Preliminary Impeachment Hearings

[Apelila]

what's the point of doing it now instead of a long time ago? He's nearly at the end of it too isn't he?

I'm hugely waxing rhetoric here

Pre2005 there wasn't anything/much to go after him for. At least not for charging with crimes while in often. There was plenty people WANTED to go after him for, but nothing like the wiretapping, faulty intelligence to invade countries, katrina missteps that that we have now.

It wasn't until 2006 we had a congress not controlled by republicans. They've been trying since then, but every time the motion has been defeated.

Aside:

Spoiler: show

Clinton's impeachment was a feeding frenzy of publicity, no one tried to stop it because of the subject matter (Sexual content). In America you pretty much never go against the status quo when it comes to the naughty dance unless you want a ridiculous public backlash. This includes standing up for other idiots when they get caught with their pants down.

Anyway, back on topic and off the subject of clinton until recently and even currently impeaching bush is something that will be hard to do. something people often overlook is that one man alone cannot commit the crimes and misdeads some of us currently believe our president orchestrates.

[pohibaba]

Clinton was also a good president that cared for his country not a complete dumbass that runs in head first. Every person would lie when they get caught in an affair because thats just the most logical thing to do at that point. It shouldn't have been made a federal case to begin with, what is his personal life should stay there.

Maybe you should ask the people in Iraq, Bosnia, or Kosovo if he was a great President. I bet their bombed out buildings and murdered children would give them a little different perspective.

[Pirian]

Maybe you should ask the people in Iraq, Bosnia, or Kosovo if he was a great President. I bet their bombed out buildings and murdered children would give them a little different perspective.

Or maybe we should ask Jordan and Israel. See, other people can do that too =P

[Beckwin]

Pretty much every president of the last 120 or so years has committed some form of atrocity in foreign lands, and before that it was domestic atrocity in the form of Native American persecution, etc. You essentially have to compare bad to worse, and Clinton was closer to the former than the latter. Yes, he bombed other countries in the name of humanitarianism, oversaw continued CIA fucking-around in Latin America, etc but on the half-full side, he didn't run around trying to nationbuild so much. Domestically he was a rather strong president.

[thestalkmore]

This won't go anywhere, hence why nobody is reporting on it.

[Mojo]

I doubt impeaching Bush would affect the future of his career. He's done enough that you either like or dislike him, it's unlikely that impeachment will change the views of those relevant to his future. I don't think impeachment would be pointless. It would be nice to send a message to the international community that his political conduct is generally unacceptable. It probably isn't going to happen, however.

[Bingbong]

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/...o-facepalm.jpg

[guartz]

What's all this about Clinton being better domestically?

He kept none of the socialistic promises he or his wife made about health care,
and the only reason economy flourished was because of Greenspan and HIS monetary policies.

[Olo401]

what's the point of doing it now instead of a long time ago? He's nearly at the end of it too isn't he?

Bit of an obvious answer.. to keep the stigma of Bush and the previous Republican-led sessions of Congress in the spotlight during the campaign to the election.

If Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems really wanted to get this done out of anything more than a campaign stunt, they would've had it on their agenda from the very start of the 109th Congress. Instead they kept stalling it until now because they can use it as a prop to keep & gain more control over the Legislative Branch.

And this is one of the reasons that Congress has such a low approval rating. They continue to fund this war and capitulate to Bush's empty threats; they continue to shred the Constitution one line at a time with votes like the one on telecom immunity; and they continue to fool around doing next to nothing, thinking that if they let everything stay the same for a long enough time they can just "time out" Bush's term and wait for the next president to make a real impact on anything.

Guess what - it ain't working Madame Speaker. You and Harry Reid and your old-school Dems who have been around since Tom Foley was speaker have run out of time and blown your damn chances with the party's base. I hope the two of you enjoy it when we send primary challengers against you, along with your other spineless friends, just like we did and will do again to that fucking judas Joe Lieberman. If it weren't for Howard Dean's efforts to help us take the party back, and the outspoken efforts of Dennis Kucinich to keep pushing for an Impeachment Inquiry, I probably would've shredded my DNC card a while ago.

OK I'm done. Go on now, get the hearings done already. For your sake, I hope you have the entire caucus on board for this vote. That's it I'm done.

[Olo401]

It wasn't until 2006 we had a congress not controlled by republicans. They've been trying since then, but every time the motion has been defeated.

To have been defeated it would've had to have gone to committee and then brought back to the full House for a vote. The House leadership (on the Dem side) to this point hasn't even given it that chance - they've voted to table everything until this point out of their desire to use it as a campaign tactic.

[Norellicus]

What's all this about Clinton being better domestically?

