking Will Do (QuickTime)


And! He's in good company!

Cheney DWI 1
Cheney DWI 2

 

[deep]

there are many who said Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster.

There was no evidence to support this.


Sadly the evidence for W's wife is there.


(Speaking of slamming the door shut on possibly damaging information ? several newspapers broke a story in March about Laura Bush which involved vehicular manslaughter. Apparently, back in 1963, then seventeen-year-old Laura was driving her Chevrolet sedan and ran a stop sign, killing another seventeen-year old [he was thrown from his doorless Jeep]. The Bush camp thwarted the Freedom of Information Act by making the particulars of the story ?unavailable.? Further, they said, this ?unfortunate? incident happened thirty-seven years ago and should have no bearing on the person Laura Bush is today. Oh yeah, causing another person?s death ? even thirty-plus years ago should no longer be blip on anyone?s radar. Somehow, I don?t think the boy?s parents have ever gotten over the tragedy as well as Laura has. My point is, however, that should Hillary Rodham Clinton have had something of this kind in her past, do you think the Republicans would be as?forgiving? No, I think we?d still be hearing about it ? all eight years? worth.)

Laura Bush ran stop sign in 1963 fatal accident
JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas ---- Details in a 1963 accident report say that Laura Bush, then 17, ran a stop sign in the Texas crash that killed a friend in another car. The report, adding information to previous reports of the crash, was released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Bush now is the wife of Republican presidential nominee-to-be George W. Bush, the Texas governor.

"It was a very tragic accident that deeply affected the families and was very painful for all involved, including the community at large," said Laura Bush's spokesman, Andrew Malcolm. "To this day, Mrs. Bush remains unable to talk about it."

She did say in March, when asked at a campaign stop about the crash, "I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well."

There had been published accounts of the accident, but city officials had declined to release the records because those involved were under 18. The police report was released Wednesday in response to an open-records request that was submitted to Midland officials in March.

According to the two-page accident report, Laura Welch was driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 6, 1963, when she drove into an intersection and struck a Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas.

Although previous news accounts have reported Douglas was thrown from the car and broke his neck, those details were not in the report.

The speed of Laura Bush's car was illegible on the report. The speed limit for the road was 55.

Laura Bush and her passenger, Judy Dykes, also 17, were taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries, according to an accident account printed at the time in the Midland Reporter-Telegram.

The police report indicates no charges were filed. That section of the report was left blank.

"As far as we know, no charges were filed," said Midland city attorney Keith Stretcher.

 

[Dreadsox]

I mean you both no disrespect.....but.....


What in the world possessed you two to post these two things here?

Exactly what does Bushes DUI have to do with him being President? Is it funny to make fun of an alcoholic now? He has been clean and sober since 1986 by all accounts. Shouldn't that be something to be heralding given so many are striken with this disease? He has kicked it, a disease that many have not been able to kick!!!!!! Even if you hate the man, as most of you all seem to, it is disappointing and below you to post it in here. Start your won thread about DUI it has nothing to do with his Presidecy.


As to Mrs. Bush when she was 17 years old this happened? A kid in High School in a car accident? This is DISGUSTING that you would bring this up here. To compare a frigging car wreck that happened to a teenager to freaking Vince Foster is just IGNORANT. It is below you !!!!

Have your fun!!! I have rarely been this disappointed coming here. This takes the cake.

Neither of these two things have anything at all to do with IMPEACHMENT. Which is the topic of the thread!!!!!! Start your own thread.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is getting very French.....

 

[Lilly]

Dreadsox: you know you crossed the line with that one, and you know personal attacks are not acceptable in FYM or its subsidiaries.


nbcrusader: please try not to bring other conflicts into new threads. thank you.

 

[Dreadsox]

My apologies to the people I offended with that post. Deep and Elfyx. My emotions got the best of me.

 

[gvox]

Well if I was American I would vote to have Bush impeached.

Alot of that decision would have to do with info you posted up on FYM about the underhanded way Bush has forced this war down the public's throat without congressional approval of a declaration of war and the lies that have been told.

Bush is a one term president, if that.

 

[Lilly]

yeah gabriel - the tricky thing is the democrats are not fully backing a 2004 candidate at the moment. and if they produce another gore-type candidate voting against bush will be a bit tricky.

 

[gvox]

Well I agree there...without a solid candidate with a unified backing there is not much chance of a democratic leader..

But not to say that the whole republican party is bad..maybe the answer is to impeach Bush and get another rep who isnt such a wing nut??

 

[Lilly]

i think that impeachment is seen in a different light than it was originall intended to be seen in.

one looks at the impeachment of andrew johnson. this was brought about due to political conflicts. johnson president after abraham lincoln was shot, and was re-elected in the next election by a landslide. a known southern sympathizer, johnson faced much conflict from congress, which wanted to deal with reconstruction by itself, not having the executive office touch the concept.

secretary of war edwin m. stanton was very adament about speaking out against johnson (stanton was close to lincoln). at the time there was a tenure in office act, meaning that a president could not fire his cabinet members without congressional approval, which protected stanton's job. johnson fired stanton, and congress brought up impeachment charges.

johnson was not, in fact, impeached but it was an extremely close vote (a margin of something like 3 or 5 votes).

and i think we all remember nixon and clinton's stories.

but somehow, impeachment seems to be on a high pedistal, not to be used to check a presidents power, which is basically what it was included in the constitution for.

__________________________________________________

another thing about election 2004:
historically, something that really happens fairly often and has contributed to many "underdogs" winning the presidency, is dissention in the opposite political party. the democrats can't decide on a candidate, showing a split in the democratic party. another thing that contributes to low votes for just one democratic candidate is the growth of third parties. since third parties tend to be on the left side of the spectrum, it's typically voters who would have voted democrat were there not a third choice.

it will be interesting to see how these factors pan out in 2004.

