Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney

[Dos Equis]

Nuts.   

Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
John Nichols
Wed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET

The Nation -- When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to        President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President        Dick Cheney.

 
The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from        Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.

Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.

In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.

In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch (news, bio, voting record), backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.

Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.

Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.

"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.

It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.

After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.

For the record, Middlebury says:

We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307/cm_thenation/1172344;_ylt=Ap4l.wIJTvGAHRaQgcB.ByMDW7oF

[240 is Back]

Nuts.  

Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.

What happens when it's 3,600?

36,000?


Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority.  When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act.  Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts". 

[Mr. Intenseone]

LOL..Vermont, arn't they like 90% Liberal??

[militarymuscle69]

Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.

What happens when it's 3,600?

36,000?


Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority.  When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act.  Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts". 

Yeah but you get like 5 people at town meetings and they are the nuts anyway. So even if 4 out of 5 vote to impeach does that reflect the whole town?

[Dos Equis]

Thirty-six American towns wish to impeach bush.

What happens when it's 3,600?

36,000?


Face it dude, being labeled "nuts" is only possible when you're a small minority.  When 95% of cities and towns and counties and states vote to impeach, Congress will respond to keep their jobs, and act.  Then, suddenly that remaining 5% will be the "nuts". 

As I said right after the Democrats took control of Congress last year, impeachment will be relegated to internet message boards.  There is no basis for impeachment and the Democrats in Congress won't be stupid enough to pursue this dumb issue with such an important election right around the corner. 

And yes they are nuts. 

[Tre]

LOL..Vermont, arn't they like 90% Liberal??

You've got a pretty well-educated population there in Vermont, my friend. 

[militarymuscle69]

You've got a pretty well-educated population there in Vermont, my friend. 

um yeah right, that place is like the north's version of west virginia

[Eyeball Chambers]

Yeah but you get like 5 people at town meetings and they are the nuts anyway.

Keeping up on what goes on in your local Government really makes you a nut.

You are a moron if you believe that.

[240 is Back]

As I said right after the Democrats took control of Congress last year, impeachment will be relegated to internet message boards. 

You just posted an article showing 36 towns (which as you may know are "non-internet message board entities") who have voted for impeachment.

Starting this thread directly disproved your theory.  Was that your intention?  Or an unintended consequence?

[240 is Back]

This thread shows something else, which is becoming a common theme here.

THe original article listed the reasons these towns voted to impeach Bush.  In the academic and legal world, this information is used to determine if the issue is valid.

Here in internet neotaint fantasyland, you cats ignore this.  You make fun of the people instead.  It's akin to a defense attorney making fun of the prosecutor's shoes, haircut, and ugly ass children instead of defending his client.

Beach bum, mm69, and mr I:

I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.



If you do so, you will show these vermont towns to be "nuts", or more accurately, ignorant of the law.  If you do not, then guess what... you've just been politically outgunned by "4 or 5 local liberal nuts from the NE's verrrginia".

Do as you wish.  Until you prove #1-4 are wrong, you are sub-nut in the eyes of getbig.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Didn't some place in Utah do the same thing recently? This is meaningless. You might as well take an impeachment vote at the local high school.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Excellent! 

I especially like MM69 Calling people nuts for taking part in there government. 

Our founding fathers must have been nuts in his eyes.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Didn't some place in Utah do the same thing recently? This is meaningless. You might as well take an impeachment vote at the local high school.

No, thats what I thought.

Let me find some info but Impeachment proceedings can actually start at the state level.

[ribonucleic]

They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

It's newsletter only, so I don't have any details, but the fiery leftists over at Counterpunch.org are saying Rumsfeld not only authorized the torture - he micro-managed it.

[Dos Equis]

You just posted an article showing 36 towns (which as you may know are "non-internet message board entities") who have voted for impeachment.

Starting this thread directly disproved your theory.  Was that your intention?  Or an unintended consequence?