He kept none of the socialistic promises he or his wife made about health care,
and the only reason economy flourished was because of Greenspan and HIS monetary policies.

Holy fuck, guartz is winning an argument? Correctly?

[Apelila]

well like i said, I was mainly just talking. I understand why it did not happen earlier, lately though I get the feeling that we're all screwed.

[Olo401]

What's all this about Clinton being better domestically?

He kept none of the socialistic promises he or his wife made about health care,
and the only reason economy flourished was because of Greenspan and HIS monetary policies.

Holy fuck, guartz is winning an argument? Correctly?

Actually, Greenspan's free money policies are one of the major causes of the current economic free-fall - they promoted constantly pumping more money in with low interest rates, and that created inflation bubbles all over the place.

The only reasons we didn't have the current economic problems while Clinton was president are because he managed to keep the budget process balanced (even with a Republican Congress in his way - remember those gov't shutdowns because Gingrich and Dick Armey stalled the budget votes?) and his administration's fiscal policies were geared mostly towards the middle class. Even I will admit that these policies helped screw low income families, but at least people still had jobs and a strong dollar to keep them going. The rich had their well-invested spoils from the Reagan years to keep them going during a time when they were being taxed highly on their unearned income (most notably the luxury and inheritance/estate taxes).

[Beckwin]

What's all this about Clinton being better domestically?

He kept none of the socialistic promises he or his wife made about health care,
and the only reason economy flourished was because of Greenspan and HIS monetary policies.

Presidents appoint Fed chair, correct?

Anyways, things Bill did right at home:
-welfare reforms
-tried to get healthcare going with Hillary; congress shut it down
-brady/assault weapons bans
-balanced the freakin' budget and had a surplus
-earned income tax expansion
-created AmeriCorps
-at least tried to allow gays to have a place in the military, even though he couldn't get away with open service via executive order


And if you're a fan of free trade (personally I'm conflicted), you've got to like the work Bill did. And aside from dropping a lot of bombs, his foreign policy was rather good, especially compared to who would follow him ->

[guartz]

Actually, Greenspan's free money policies are one of the major causes of the current economic free-fall - they promoted constantly pumping more money in with low interest rates, and that created inflation bubbles all over the place.

The only reasons we didn't have the current economic problems while Clinton was president are because he managed to keep the budget process balanced

Olo401, about what you said regarding the hearings being a election stunt. I'd agree if it received even passing media attention. Keep in mind this is being organized by kucinich, and not pelosi. Think about it, if it was a stunt as you say, wouldn't there be some kind of coverage so people would know?

Also, you overestimate how much say presidents have over fiscal policies. It's mostly up to congress to keep a budget balanced.

[Beckwin]

The president drafts the budget, no? Congress does have influence, but so does the president.

[guartz]

The president drafts the budget, no? Congress does have influence, but so does the president.

ahaha, I guess I see where you are going with this. Ahem, the congress is SUPPOSE to balance the budget, and not just blank check every request. lol

[Tyche]

Presidents appoint Fed chair, correct?

Anyways, things Bill did right at home:
-welfare reforms
-tried to get healthcare going with Hillary; congress shut it down
-brady/assault weapons bans
-balanced the freakin' budget and had a surplus
-earned income tax expansion
-created AmeriCorps
-at least tried to allow gays to have a place in the military, even though he couldn't get away with open service via executive order


And if you're a fan of free trade (personally I'm conflicted), you've got to like the work Bill did. And aside from dropping a lot of bombs, his foreign policy was rather good, especially compared to who would follow him ->

@ bold, yes, but he wasn't appointed by Clinton (well, he kinda was, but he already held the office anyway)...He just rode successive terms as presidents changed.

[Olo401]

Olo401, about what you said regarding the hearings being a election stunt. I'd agree if it received even passing media attention. Keep in mind this is being organized by kucinich, and not pelosi. Think about it, if it was a stunt as you say, wouldn't there be some kind of coverage so people would know?

Also, you overestimate how much say presidents have over fiscal policies. It's mostly up to congress to keep a budget balanced.

Why would the corporate media want to highlight anything Congress does with this before it actually reaches a floor vote to actually impeach? They've been just as complicit in touting this war and not holding these people accountable for their actions over the past 6 years as Congress has. They're currently too busy ignoring the war and any of the idiotic crap that's come out of the McCain campaign.. with few notable exceptions (Countdown, Democracy Now and PBS News Hour).

Impeachment committee hearings? Nah.. doesn't get ratings, and makes the boss upset 'cause we're pissing on his skybox buddies.

[sb]

If he was somehow charged with treason (won't happen, classified document's, blacked out proof,...), he will be pardoned, much like Nixon was after he resigned. History repeats.