 

[elfyx]

I mean you both no disrespect.....but.....

What in the world possessed you two to post these two things here?

Exactly what does Bushes DUI have to do with him being President?

Well, it is my personal opinion that it does have a lot to do with the Presidency. Many clinical psychologists are worried with Bush's behaviour, much of which stems from his many years of long, hard, and irresponsible drinking and drug use. 30 years old is not "youthful indiscretion" in my book. If Bush is exhibiting classic signs of post-alcoholic behaviour; that his thinking and reason have been irreversibly impaired by his substance abuse, then I definitely think that qualifies as concern for the position of Presidency of the United States of America.

Neither of these two things have anything at all to do with IMPEACHMENT. Which is the topic of the thread!!!!!! Start your own thread.

Well, the one of the reasons I posted the links is because if clinically, he is unfit to hold the position of Presidency, then that is very real grounds for Impeachment, or at least resignation. The evidence needs to be clear.

I'm sorry if I disappointed or offended you, Dreadsox, or anyone else in here. But the allusion of running the government into the ground had grown to symbolise drunk-driving, and the process works both ways. Bush should be commended for kicking alcohol, but the fact still remains that someone who has abused it as much as he, has a very real potential for serious clinical psychological and physiological damage that could impair him today. Like I said, many are already concerned, because his behaviour patterns are disturbing and fit such profiles.

If I was out-of-line, I'll let one of the mods decide and respect their decision. I am sorry for offending anybody, but for now, I'll continue to ask the tough questions.

 

[Lilly]

Well, it is my personal opinion that it does have a lot to do with the Presidency. Many clinical psychologists are worried with Bush's behaviour, much of which stems from his many years of long, hard, and irresponsible drinking and drug use. 30 years old is not "youthful indiscretion" in my book. If Bush is exhibiting classic signs of post-alcoholic behaviour; that his thinking and reason have been irreversibly impaired by his substance abuse, then I definitely think that qualifies as concern for the position of Presidency of the United States of America.

one thing i think people outside of the u.s may not understand is that it really isn't just the president that runs the show. his cabinet is really running the show.

and if we want to talk about presidents who can't physicall run the show, let's look at woodrow wilson. wilson actually had suffered a number of strokes before his presidency and throughout. he led the u.s into wwi despite the fact that he was collapsing all the time due to this. with 4 months left in his presidency he had a massive stroke paralyzing his entire left side and his wife ran the presidency.

same type of thing with fdr, he had polio. kennedy had liver problems. lots of presidents have had debilitating ailments of which the public was not made aware.


______________________________________________
i believe we've resolved the issue in this thread. thanks to both of you for being so civil.

 

[Dreadsox]

Elfyx, I provded the link to the impeachment charges against President Bush. While you may feel that the DUI Is relevent, I have seen nothing posted by you from any psychologist that says Bush is out of control. I do however, believe you have a right to your opinion, and I respect that. Again I apologize for losing my cool. Thank you for your understanding.


Here are the charges that Ramsay Clark is accusing the President of. All of these are on the link to the site I provided.

NOTES

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD H. RUMSFELD, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN DAVID ASHCROFT

(Part 5 of 6)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND OTHER NAMED OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF UNPRECEDENTED DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Draft Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and other named officials of the United States charge the most serious crimes known to law and history. Nothing in the experience of the impeachment power under the Constitution compares. The conduct charged threatens the Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law and the lives of unknown thousands, or millions of people by their act and example.

The alleged impeachable acts of President George W. Bush include:

1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;

2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;

3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;

4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;

5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use;

6. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force;

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;

8. Authorizing, ordering and condoning violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights;

9. Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain his war ends;

10. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals.

President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.


None of which has anything to DUI or his alleged use of drugs.

Peace

 

[diamond]

I would be more worried about perjurors than reformed drunks and sexual predators.

Oh yeah thats right the perjuror was IMPEACHED.

DB9

 

[diamond]

I think alot of ppl are out for a vendetta against Bush w/their motives only being partisan and disengenious-sp

DB9

 

[Screaming Flower]

I mean you both no disrespect.....but.....


What in the world possessed you two to post these two things here?

Exactly what does Bushes DUI have to do with him being President? Is it funny to make fun of an alcoholic now? He has been clean and sober since 1986 by all accounts. Shouldn't that be something to be heralding given so many are striken with this disease? He has kicked it, a disease that many have not been able to kick!!!!!! Even if you hate the man, as most of you all seem to, it is disappointing and below you to post it in here. Start your won thread about DUI it has nothing to do with his Presidecy.


As to Mrs. Bush when she was 17 years old this happened? A kid in High School in a car accident? This is DISGUSTING that you would bring this up here. To compare a frigging car wreck that happened to a teenager to freaking Vince Foster is just IGNORANT. It is below you !!!!

Have your fun!!! I have rarely been this disappointed coming here. This takes the cake.

Neither of these two things have anything at all to do with IMPEACHMENT. Which is the topic of the thread!!!!!! Start your own thread.

i agree. completely. you were right about this place dread.




and i wouldn't hook my star to that lunatic, ramsay clark, for all the tea in china.

 

[elfyx]

I think alot of ppl are out for a vendetta against Bush w/their motives only being partisan and disengenious-sp

DB9

I consider myself an informed Patriot, and see Bush as a threat to our Republic. I had very little positive feelings for Clinton either. My motives are not bi-partisan politics, and I think THAT is a disengenious reason to fall into such a dichotomous mindset. I am genuinely concerned, aside from politcs -there are actually several republican issues I agree with- but I can not personally sit aside and be silent about what I have reasoned, researched, analyzed, think and feel. To do otherwise, would be a disservice to myself and my country.

Thank you