Let's talk the "I" word .....

[GrowRebel]

BREAKING: NM Senate Rules Committee Passes Bush-Cheney Impeachment Resolution
Posted Feb 18, 2007 06:50 PM PST
Category: IMPEACHMENT

Now the measure goes to the New Mexico State Legislature. If it passes there, then under the Jefferson House Rules, the US House of Representatives must immediately undertake impeachment proceedings.

More

This should be interesting if the Congress is force to undertake impeachment proceedings.:thumbsup: :hippy: :rastasmoke:

:noel:

GrowRebel Reviewed by GrowRebel on 02-19-2007. Let's talk the "I" word ..... BREAKING: NM Senate Rules Committee Passes Bush-Cheney Impeachment Resolution Posted Feb 18, 2007 06:50 PM PST Category: IMPEACHMENT Now the measure goes to the New Mexico State Legislature. If it passes there, then under the Jefferson House Rules, the US House of Representatives must immediately undertake impeachment proceedings. More This should be interesting if the Congress is force to undertake impeachment proceedings.:thumbsup: :hippy: :rastasmoke: :cool: Rating: 5

[Zimzum]

Interesting but, when/if it passes the state legislature, it will still need a vote at the federal level. I think CT and VT have similar things going on. Good first steps but still long way to go.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

even if they should successfully impeach w and remove him from office, we then end up with cheney. we then begin proceedings to impeach cheney and remove him as well, we then end up with pelosi and the cycle repeats itself. by the time we end up with a worthwhile candidate for the office it will be 2066, i'll be long since in my grave and there will be corn growing on the white house lawn.

[kboughton]

even if nm passes it, the actual impeachment process probly wouldnt start until next year. congress isnt going impeach a president when hes going to be gone in 6 months and he hasnt really done anything illegal- immoral, maybe- but not illegal. it would be a waste of money and time all the way around.

[kboughton]

i dont think ANYONE wanted to be g.w.b. after 9/11. he was only going by third person info that people gave him. at least he did something. al gore wouldve said it was caused by global warming. but everyone knows he failed in the long run- including him.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.... he hasn't really done anything illegal- immoral, maybe- but not illegal....

he walks in grey areas. if the point were pressed, some of his action could be considered unconstitutional. his handlers have been quite careful, but there are certainly grounds for action. as for whether it would be worthwhile to proceed, it seems to me to be a waste of time and money. i am tempted to believe it is nothing more than the typical political pr stunt, just like the clinton impeachment. after all, isn't this just for show anyway?

[kboughton]

everyone walks in gray areas. its just that hes arguably the most powerful man in the world and his grays are broadcast for anyone to see. im not sure but im guessing every president has done something unconstitutional. its sort of like ratting on your parents after they stole bread to feed the family. it was wrong but theyre doing it for a "good" cause.

both possibly impeachments came in their second term so i dont think it was for political gain but i agree almost everything they do is for PR

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....it was wrong but theyre doing it for a "good" cause....

w's cause is questionable, at best. his entire career is so deeply rooted in political half truths, oil and industrial special interests and the reactionary philosophies of religion and big business that i'm sure even his handlers are sometimes confused. he seems to have fallen into office by being in the right place at the right time, to have been reelected by a peculiar twist of fate and a wave of rabid nationalism and now that his tenure is coming to a close we are realizing what a big mistake we really made.

[kboughton]

^^delusionsofNORMALity- "now that his tenure is coming to a close we are realizing what a big mistake we really made".........i dont know how to do the quote thing yet.

i agree his entire career seems like he has a narrator walking behind him controlling what he does next. but until 9/11 happened, nobody seemed to make a big deal about him. again im not sure but i think more people voted for him the second time than the first. you said that "we" made a mistake. that means we r responsible for the war as well. it was not ahrd to predict chaos would escalate. by the way, where r u from?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.... until 9/11 happened, nobody seemed to make a big deal about him....
.... you said that "we" made a mistake. that means we r responsible for the war as well....
.... where r u from?

9/11 was his call to glory. the towers falling gave him the excuse he needed to do everything short of declaring martial law, maybe that will be his parting shot as he leaves office. by declaring a never ending war on terror he has guarantied his holy war will be here long after he is gone. his legacy will most likely be one of death in the name of god and country (in that order).

yes, we are to blame. we started by choosing a fool and compounded our error by yielding to our blood lust and letting him get four more years closer to his blessed rapture. we're to blame and it started long before this little pisser. we've been giving away our freedom almost since this country was first formed. power brokers have bought our rights with comfort and have turned the great american dream into just another pale imitation of the utopia our forefathers hoped to create.

i include myself in this nightmare. even though i take pride in the fact i have never taken part in this sham we call our electoral process, i find myself damned by my own hubris. i became complacent along with everyone else, even though i knew better, and now we're all damned. we should have thrown the bombs when we had the chance.

in case you missed it. my response to your last question is the title.