Let me clarify what I mean.  This impeachment nonsense will never see the light of day in Congress.  That was and remains my prediction.  The fact that a comparatively small number of people voted on impeaching the president doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me or the country in general.  There could in fact be several "resolutions" passed by segments of the population.  I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards.  

[Eyeball Chambers]

This impeachment nonsense

Instead of calling it nonsense would you please address some of 240's questions?

I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:[/b]
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

[Dos Equis]

This thread shows something else, which is becoming a common theme here.

THe original article listed the reasons these towns voted to impeach Bush.  In the academic and legal world, this information is used to determine if the issue is valid.

Here in internet neotaint fantasyland, you cats ignore this.  You make fun of the people instead.  It's akin to a defense attorney making fun of the prosecutor's shoes, haircut, and ugly ass children instead of defending his client.

Beach bum, mm69, and mr I:

I challenge you guys to prove all 4 of these points to be wrong:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.



If you do so, you will show these vermont towns to be "nuts", or more accurately, ignorant of the law.  If you do not, then guess what... you've just been politically outgunned by "4 or 5 local liberal nuts from the NE's verrrginia".

Do as you wish.  Until you prove #1-4 are wrong, you are sub-nut in the eyes of getbig.

Oh brother.  I know I'm going to regret this, but:

1.  Congress endorsed the war after it started.  

2.  Bush acted on the advice of counsel, like presidents before him, was checked by the judiciary, and is now operating under a new law.  Didn't Clinton do the same thing?  Also, I am not certain the order to do warrantless wiretaps came directly from Bush.    

3.  Which specific prisoners are you talking about and what specific provisions of the "Federal Torture Act" and the "Geneva Convention" are you referring to?  Also, what role did President Bush play?

4.  Who exactly are you referring to and precisely what was President Bush's involvement?  

[Dos Equis]

Instead of calling it nonsense would you please address some of 240's questions?

I just did.  Not that it will matter to you or anyone who has their mind made up about this nonsense.  It's really silly.  If there was anything to this impeachment stuff, Congress would be all over it.  There is nothing there.  There will be no impeachment.  There will be no impeachment investigation.  There will be no impeachment hearings.

But I'm happy to engage in these hypothetical discussions about this non-issue.    

[ribonucleic]

I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards. 

Not entirely.

These people are pissed off enough that they're actually leaving their homes and standing up in public to say that they want something done. That demonstrates a meaningfully higher level of commitment than keyboard warriors such as myself. 

You're right of course that the immediate political consequence of this is zero.

But to quote my favorite movie: "Big things have small beginnings."

[240 is Back]

Let me clarify what I mean.  This impeachment nonsense will never see the light of day in Congress.  That was and remains my prediction.  The fact that a comparatively small number of people voted on impeaching the president doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me or the country in general.  There could in fact be several "resolutions" passed by segments of the population.  I view these absurd acts as indistinguishable from the impeachment drivel on internet message boards.  

Beach Bum,

If every city and town in every state in the US was to vote to impeach Bush, something interesting would happen:

People running for congress in 2008 - and those who wished to keep their job in 2008 - would realize that supporting such legislation would result in them being re-elected.  And criticizing it would mean that some upstart Obama-like geek who supports it, would take his job in 08.

This is precisely what happened with the Iraqi war.  The majority of the population was against the war.  Their representatives refused to do anything to stop the war.  So, they chose to vote these people out of office.  The lesson is fresh in the minds of many who are now looking for a job.

So yes, Beach Bum, today it is 36 towns.  Might be zero more.  Might be 10,000 more.  But when the majority of cities do it, state congresses will immediately do it, and nat'l Congress will follow suit.  This is how democracy works - very slowly.  

[Dos Equis]

Not entirely.

These people are pissed off enough that they're actually leaving their homes and standing up in public to say that they want something done. That demonstrates a meaningfully higher level of commitment than keyboard warriors such as myself. 

You're right of course that the immediate political consequence of this is zero.

But to quote my favorite movie: "Big things have small beginnings."

