RedBook
EscortsPremier Adult Entertainment Community Home | Ads | Message Board myredbok
Subject: "Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
printerPrinter Friendly view    
Conferences > Special Interest > Community Hall > Topic #34797
Reading Topic #34797

Hardballer click here to view user rating
Charter Member
6438 posts, 56 feedbacks, 94 points
16-May-08, 03:13 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Hardballer Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
 
   "This is the most impeachable Presidency in American history."


http://www.pr.com/press-release/85836

Ralph Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment of George W. Bush to PR.com in Candid Interview

In an interview with PR.com’s Senior Editor, Allison Kugel, Ralph Nader details five charges for alleged credible impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

New York, NY, May 16, 2008 --(PR.com)-- In an interview conducted by PR.com Senior Editor, Allison Kugel, Ralph Nader details his case for the call to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He also accuses Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain of turning their backs on these alleged charges.

In “Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again - The PR.com Interview,” Kugel questions Nader about the following statement on his campaign’s website, “Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least five categories of repeated, defiant ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.”

When asked about this statement by PR.com, Ralph Nader replies, “That’s simple, applying the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress. This is the most impeachable Presidency in American history.”

When asked by Allison Kugel if he believes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals, Ralph Nader replies, “Yes, of course. They’re war criminals. That’s easy to document. They violated the UN Charter. They didn’t get a declaration of war from Congress. They violated The Geneva Conventions. They’re systematic torturers. That’s been well documented by the press, and that violates federal law. It violates the constitution. It violates the U.S. Army and the Geneva Conventions. So, that’s two. They arrested thousands of Americans and put them in jail without charges; habeas corpus down the drain. That’s three. Fourth is, they’ve spied on thousands, maybe millions of people without warrants and that’s a five year jail term under FISA Act. And five, [George W. Bush] signed eight hundred signing statements when he signed bills into law, more than all other Presidents combined, in effect saying, ‘I’ll decide whether I’m going to obey this law or not.’ So, you have at least five major categories of continued impeachable offenses. This is not like a one time thing, Watergate burglary with Nixon or lying under oath about sex like Clinton. This is defiant, sometimes even admitting the spying and the torture, which they call ‘severe interrogation.’ These are defiant, continual, recidivistic war criminals, constitutional criminals and statutory criminals. They should have been immediately impeached and convicted in the Senate the moment the Democrats took over. But, the Democrats have taken impeachment off the table. Barack Obama has taken it off the table, Hillary Clinton has taken it off the table, and of course John McCain doesn’t want it on the table.”

To read this interview in its entirety go to http://www.pr.com/article/1100 or go to PR.com and click “Articles.”


  Alert Top

 
Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15629 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
16-May-08, 03:32 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #0
 
   Nader is a lunatic.

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
16-May-08, 03:54 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #1
 
   >Nader is a lunatic.

That's true, but he's correct about the various impeachable offenses committed by this administration. Of course, as has been pointed out many times, the Dems are clearly unwilling to deal with the political costs of pursuing impeachment proceedings.

  Alert Top

RoyalJim click here to view user rating
Charter Member
2293 posts, 13 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 11:56 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to RoyalJim Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #2
 
  
>That's true, but he's correct about the various impeachable
>offenses committed by this administration. Of course, as
>has been pointed out many times, the Dems are clearly
>unwilling to deal with the political costs of pursuing
>impeachment proceedings.

Which means of course that the Dems you refer to have no moral integrity, or they wouldn't be too concerned about "political costs." Or it could be that they just don't have that good of case....in which case you would again be wrong.

  Alert Top

Hardballer click here to view user rating
Charter Member
6438 posts, 56 feedbacks, 94 points
16-May-08, 04:06 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Hardballer Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #1
 
   Since its wikipedia day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

......appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim......

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16407 posts, 58 feedbacks, 89 points
18-May-08, 01:09 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #1
 
Do you wear a seatbelt?

