A Resolution to Impeach Bush

[FightingForFreedom]

Before you write this one off as another liberal scheme please understand that this is a piece of legislation I wrote for an upcoming debate. I just wanted to get some feedback and a couple of opinions before I debate it at Harvard.

A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Therefore: be it resolved by the Student Congress assembled here that Congress call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Glicksman
American Heritage High School

[MoralLibertarian]

Sounds like a bunch of retardedness.

[FightingForFreedom]

Thats got to be like the stupidest piece of critisism I've ever heard.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 1/17/06 10:34 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Sounds like a bunch of retardedness.

Looks like it too.

[sdhonda]

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

Afganistan, no. Iraq, you may have a case for.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

What about pearl harbour.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

Hurricane katrina was natures fault, impeach it. The failure to respond is EVERYONES fault, not just one man.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

Not impeachment material.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

Might work.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

Congress supported it, probably wont work.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

Might work.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Its actually coersion, they get less money if they dont let the recruiters on campus. Its bad, buts its hard to pin him down for it. And its exactly impeachment material.

[Draconias]

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

You must prove the following: "intentionally misled" and "deceived"

To put it honestly, it's bullshit to claim he misled us intentionally, and you've no way to prove it. If there was any way to prove it, we'd have found it by now. Additionally, you can not ignore that Congress was privvy to identical information and unanimously voted in favor of war. There is no evidence of any information concealment.

The costs can, very obviously, be attributed to a mistake in planning. A cursory examination of our military strategem would reveal that we expected a different war than we got.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

You must prove the following: "allowed" and "worst attack"
You must specify: "an investigation into the matter"

He didn't allow anything. He was in office for only a short few months, and this attack had been planned years ahead of time. Additionally, he had no control over the areas attacked or any reasonable indication that four planes would be hijacked on that date.

There was no reasonable precaution or pre-emptive action that any objective observer could possibly demand from him, even in retrospect.

Also, unless you are very specific about "an investigation into the matter," it has no meaning and is only an indication of bias. The specific details of what was going to be investigated, why, by whom, and how he opposed it are all of critical importance. You can't reasonably omit them in any complete statement.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

You make impossible demands: "failed to save"

It was failures of the FEMA that are an issue. Your claim that Bush is responsible for the "failure" of an entire organization is highly suspect and tenuous. Additionally, thousands did not die where FEMA could have provided any assistance. Also, more at issue was communications between organizations, which has no connection at all to Bush.

By the way, "thousands" didn't die in areas FEMA could have possibly saved. The estimated death count for their time and areas of responsibility was far less than 1000.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

Iran does not have a Nuclear Weapons program.

That is the official view of the United Nations, the United States, and the entire world at the moment. Sorry, but impeaching Bush for something that never happened is completely unacceptable.

North Korea is not our responsibility, and especially not Bush's.

The NK Nuclear Program is nearly two decades old. Bush has not been in office for two decades. It is foolish and stupid to pin sole blame on him for something out of his control.

Additionally, we have no jurisdiction in North Korea. We have no right to dictate their policy, and the only country who actually has influence on them is China. Unless you can prove that we could have stopped them, any claims of liability on Bush's part of ignorant.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

Bush gave them the ability? No, that's entirely wrong. Bush can't give anyone abilities. Only the Legislative branch has given wire tapping permission.

Additionally, the only non-warrant tapping Bush has directly allowed was for international calls only and based on a precident firmly set and used by Clinton. Clinton's Secretary General testified to this under oath.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

The same "Patriot Act" voted into existance by our Legislative branch.

You're a fool to stick Bush with singular blame. It's like blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans! It's stupid and ignorant because he obviously wasn't the cause. He suggested and supported the Patriot Act, but our Legislative branch made it happen.

By the way, they decided not to renew it this year, if I remember correctly.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

How is this an impeachable offense? He supported it, but he is not the one in actual control of its execution. He also only supported it under very specific limitations.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*cough*Paranoia*cough*

Comments: I'm sorry, but I honeslty believe your complaints sound ignorant. You ignore critical facts to make your claims appear stronger, and you assign blame for things completely out of his control. You should be impeaching all of the politicians for things like the Patriot Act, yet you blame Bush alone.