Well we actually agree . . . a little.   

[240 is Back]

Beach, when you were asked to dispute this:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

You delivered this:

1.  Congress endorsed the war after it started.  


It sounds like you didn't even read it.  The charge is that the Bush Admin manipulated intel.  It was recently confirmed by the Pentagon audit team that yes, Intel was clearly manipulated by Douglass Feith, working directly under Rumsfeld, a Bush appointee, and that this Intel was the specific info given to congress for decision making - not the greater number of sources showing the WMD threat was not real.

Your answer, "Congress endorsed the war after it started.", makes zero sense to me.  It has nothing to do with the now-proven fact that Bush manipulated and gave the nation bad info to serve his purpose.

I have already accepted the fact you lied here about being a university professor.  However after reading your response I am now wondering if you could pass a 6th grade reading comprehension test.  Do you want to revise your answer #1, or shall we move on to #2?

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum,

If every city and town in every state in the US was to vote to impeach Bush, something interesting would happen:

People running for congress in 2008 - and those who wished to keep their job in 2008 - would realize that supporting such legislation would result in them being re-elected.  And criticizing it would mean that some upstart Obama-like geek who supports it, would take his job in 08.

This is precisely what happened with the Iraqi war.  The majority of the population was against the war.  Their representatives refused to do anything to stop the war.  So, they chose to vote these people out of office.  The lesson is fresh in the minds of many who are now looking for a job.

So yes, Beach Bum, today it is 36 towns.  Might be zero more.  Might be 10,000 more.  But when the majority of cities do it, state congresses will immediately do it, and nat'l Congress will follow suit.  This is how democracy works - very slowly.  

O.K.  Wake me when every city and every town in America does what a handful of dummies in Vermont just did.  

I view this as nothing more (actually much less) than the impeachment of President Clinton.  It is a waste of our time and my money.  

Keep in mind the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors."  It's not a policy disagreement, mistake, error in judgment, etc.  

[240 is Back]

O.K.  Wake me when every city and every town in America does what a handful of dummies in Vermont just did.  

I view this as nothing more (actually much less) than the impeachment of President Clinton.  It is a waste of our time and my money.  

Keep in mind the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors."  It's not a policy disagreement, mistake, error in judgment, etc.  

Beach Bum,

You know what's funny - whether an idea is considered brilliant/true, or retarded/nutty is not based upon its accuracy.  It's based upon the perception of the large group to which this idea is presented.

When Copernicus introduced the idea that the Earth orbited the sun, he was considered nutty.  Not because of the accuracy of his statement (which it obvously was), but because 99.999% of the population didn't believe it.  The idea moved from "nutty" to "science" when other evidence came to light, and suddenly 99% of people believed him.


If 1% of America wanted GWB impeached, the idea is nutty.
If 99% of American wants GWB impeached, the idea is viable, likely, popular, and yes, no longer nutty.


Except to that 1% of people, which might include you.  The question is, when 297 million people suddenly think you are crazy for your idea... you are.

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum,

You know what's funny - whether an idea is considered brilliant/true, or retarded/nutty is not based upon its accuracy.  It's based upon the perception of the large group to which this idea is presented.

When Copernicus introduced the idea that the Earth orbited the sun, he was considered nutty.  Not because of the accuracy of his statement (which it obvously was), but because 99.999% of the population didn't believe it.  The idea moved from "nutty" to "science" when other evidence came to light, and suddenly 99% of people believed him.


If 1% of America wanted GWB impeached, the idea is nutty.
If 99% of American wants GWB impeached, the idea is viable, likely, popular, and yes, no longer nutty.


Except to that 1% of people, which might include you.  The question is, when 297 million people suddenly think you are crazy for your idea... you are.

I am with you brother!  I mean just look at how NASA has deceived the world about the faked moon landing.  Even though you are one of the few people on the planet who believes in this conspiracy, one day the truth will be revealed to the masses.  The truth will set us free.  Don't give up the fight dude!