(in my best Jacket voice)


Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
19-May-08, 03:16 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #6
 
LAST EDITED ON 19-May-08 AT 03:17 PM (PST)
 
Yes, but I also store all of my firearms unloaded, and in an 800 lb. safe bolted to the floor. I also make sure all the coals are cold in the fire pit before turning in for the night while out hunting.

Nader has nothing to do with that. Some things are just common sense.

Nader thinking he can win the presidency is not common sense. Nor is Nader thinking he can impeach the president.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 12:04 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #10
 
   Bullshit - your automobile would not even be equipped with a seat belt if not for Ralph Nader and the movement he started.

The shame is, an entire life of good work is being squandered by his Quixotic quest during his dotage.

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 02:58 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #14
 
   LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 03:00 PM (PST)
 
Sorry Jack, but you are full of shit up to your eyeballs. The fact is, the Seat Belts you cite were theoretically available for those aforementioned 40 years, but the Automakers did not put them on the cars, until Ralph Nader forced them to. Just because an item of safety equipment COULD be made available, doesn't mean that it is. Do you wear a pressurized flight suit when you get on a commercial plane - After all, these suits, just like the seat belts you cite, have been available for well over 40 years. But, the fact is, nobody requires you to wear one, and commercial airlines don't provide them. The situation was the same for seat belts in automobiles circa the mid 1950s. The only difference was, knowledgeable people know that pressurized flight suits would save a miniscule number of lives on civilian aircraft relative to the costs. Well, that was the exact same argument that the automotive producers made concerning seat belts (and air bags) on cars, prior to Ralph Nader and his organization collecting the data, lobbying the government, and educating the general public.

It is a fact, that absent Nader's work, Automotive manufacturers would not put seat belts in Autos as standard equipment, just as they had not done so for the well over 40 years prior to Nader's organization compelling them to do so through their research, education and lobbying efforts. Your claim that your always wearing a seat belt in a car has nothing to do with Ralph Nader is probably as great a pile of bullshit as even you have ever foisted on this forum. And that's saying something.

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 03:09 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #16
 
LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 03:17 PM (PST)
 
You got schooled HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over it!!!!!!!!!!!

~It is a fact, that absent Nader's work, Automotive manufacturers would not put seat belts in Autos as standard equipment~

What part of "By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968."
did you not comprehend??????????????????????????????????????????

1964 predates 1965 genius! LOL

I already showed where McNamara put them on Fords a decade before Nadar showed his face! I showed that in 1956 the demand for cars equipped with them outdid the supply!

It's also a fact that the industry world wide was moving this direction anyway, as my links (had you bother to read them for facts, and not your assertions) clearly show.

This is just another example of you sadly sticking to your debunked argument to save face when shown factually incorrect, something that happens often to you here. You're a dead entity...no credibility at all.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 04:04 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #17
 
   LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 04:24 PM (PST)
 
Nader was working the issue of seat belts well before 1965. 1965 happens to be when he published "Unsafe at Any Speed" But the information in that book details most of the research and lobbying efforts by both him and the Auto Industry over the preceeding years. His work on the issue began in the late 1950s - which, last I looked, preceeded 1964. His work on the subject was first published in 1959 in an article called "The Safe Car You Can't Buy". So get your damn facts straight, Jack. The reason that I didn't read your links in their entirety is that it only took a cursory glance to recognize that they were not "factual" but rather, advocacy pieces pitching the Automotive industry's side of the issue. Robert McNamara no more led the Automotive industry to building safer cars than he led the nation to a successful victory in Vietnam.

The reason that Safety Belts became standard equipment in 1966 was that it was mandated with the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act - for which Nader is fundamentally responsible. Any claim that the Auto industry was acting to do this anyways, in anything but a superficial manner, absent Nader's efforts to both educate the public and lobby the Congress, is simply self-serving crap.

BTW, the Automobile industry tried to discredit Nader, but they were forced to apologize, and he successfully sued GM over it.

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 06:52 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
20. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #18
 
LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 06:54 PM (PST)
 
Robert McNamara appears to be "working the issue of seatbelts" before Nader

You STILL cannot refute that the majority of autos HAD seatbelts by 1964, as the link showed, though you TRIED to assert otherwise!. I gutted your whole argument, and you, like a pig.

