Should George W. Bush be Impeached?

[SkinWalker]

When George W. Bush became President in 2000, he promised prosperity, peace, and humility. Instead, his "leadership" has resulted in record federal deficits, he started an unnecessary war, and made us (America) the most hated nation in the world.

 

George W. Bush is a traitor to the American people and should be impeached. To fund the war on Iraq, Bush cut taxes. In over 140 years (if ever), Bush was the only President to cut taxes in time of war and his mutilation of the United States Income Tax will change it to be merely a "salary tax" (Sloan 2004).

 

Soon after the 2000 election, and the appointment of Dubya as President by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Enron scandal broke out and Dubya quickly distanced himself from his single biggest campaign supporter, Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, by stating that he really didn't know him. And Bush expected the American public to believe that he really didn't know the campaign supporter that gave him the most money, $37,500 for his gubernatorial race against Ann Richards and $114,000 in PAC and individual contributions from Enron in 1999-2000 (Weiss 2001). "Enron also donated $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inaugural gala in January, a contribution that was matched by Enron’s chairman and chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and his wife."

 

Not only were Bush's criticisms of Enron and Lay hypocritical in light of his cozy relationship with this thief, but Bush's own Harken Oil debacle was a mini-Enron, with all the same fundamental faults as with Enron: cooked books, insider trading, ripped off stockholders, theft, deception, violations according to the SEC; but all on a much smaller scale (Allen & Lardner 2002; Fineman 2002; Krugman 2002). The fascinating thing about the entire scandal is that Harvard University actually bailed Bush and Harken out of their sinking ship (Simpson 2002) by moving $20 million in liabilities off of Harken's books by tapping into the endowment funds of the University. But not before Bush's $848,560 sale of his stock, through insider trading and without disclosure to the SEC, was dumped on the unsuspecting stockholders who had the misfortune to invest in the company.

 

Bush is a failure in nearly all respects, and his disrespect for the American people who aren't in the upper 1% by wealth-class is obvious. And it was his thorough deception of about half of the remaining 99% that has screwed this nation.

 

He should be impeached.

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Allen, Mike; Lardner, George (2002). "Harken Papers Offer Details on Bush Knowledge." Washington Post, July 14, 2002 issue.

 

Fineman, Howard (2002). "Harkening Back to Texas." NewsWeek, July 22, 2002 issue.

 

Krugman, Paul (2002). "A Little Help From His Friends: Bush's Wheeling And Dealing In Texas Foreshadowed His Penchant For Secrecy And His Indifference To Conflicts Of Interest." New York Times, July 17, 2002 issue.

 

Simpson, Glenn R. (2002). "Harvard Was an Unlikely Savior of Bush Energy Firm," Wall Street Journal, October 9, 2002 issue.

 

Sloan, Allan (2004). Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up. NewsWeek, April 12, 2004 issue.

 

Wayne Slater (2002). “Lay Gave More to Bush,” Dallas Morning News January 12, 2002 issue.

 

Weiss, Steven (2001). The Fall of a Giant: Enron’s Campaign Contributions and Lobbying. opensecrets.org, Section: Money in Politics Alert, 6:31

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I have nothing to add as I agree. Impeach the idiot.

[TK-8252]

Agreed. But it would never happen, since the neocons run everything now.

[Darth Andrew]

Should George W. Bush Be Impeached as a Traitor to the American People?

Doesn't this sound biased....

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

Doesn't this sound biased....

 

Not at all.

 

There is an option to vote "no."

[Darth Andrew]

Yes, I could tell.

The poll would be unbiased if it said, "Should George W. Bush be impeached?" But since it has "as a Traitor to the American People" (the capitalization makes it sound like a title) to me it implies the poster of the poll thinks President Bush is a traitor (if you don't read his post first, which I stopped reading when I got to 'Instead,')

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

The poll would be unbiased if it said, "Should George W. Bush be impeached?"

 

But then there's no reason. It's not bias; it's being specific.

 

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

But since it has "as a Traitor to the American People" (the capitalization makes it sound like a title) to me it implies the poster of the poll thinks President Bush is a traitor

 

Perhaps you didn't notice that all other significant words in the question are also capitalized.

 

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

(if you don't read his post first, which I stopped reading when I got to 'Instead,')

 

Which proves that YOU ARE being biased, by not approaching the issue from both points of view. That is not good debating.

[swphreak]

I say yes, but unfortunately, the churchies and rednecks outnumber the opposition.

[Darth Andrew]

Which proves that YOU ARE being biased...