It also appears that much of your information is based on the publicly-admitted, extremely biased popular media and nothing more. Look into the topics deeper and include concessions or confirmations of that knowledge within your claims, or else it seems ignorant and naive.

[Draconias]

*smacks forehead*

I forgot to mention under "worst attack" that Pearl Harbor dwarfed 9/11 by many orders of magnitude. Killing less than 2000 civilians in an economic icon means nothing in comparison to wiping out our entire Pacific fleet, minus a small number on patrols.

[MoralLibertarian]

You want constructive criticism as to why this argument wouldn't fly? I wouldn't take this to a pre-school or a nursery. You're taking this POS to Harvard? Are you joking?

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

There's no substantative evidence that Bush intentionally misled the US into Iraq. The first page of the Downing Street Memo doesn't count, so don't give me that bullshit.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

President Bush no more allowed September 11th to happen anymore than FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. And the Commission was bullshit, which almost everyone agrees with today, which means that he had the foresight to know that it was going to be a waste of tax-payer dollars before it happened.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

That's a stupid argument too. FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina was faster than it has been in the past, and everyone knows that the local government was just as responsible if not more responsible than Bush.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

This is ridiculous. Clinton gave North Korea the technology to develop nuclear reactors, and as for Iran, what do you want to do? Enter the country and take out their leaders? You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. I recommend you take this one out, since you obviously don't advocate an interventionist foreign policy.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

This argument shows a deep misunderstanding of how survellience works. It started under Clinton's Echelon program, and I would look into it before you make a huge ass out of yourself.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

You'd have to prove this through more than a bunch of bogus innuendo, which is impossible because that's all you have. And don't get me started on civil liberties during wartime. Especially when you consider Lincoln and FDR, Bush has hardly done anything worth fussing over.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

That's going to be a hard case to make, since the Administration has never come out supporting torture, unless you consider a belly-slap torture. Also, defying international law is not grounds for impeachment under our Constitution.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Oh yeah! Here's your winning point. Except for two things: it's not secret and military recruiters already had access to schools and students. Not that I am ever in favor of bigger government when it comes to public education, but it's retarded anyway.

The President has done no crime. You may be able to argue with all of these points that he has been careless, unresponsive, out of touch, manipulative, aggressive, etc. but that doesn't make him a criminal and therefore you have no case. If I were a judge of this debate you'd be laughed off stage.

Hopefully that was smart enough criticism for you.

[FightingForFreedom]

What about pearl harbour.

2,403 people were killed in Pearl Harbor. 2,986 people were killed in 9/11, making it the worst attack since the Britsh assault on Washington in the war of 1812.

Hurricane katrina was natures fault, impeach it. The failure to respond is EVERYONES fault, not just one man.

Theres no way you can argue that giving a high security positition to an unqualified man just because hes an old college friend isn't wrong.

Its actually coersion, they get less money if they dont let the recruiters on campus. Its bad, buts its hard to pin him down for it. And its exactly impeachment material.

No, I don't think you read the NCLB Act right. Schools are required by executive law to send in the students information to recruiters unless the students opt-out.

[Cold]

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Glicksman
American Heritage High School

Student Congress?

Yeah, no one's going to take you seriously buddy.

[FightingForFreedom]

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*cough*Paranoia*cough*

Well as much as I valued your other comments I felt like with this one you knew I was right and didn't really have any defense against it but humor. George Bush did sign the No Child Left Behind Act into existance with the knowledge that within its text there was a subclause MANDATING THE MILITAR RECRUITERS BE ALLOWED ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES and that ALL INFORMATION REGARDING A STUDENT BE SENT TO RECRUITERS UNLESS THAT STUDENT HAS SIGNED AN "OPT-OUT" FORM.

First of all I would like to adress your notion that my opinions are founded on popular media and the like. I think your confusing me with one of those kids who listens to American Idiot by Green Day and P. Diddy. You obviously midunderstand me. I carefully researched my arguements and the reason why many of the opinions seem ambiguous and brief is because the format for the debate only allows the resolutions to be 1 page long.