A man, which you are not, would have the courage to admit when he's wrong.

A weasel, which you are, keeps changing his tune to appear right.

Unfortunately your words are here, as are the claims those words make, and they sink you like a termite riddled canoe.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 07:02 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #20
 
   LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 07:16 PM (PST)
 
No Jack, that's bullshit - just about everything you have posted in this thread is bullshit. The majority of autos did NOT have seat belts as standard equipment by 1964. That happenned in 1966, when it was mandated by the law that Nader got passed. You can lie or post inaccurate info or links to sites with inaccurate information all that you like, it still doesn't make it accurate. And BTW, most of the ones that DID have seatbelts as standard equipment by 1964, did so because of the publicity Nader generated. The fact is, Nader was writing articles and lobbying Congress about mandating seatbelts from 1959 on. At that time, hat most car makers did in response, including Ford under McNamara, was make belts available IN LIMITED ways, AS EXPENSIVE OPTIONS in SOME of their cars. It was under the law that Nader was able to get passed in 1966 that the entire Federal regulatory mechanism for setting safety standards for autos sold in the U.S. that seatbelts were first mandated. Prior to that, VERY FEW cars had rear belts - NONE did as standard equipment, and many also lacked front belts - again, most only as optional, rather than standard equipment. The simple fact is, it WAS Ralph Nader who got this changed, through legislation, in 1966.

For me to admit I was wrong, I would need to actually be wrong. But the fact is, I'm right, and you're wrong. And, by your own definition, that makes you not a man. But you ARE, however, a liar. Which is not news to anyone. That's OK, you can keep on channeling Monty Python's Black Knight, and go on telling yourself that you'll bite me in the bum. Meanwhile, I'm moving on while you, like your beloved, channeled, Black Knight, bleed out.

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 07:13 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #21
 
LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 07:15 PM (PST)
 
Wrong again!

I posted Wiki...dates, names, etc....and you posted NOTHING to support your sorry ass.

You sir, are completely FULL of bullshit.

Why don't you offer some proof that the majority of autos did not have seatbelts, and refute Wikipedia....instead of making your usual unsupported bullshit claims????

Now I am going to school you again you big mouthed, full of shit, angry, deluded, ancient fucking asshole!!! Now I AM pissed that a lying sniveling weasel like you cannot just shut the fuck up and admit he's fucking factually dead wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/seatbelt_history.htm

~1955
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) appoints Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Committee.

~1956
Volvo markets 2-point cross-chest diagonal belt as an accessory. Ford and Chrysler offer lap belts in front as option on some models. Ford advertising campaign focuses on belts.~

~1962
U.S. manufacturers provide seat belt anchors in front outboard as standard

~1964
Most U.S. manufactures provide lap belts at front seat positions

You're the liar!!!! And you haven't posted ONE FUCKING THING to refute me!

Oh, you are wrong! It's your standard state. Cowards like you just flap your gums...and are always shy on facts.

Weasel some more....I am enjoying beating the living shit out of you here....and you sure seem to enjoy taking a beating!

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

longdong click here to view user rating
Charter Member
6796 posts, 16 feedbacks, 16 points
20-May-08, 07:15 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to longdong Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #22
 
   Dman is right.

I was um... there.

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 07:21 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #23
 
Well LD, at least you don't just say "Wikipedia is lying"..you actually manage to at least go and get your own links to offer support for your views.

dman just says "Jack you're a liar and the any of the sites you use are lying too"...as if his word was somehow THE authoritative view on the matter. The lazy troll doesn't even TRY to mount an argument, much less support it.

Classic shit. Really.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3065 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points
20-May-08, 07:24 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
26. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #22
 
   LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 07:34 PM (PST)
 
No Jack, I wasn't just claiming you were lying without citations - I was waiting to see how far you would go in lying before providing the specific citations that establish that you were full of shit.