Yes, you could say I am being biased because I have gotten sick and tired of all the crap every Bush-disliking/hating person has put forth, so that that all their arguments blur into: I dislike/hate President Bush, no matter what.

...by not approaching the issue from both points of view. That is not good debating.

You honestly think people will change their minds from this "debate?" I will always support President Bush ("Oh no! He's a neoconnie! Shoot him!) just like most of you will most likely never support President Bush.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

to me it implies the poster of the poll thinks President Bush is a traitor (if you don't read his post first, which I stopped reading when I got to 'Instead,')

 

He obviously DOES think that he is a traitor, since he made the thread and voted yes to it. That has no bearing on the poll itself being biased. If it were biased it would have the options "yes" and "hell yes"

 

 

YOU are being biased by not even reading the points and taking time to counter anything, showing no reason why George W. Bush should NOT be impeached.

 

Therefore, your posts are ignorant and hypocritical.

[TheMadDoofer]

Owned!

 

But seriously, I would like to hear one good reason why we should keep him as our president - and "Kerry isn't any better" doesn't count.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's not biased, he's just specifying a reason.

 

I'd like a third option so that the poll looked like this:

 

- Impeached as traitor.

- Impeached for other reason.

- No.

 

Then people who want him impeached for, say, oppressing gays or ruining our environment don't have to vote "no".

 

Yes, you could say I am being biased because I have gotten sick and tired of all the crap every Bush-disliking/hating person has put forth, so that that all their arguments blur into: I dislike/hate President Bush, no matter what.

Now that is definetly not good debating, friend.

 

This is a debate forum, and most of us - especially SkinWalker - lists sources for the facts he lists on Bush. He's much less of a "hater of Bush no matter what" than you are a "fan of Bush no matter what". I think you're calling his opinions "crap" not because they're immature (which they aren't) or untruthful (which they aren't), but simply because he dislikes Bush.

 

See my signatures for some American leaders' opinions on anti-President "whiners". Dissent isn't "crap", it's a vital part of any democratic country.

 

Instead of attacking us for our opinions, try attacking our opinions and tell us why Bush is a good President.

[Darth Andrew]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

He obviously DOES think that he is a traitor, since he made the thread and voted yes to it. That has no bearing on the poll itself being biased. If it were biased it would have the options "yes" and "hell yes"

 

 

YOU are being biased by not even reading the points and taking time to counter anything, showing no reason why George W. Bush should NOT be impeached.

 

Therefore, your posts are ignorant and hypocritical.

Listen, what SkinWalker wrote looks like the start of an essay. I don't feel like researching for 3 hours on why Bush shouldn't be impeached. I do have a life to live, and not sit in front of a computer all day *clears throat*. Call me chicken, call me a "Bushie," call me whatever you want, but I will most likely always support Bush, even if you would consider me "blind to the truth." I'm not much of a debater anywho, but call up my older brother (who is obsessed with politics). He would gladly have a debate.

 

I think you're calling his opinions "crap" not because they're immature (which they aren't) or untruthful (which they aren't), but simply because he dislikes Bush.

 

I never said his argument was immature, but like I said, the people who don't like Bush argue so forcefully, that all of the (what I consider most of their ideas to be anymore) "junk" just blurs into nothingness and passes out of my sight.

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

I'm not much of a debater anywho

 

Then WHY are you in the DEBATE forum?

[Darth Andrew]

Because when I clicked on Dagobahn Eagle's signature, I assumed it was in the Lounge, and not in the jediknight.net's forum. I never ventured in here before.

[TK-8252]

But the link in his sig is:

 

"Join the debate now!"

[Darth Andrew]

Yes, which I had assumed that the topic would have been going for a while with many people posting good arguments on either side. And when I poked my head in, my head was blown off.

 

All I can say is: Politics brings out the worst in people.

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

my head was blown off.

 

Welcome to the Senate, man.

 

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

All I can say is: Politics brings out the worst in people.

 

Hell, now that's something we can all agree to.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

Call me chicken, call me a "Bushie," call me whatever you want, but I will most likely always support Bush, even if you would consider me "blind to the truth."

 

I wouldn't call you either of the three (chicken, bushie, or blind...). I'd call you gullible. You say, "I will most likely always support Bush...," but what I can't figure out is why.

 

Not necessarily "why?" directed at you, personally, but "why?" to the just over half of the populace that did support him at the polls. I can only think of a few reasons: 1) they are simply ignorant; 2) they are gullible to the rhetoric; 3) they let their religion(s) guide their votes based on issues that affect only a few rather than those issues that affect the many; 4) some combination of two or more of these options.

