Barb

It isn't going to be a SHE...where have you been?

Originally Posted by barb1191

Respecting the office has nothing to do with it. Respect is earned and you mean to say that no matter how many horrendous mistakes the president makes with such autraucities, you still repsect the office? Sounds somewhat like the 3rd reich with blind faith. How could you accept the fact that worst of all the innocent lives he has taken and for what? How about homeland security? That's where we should be with our military forces, protecting our homeland and certainly not getting our military killed and maimed where countries have been at war for hundreds of years.

The respect throughout the world for GWB, his office and our country tells it all; listen to the polls and the people. He's a loser and should be impeached for his actions. The role of his office brings all of the horrors of it all onto his shoulders; he's the sole one who must pay for the unethical, amorale autracities that exist. That is the sole responsibility of the office of the president. You respect the office, then you respect GWB; how could you and honestly say that you support the blunders? Office and President is one in the same; you want to just respect the office, not possible when you have such a loser sitting in that office.

Sorry Johnny, with all due respect to you, I just can not understand your rationale. My heart is so heavy with sadness over the loss and horrendous impairment of our innocent military serving their country.

barb1191

Barb, great post. G. Bush may not have meant for all our soldiers to die in this unjust war, but he bears responsibility. His administration pushed the war, and he still won't back down.

Originally Posted by brightspot01

Barb

It isn't going to be a SHE...where have you been?

Hey gal; I've been right here and was not speaking specifically in the present. Don't you believe that there will be a "she" in the future? I do. .....b

It seems to me no one will answer the question that started all of this. Everyone just wants to wail away at GWB. At least you prove my point. No one has put their money where their mouth is and charged George Bush as a murderer. If that is the case then my original objection to junglejims post holds true and all this back and forth was not necessary. You don't call a sitting President a murderer. It does not help our troops in the field and emboldens our enemies.

Originally Posted by JohnnyM

Listen I am going to try and keep a level head here. You do not call a sitting President a murderer. I don't care how much you hate him and his family. You can shout to the high heavens about how bad you think this Administration is, but I am telling you for your own good, do not call the President of the United states a murderer. 'nuff said.

Johnny: Please validate what gives you the authority to tell anybody what they can and can not say?

Furthermore, my issue with you is not about calling the President a murderer. My issue with you is strictly not understanding your ability to respect the position of a person who has ruined that position. GWB has without a doubt not earned any respect and it happened while in the position of President. Thus, my friend, he's ruined both, i.e., his own reputation along with the position of President.

As for your insistance that I proclaim to you my feelings regarding the opinion of somebody else who called GWB a murderer, that, my man, is none of your business what my opinion is, and may I suggest that you get down off your high horse and refrain from telling people what they can say and not say.

barb

bump

Barb I was nineteen when my President and Commander in Chief was assassinated. That had quite an impact on me and I will always remember waking to the news the President had been assassinated. I respected the office as a young serviceman and I respect the office now. I'm sure I am not alone on this, however I said my piece and made my point to my satisfaction.

Thank you Barb... well put.
Please pray for the families that are suffering so because this man does not care how many of them die. :'( It is not his daughters.

There have been a lot of hard posts here. What the heck, here’s mine.

I have a lot of empathy for anyone who has lost a loved one due to military action. Grief is difficult on the best of days, and wanting to lash out and lay blame is human. Getting the notice that someone you have watched grow has died or been seriously wounded is horrific. What’s also horrific is to witness it happening around you to friends who have become closer than family (yes, that is possible) and carry those sights, sounds, smells and contact forever – you never shake it.

Wars are not popular, except to those who have no idea what is involved. During the Vietnam conflict (to me, “war” is the correct word, but “war” was never declared) the entire 15-year, 58,000+ killed, 300,000+ wounded involvement was the result solely of orders from the sitting Commander-in-Chief (first, Pres. Kennedy, then Pres. Johnson, then closed out by Pres. Nixon).

