High Crimes and Misdeameanors; Has Bush Committed Those Acts?

Compare Bush to Nixon

By K. Kemper, published Sep 24, 2007
Published Content: 215  Total Views: 41,919  Favorited By: 5 CPs
Rating: 2.5 of 5
Richard Nixon was found guilty, decades ago, of "High Crimes and Misdemeanor." He was impeached. His "only" crime was hiding the break-in of Watergate.

Going forward, we have;

"Less than best evidence" to enter war;
A claim of weapons of different sources that did not exist;
Multiple claims made by a Secretary of State that turned out to be false [regardless of the sincerity of the secretary];
and perhaps more reasons.

Few people liked Saddam while millions only tolerated him. The US is less than thrilled with the leaders of China, N. Korea, Cuba and other places but is not preparing to enter war with them [or are we?]

Thus, we discovered, prior to the dictator's overthrow, that while he was horrible, he was not a threat to the US. EVEN when the US discovered that,
those who disliked him pled with the US to help THEM get rid of him. There were no legal grounds for the US doing that-for hunting him down.

When a person or company is found to be doing something illegal that started out legal, they are asked to stop [for fear of jail]. Yet, Americans are not returning home. Somehow, Osama and someone in Iraq has convinced the US that the US needs to stay in Iraq.

"To keep the terrorists in Iraq."

Well, that does not work. A terrorist is a person who is planning illegal activities and it includes those who are carrying out those activities.

The terrorists are in the UK, in Spain, in Indonesia and elsewhere.

Since we cannot keep them in Iraq, the purpose for the US being in Iraq is made moot. Since it is, Bush must direct his field commanders to cease their actions and either re-direct their soldiers or return them to their US bases or honorably discharge them!

It is odd that even our main enemy has said, "Go home, Americans." We will continue to go after you as long as you are in Iraq.

When any "baddies" are in Iraq, what business is that of Americans? We are not fighting the Cuban government, the Chinese government, the N. Korean government or any governments in Africa-so, why are we fighting anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
 
 
Nixon was never impeached. The Senate was preparing to begin the process when he resigned. A technicality, perhaps, but a factual one. I think it is also important to remember that in 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Freedom Act into law, in which he declared that Saddam was a threat, that he had WMD's, and that he advocated his removal and the implementation of democracy. Folks tend to blame Bush for the intelligence behind the war, when in fact, Saddam, himself, claimed to have many WMD's, after the First Gulf War, that he never accounted to the UN as being destroyed or surrendered. There are just too many variables in this piece, but I like the strong opinions behind it. Finally, if there were legitimate "impeachable" offenses - the Democrats would have undertaken the measures long ago. The simple fact is - there are not. Read through what constitutes an impeachable offense. This war is not illegal - Congress voted to give Bush the sole decision in making a

Posted on 09/25/2007 at 2:09:00 PM

 
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556813.html?from=storyrhs http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/18513.htm http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hAm0Dj5426sJ:www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf+unmovic+report+netherlands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/21/bush.blair/index.html http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/05/25/who_thought_iraq_had_wmd_most_everybody

Posted on 09/25/2007 at 1:09:00 PM

 
RS: according to Sec of State Powell, he was interviewed live on cbs and he admitted under oath that he was lied to and they did not exist. Frankly, I was not there. HOWEVER, after all that was found or not found, we have no reason to remain, even IF we had reason to be there. Eisenhower did not leave his men in the UK. USAREUR was created to keep the Russians from advancing. Patton was right and we should have knocked them on their asses too. Then we discovered decades later, they had no viable retaliation power. NO nation can stop a religious war and that is what exists in Iraq and Afghan now.

Posted on 09/25/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
There were illegal materials as well as chemical weapons in Iraq. Not to mention the 16 UN Security Council resolutions encouraging action to be taken since Iraq and Saddam ignored UN rules.

Posted on 09/25/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

 
I will naturally be required to be vague - unless I wrote an entire article in response, since I have about 500 characters to get my point across. But it's important to deal with your primary point of the legality of the war, in which President Bush is not guilty of any crimes in the way the war was waged. He sought permission from Congress to deploy soldiers for more than 90 days, he got it. If the war itself is "illegal", the culpability lies as much with Congress.

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 11:09:00 PM

 
You are being vague. And you are not stipulating errors. People do not "quit" if they are not wrong. And I could argue the rest but it would take me 2-4 months in writing. So, I will simply say we will agree to disagree. Regardless, thanks for commenting. I have no need at my age to agree with everyone to enjoy the fact they responded.

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

 
Well, first things first, Nixon was never actually impeached. The case was going to be brought up, but he resigned before impeachment. The legality of the war cannot be called into question without calling into question the legality of the entirety of congress. Officially, Bush covered his bases in this regard, he got Congressional approval. This is without pointing out the factual inaccuracies on your claims about Iraq - assuming that the existence of a Green Zone means we do not deviate from it. Of course, you also make a point to say "the terrorists are in Spain, Indonesia and the U.K.", that's a unique one to suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq isn't a threat because there are terror cells in European and Asian countries.

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 9:09:00 PM

 
connecting dots works too. what did I get wrong? was Nixon convicted of other offenses or?

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 8:09:00 PM

 
You could've at least written something either original or factually correct.

Posted on 09/24/2007 at 8:09:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
 
Most Commented On