 

There are no other logical reasons, particularly when the evidence against Bush & the radical few that control the Republican party is weighed.

 

You said you stopped reading my opening post at "instead," which is indicative of options 1 & 2.

 

You stated that I'm biased, and I'm forced to agree. I am biased, but only after reviewing the evidence, of which I've posted a very, very small portion. I hypothesize that George W. Bush's actions are consistent with being a traitor to the majority of the people for whom he pledged to lead. I supplied evidence to support that hypothesis.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge or refute it, is tacit recognition that it is valid.

 

But I am sorry that you "got your head blown off" by posting here... hopefully there will be a few others that will agree with you and take your side. They will, of course, fail to be able to refute the hypothesis that Bush should be impeached because evidence is in my favor.

[Darth Andrew]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

3) they let their religion(s) guide their votes based on issues that affect only a few rather than those issues that affect the many...

One reason I like Bush is that he is against abortion, (let's not get into that, though) so you could say that my faith guides me, but that is also one of my morals. I thought the invasion of Afghanistan was just, but the invasion of Iraq is more questionable for me. We didn't find the WMDs, even though he used some earlier on his own people. Now you would say that Bush was then wrong for the invasion, but there is always the chance that Saddam ordered them to be smuggled out of the country or destroyed. I think this poll would have been better if there was a 'Maybe' option, as I would've chosen that instead.

 

On a side note, your source written by Mike Allen may possibly be slightly biased. Here is sample of one of his articles written a year earlier:

By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his presidency.

Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.

Found here. Now of course you could say that is a normal fact (which it is) but how the author presents it seems to be unusually critical of the president. This may mean that some of the information in your first post (I now have read it) could possibly be incorrect because the author may have something against Bush. Again, this is in my own opinion.

[Mike Windu]

They will, of course, fail to be able to refute the hypothesis that Bush should be impeached because evidence is in my favor.

 

...

 

*humps Skin's leg*

 

 

Impeach him. There's no reason not to, and the only opposition is, as already stated, religious zealots and 12 gauge toting wife beaters

 

>_>

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

One reason I like Bush is that he is against abortion, (let's not get into that, though) so you could say that my faith guides me, but that is also one of my morals.

 

Political views should be based on logic, and never on religion. If a president is elected largely on religious values (as Bush surely was), that basically throws separation of church and state right out the window. So much for the first ammendment.

[Darth Andrew]

Political views should be based on logic, and never on religion. If a president is elected largely on religious values (as Bush surely was), that basically throws separation of church and state right out the window. So much for the first ammendment.

Why not on religion? Seperation of church and state is basically the government not publicly endorsing any religion. So a voter could vote solely on their religion, or their logic, or a mixture of both, which is all protected by the first amendment. Besides, the government was founded by fathers who were religious, so many of the early laws were based on there being a higher power than us humans.

[SkinWalker]

Voting based on religion is tantamount to creating a theocracy, which is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Moreover, the Founding Fathers based their experiment in democracy not on religious superstition, but on humanistic objectives. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all sons of the Enlightenment, and certainly not in-line with the fundamentalist rhetoric of today.

 

Also, voting for Bush and hardline Republicans only because it is popular among the leaders of a religious cult assumes that religious ideas don't exist among the Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc. Contrary to what fundamentalist cults would have their followers believe, Democrats/Liberals are just about as religious. Many are Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

 

In order to do what's right for a nation, it is necessary to look past the rhetoric of the few rich old white men that prostitute the so-called religious right in order to obtain votes from the sheep.

 

Finally, if one were to vote based on the christian flavor of religion, then Bush certainly wouldn't be the choice. He's about as un-christian as they come. Jesus was about healing the sick, giving to the poor and impoverished, helping the less fortunate, and spreading the word of peace.

 

Bush is about taking from the poor and impoverished to give to the wealthy and elite; could really care less about helping the sick (look at the sad state of health care and the impending doom of Social Security if privatized. By the way, privatization of SS is a sure-fire way to continue to take from the poor and give to the wealthy, since the Government becomes the single biggest investor in private corporations... conflict of interest anyone?). Bush certainly isn't about peace... instead of seeing through with the War on Terror, he attacks Iraq and wastes untold billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of taxpayer lives.

 

He's a sad, sorry sod. History will undoubtedly rate him among the worst Presidents ever, right around Cleveland and Grant.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Because when I clicked on Dagobahn Eagle's signature, I assumed it was in the Lounge, and not in the jediknight.net's forum. I never ventured in here before.

Right:o. Fixed:).