Sitting presidents are not impervious to the law. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” and ultra vires use of authority which results in death can qualify as such, still provides Congress with the reason to impeach a sitting president. It’s happened in our recent history, and the hue and cry when it last happened was that there was a Republican-led Congress out to lynch a Democratic President.

Throughout the Vietnam War, despite all of the protestors and activists, neither Pres. Kennedy nor President Johnson was impeached. I would like to think that if there was evidence of wrongdoing, that Congress would have stepped in. For the Iraq/Afghanistan War, especially with a Democratic-led Congress and a Republican President – and an election coming up – if there was ANY evidence of wrongdoing by the President, then Congress would be going through the impeachment process at breakneck speed, coupled with the press turning the event into a three-ring circus.

Since the Democrats chair and have the majority on all of the Congressional oversight committees, one would think that if a case could be made against Pres. Bush in any way, shape or manner, it would be done by now. Since Congress has deferred to pass judgment – as is their job to do since Congress has ALL of the information on the subject – then history will get the job to assess the Bush presidency.

I’m not a basher or fan of this administration. It’s time for a change, and the law of the land demands it after two terms.

I still grieve for several who were very close to me, and working in the DC area has been a blessing and curse, because I find too many times to be near The Wall. I just can’t pass it without stopping at certain panels and the combination of loss, rage and sorrow really tests my faith sometimes. It would be simple to just blame Pres. Kennedy (he got us into Vietnam) and Pres. Johnson (he kept us there) as heartless swine, but that's too easy and convenient and just wrong.

Principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.

The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President’s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently given him a pass rather than practice any oversight. The fact is, that this is not supposed to happen the way it’s happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we’ve put that to the test in the past few years, but I don’t think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes.”

Originally Posted by junglejim

Principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.

The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President’s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently given him a pass rather than practice any oversight. The fact is, that this is not supposed to happen the way it’s happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we’ve put that to the test in the past few years, but I don’t think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes.”

What's the source for these paragraphs? If you wrote it, sorry. The close quote at the end of the last paragraph threw me.

Originally Posted by junglejim

....... I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof, and God knows we’ve put that to the test in the past few years, but I don’t think they anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes.”

I agree that if thre is one area of "progress" over the past 2 1/2 centuries, we seem to be making "better idiots."

You pose great questions to the members of the opposition, and their answers - or ability to evade answering - is of interest to us all. The norm is for any Article of Impeachment presented by a House member to be first reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee.

The current chair of the Judiciary Committee is the Hon. John Conyers, Jr. (D) Michigan, 14th. The remaining Democratics members (22 out of 38 total) are: Hon. Berman, (D) California, 28th; Hon. Boucher, (D) Virginia, 9th; Hon. Nadler, (D) New York, 8th; Hon. Scott,
(D) Virginia, 3rd; Hon. Watt, (D) North Carolina, 12th; Hon. Lofgren, (D) California, 16th; Hon. Jackson Lee, (D) Texas, 18th; Hon. Waters, (D) California, 35th; Hon. Delahunt, (D) Massachusetts, 10th; Hon. Wexler, (D) Florida, 19th; Hon. Sánchez, (D) California, 39th; Hon. Cohen, (D) Tennessee, 9th; Hon. Johnson, (D) Georgia, 4th; Hon. Sutton, (D) Ohio, 13th; Hon. Gutierrez, (D) Illinois, 4th; Hon. Sherman, (D) California, 27; Hon. Baldwin, (D) Wisconsin, 2nd; Hon. Weiner, (D) New York, 9th; Hon. Schiff, (D) California, 29th; Hon. Davis, (D) Alabama , 7th; Hon. Wasserman Schultz, (D) Florida, 20th; and Hon. Ellison, (D) Minnesota, 5th.

So, is this another of the "great conspiracies" or just political rhetoric? If I was still a Democrat (chased away by the DNC after the FL primary debacle), I'd want to know why all the talk from the Dems and yet no action to back it up????