Ironically, I got quite a bit of my information from the exact same Wikipedia citations that you did, as well as others that were linked from them. As well as from the Wikipedia entry on Ralph Nader.

The simple fact is, the stuff you have presented as "FACTS" in your posts, was NOT presented as facts by the very Wikipedia entries you cited.

Just because you cite a link, doesn't give you license to mis-state what the link actually says.

YOUR link points out that the Seat belts in the Ford Falcon were an optional safety package - NOT, as you imply, standard equipment.

And you yourself admit that the leader in bringing seat belts into cars was Volvo, not Ford nor any other American auto company. The simple fact is, Nader was publishing data on the need for seat belts in 1959, before ANY American car had seat belts as standard equipment, and only a few like the Ford Falcon even offered them as expensive options.

Wikipedia also points out that it was Nader who got the law passed in 1966 that mandated seat belts AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT.

Here's the relevant passage:

Nader's first consumer safety articles appeared in the Harvard Law Record, a student publication of Harvard Law School, but he first criticized the automobile industry in an article he wrote for The Nation in 1959 called "The Safe Car You Can't Buy."[14] In 1965, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a study that purported to demonstrate that many American automobiles were unsafe, especially the Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by General Motors. The Corvair had been involved in numerous accidents involving spins and rollovers, and there were over 100 lawsuits pending against GM in connection to accidents involving the popular compact car. These lawsuits provided the initial material for Nader's investigations into the safety of the car[15] GM tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.[16][17] GM failed to uncover any wrongdoing, and never explained resorting to smear tactics instead of defending the car in the popular press, where the company had considerable corporate influence. GM's avoidance of technical journals makes more sense, as it was well known among auto engineers that the early (1960-64) Corvair's swing axle suspension handled miserably.[18][19] Upon learning of GM's actions, Nader successfully sued the company for invasion of privacy, forced it to publicly apologize, and used much of his $284,000 net settlement to expand his consumer rights efforts. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals, whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance".[20]

Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, led to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and marked a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety (which shifted from the consumer to the manufacturer). The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.[21][22][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

As for your Americian Heritage citation, - it's sheer bullshit propaganda with no factual basis for what they printed.

BTW, I WILL give you credit for ONE thing you were right about - I see that the mods DID delete the most egregious bullshit-laden post in this thread - your own post #14.

  Alert Top

herdloose click here to view user rating
Member since 26-Oct-03
1523 posts, 4 feedbacks, 7 points
20-May-08, 04:45 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to herdloose Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
19. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #14
 
   LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 04:56 PM (PST)
 
There is a good reason as to why a manufacturer would supply seat belts voluntarily: demand. With exceptions like genetically modified food, rarely, do companies furnish enhanced product safety features without demand.

But there's not a great demand for seat belts, and why do only one in ten New Yorkers comply with their mandatory belt laws?

Do you believe that all car manufacturers care so much about public safety that they began voluntarily putting seat belts in their new models?

Then you probably believe labels on tuna cans saying "no dolphins harmed" is a result of the fishing industry's compassion for the dolphin.

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 07:22 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #19
 
I never said what I believed. I only listed what I could prove.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
16-May-08, 07:01 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #0
 
Unfortunately for you, Nader isn't someone anyone takes seriously.

It's apparent the he doesn't believe in due process either.

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
19-May-08, 03:03 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #5
 
A wager perhaps???????

http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID14/34812.html

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

RoyalJim click here to view user rating
Charter Member
2293 posts, 13 feedbacks, 21 points
19-May-08, 02:56 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to RoyalJim Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #0
 
   Damn. I just reread the Constitution for the umpteenth time and I still can't find where it says Ralph Nader can bring charges against the President. Can you show me what section he's in?

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
19-May-08, 03:14 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Nader Proclaims Five Counts for Impeachment"
In response to message #7
 
Oh, it's just liberal wet dreaming again......

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

  Alert Top

massageman2020 click here to view user rating
Member since 21-Dec-02
5347 posts, 30 feedbacks, 45 points
20-May-08, 12:46 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to massageman2020 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "Attacking the messenger rather than the message"
In response to message #0
 
LAST EDITED ON 20-May-08 AT 12:53 PM (PST)
 
Neither Jacket nor HJ addressed Nader's accusations. Instead, they tried deflecting the argument to one of Nader's credibility.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. (Taken from Hardballer's link.)

Even though I despise GWB, I think Nader's a bit biased when he cites impeachable offenses. GWB pushed the boundaries beyond what would be considered remotely acceptable w/o a rubber-stamp Congress. That does not mean he broke the law.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
~Napoleon Bonaparte

1. The Constitution mentions nothing about International Law. What FEDERAL laws did the administration allegedly violate by perpetuating an "illegal" war? Although they did not have a formal declaration of war, Congress wrote them a blank check on the use of force in order to strengthen their negotiating position. While I consider Bush-Chaney to be "war criminals", it's not an impeachable offense. I'd be fine if they can never leave the country after they complete their terms...

2. Torture MAY have some traction because it's a violation of federal law & the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. They got around it by redefining "torture". While deplorable, it's not impeachable.

3. The courts already addressed Habeas Corpus. GWB made a bad judgment call. If that was impeachable, Carter would have been crucified for how he handled the Iran mess.

4. Spying without a warrant is a serious offense. Again it's a gray area of legal judgment. It may be impeachable, but there's a tough burden or proof.

5. Signing statements are not covered by either the Constitution or federal law. In effect, they have no power or authority. The courts already ruled against the line item veto. It's only impeachable if Congress can show the President failed to follow the law rather than stated his interpretation of it when signing the bill.

Nader completely missed the most egregious offense. The administration systematically misled Congress with faulty intelligence and lied about its intentions to negotiate in good faith. Of course, there is no PROOF that the deception was based on malfeasance instead of incompetence or only hearing/reporting what they wanted to hear. George Tennet was a disgrace to his office.

The Dems may have decided not to impeach for the same reason Ford pardoned Nixon. Enough was enough. They won control of both houses of Congress and needed to try moving forward. Impeachment proceedings would further divide the country and never yield a conviction in the Senate. Why worsen partisan relations without any hope of achieving change? Some may call it lack of moral fortitude (I tend to agree); others call it good leadership that puts the needs of the country ahead of partisan politics.

Action is the antidote to despair.
~Joan Baez

  Alert Top

happyjack click here to view user rating
Member since 22-Sep-04
22482 posts, 66 feedbacks, 92 points
20-May-08, 01:27 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to happyjack Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: Attacking the messenger rather than the message"
In response to message #13
 
You know something, attacking someone's credibility IS a viable argument! Every defense attorney looks to undermine the credibility of witnesses for the prosecution! Look what just happened in that big police shooting in NY. Look at what Johnny Cochrane did to the LAPD and the CSI people!

Here, when conservatives post something positive coming out of Iraq, one of the first tactics employed by Bush haters is to say "Yeah, more military propaganda from David Betray-Us!"

I don't see you saying a fucking thing to them when they question the credibility of a West Point graduate, and a man to whom "Duty, Honor, Country" are a way of life....but here you are castigating us for teeing off on an increasingly bizarre Ralph Nader, a man with whom the defeats of Al Gore and John Kerry could be blamed on!

So, my point is simple: Nader, for whatever reason, has decided to sail off the edge of the earth when speaking of these impeachment matters. From what I know, he is NOT a constitutional scholar, nor a legal expert on the legislative and executive branches of this government in terms of national security or foreign policy.

IOW, the conclusion you came to: Those things not being impeachable as Nader suggests, though they may be foolish, deplorable, or any other adjective, is somewhat stating the OBVIOUS!

All of his rhetoric is based on ASSERTION, and therefore completely ignorable from a legal sense, as he has neither the proof nor the capacity (security clearances etc.) to even KNOW what transpired, or how.

Ergo, we attack his CREDIBILITY for even trying to advance such gibberish to begin with! It IS a valid form of argument! That