In addition, while I do value your opinions, however skewed they are, I feel like your messages would be more accepted if you didnt insult the person you were trying to persuade.

[FightingForFreedom]

If I were a judge of this debate you'd be laughed off stage.

Hopefully that was smart enough criticism for you.

Obviously you have a deep misunderstanding for how the debate circuit works because there are no stages and no official judges and smart critisism implies mature thought out argueing, not blind insult and sarcasm. I mean its not like I really expect you to be polite and curtious when u disagree with me i just wouldnt appreciate things like "I wouldnt take this to a nursery" and "this piece of shit"

[sdhonda]

2,403 people were killed in Pearl Harbor. 2,986 people were killed in 9/11, making it the worst attack since the Britsh assault on Washington in the war of 1812.

Like said, although less people died, it was more devastating. A very large chunk of the US pacific fleet was wiped out. It got the US into the second world war.

Although 9/11 was more costly human lives wise, it only destroyed 2 finiancial buildings and part of the military headquarters. It got the US into no war, because the war on terrorism is bull****.

[Buckdich]

At 1/17/06 11:05 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote:

What about pearl harbour.

2,403 people were killed in Pearl Harbor. 2,986 people were killed in 9/11, making it the worst attack since the Britsh assault on Washington in the war of 1812.

A higher body count doesn't make it always "the worst attack on american soil."

As a previous poster stated, the attack on pearl harbor left us in a very vulnerable state in which the Japanese had a military advantage over us at the time being (Thankfully our Carriers were not present at Pearl Harbor during the time or else the Pacific Theater would have been a much bloodier place).

When 9/11 occured, it was a tragic event in which many people died, but it hardly hampered the U.S in our commitment to counterattack and destroy terrorists.

[Buckdich]

At 1/17/06 11:29 PM, sdhonda wrote:

Like said, although less people died, it was more devastating...

Guess you beat me to the punch, eh?

[Cal-Gore]

That was a bunch of bullshit, his run is almost up just let him burn out. Oh and by the way, I'm pro torture, thinkthe middle east needs to be owned and that other countries are the western world (and some of europe)'s bitch.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/17/06 11:22 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Obviously you have a deep misunderstanding for how the debate circuit works because there are no stages and no official judges and smart critisism implies mature thought out argueing, not blind insult and sarcasm.

Huh. In my short stint in the high school debate team, there were stages and official judges, as well as an official structure. The liberals generally went first and last and the defenders of the status quo went second and third.

The thesis statement is supposed to be set up in such a way that both sides can argue it. Unfortunately, with your terms of debate there is no room for debate. Impeachment means that the President has commited a high crime under US law, and although you can easily argue that Bush has a character flaw/is an ineffective leader/etc, you can't argue that he's broken US law without resorting to a bunch of innuendo and half-truths.

[Buckdich]

Btw

You are going to get dragged and quartered if you even dare try and compete with semi-competent debaters with that material.

Come on!

[Blackmagic]

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote:

A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

This is the NG BBS sir.
In here, no one can hear you debate.

[punisher19848]

So all of these things are the fault of Bush and Bush alone, huh? What about the Congressmen that let him do these things? They gave him the authority, right? So why not impeach the House of Representatives and the Senate too?

The reality is this: in this nation, no one man (not even the President) has the kind of power to do all this shit you blame Bush for. If your going to root-out all responsible for these things (assuming they are legitamate concerns, which they're not), you'll have to go theough the ENTIRE government; not just Bush.

[GunCrave]

I wonder how long it took those Liberal puppetmasters to fill Sold's small little head full of such ridiculous claims?

[Wamzlee]

Wow, it makes me throw up when people say that Bush did the exact same thing as Clinton. Goes to show that people only listen to things that they want to hear.

[WolvenBear]

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Before you write this one off as another liberal scheme please understand that this is a piece of legislation I wrote for an upcoming debate. I just wanted to get some feedback and a couple of opinions before I debate it at Harvard.

OK, and to review, I hate Bush, but will still give you harsh criticism.It's not a conservative scheme to shoot you down.

A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

Afghanistan, you have no case. Period. Take it out. It's the response to 9/11. As for Iraq, GWB told us the same crap Clinton had been telling us for 8 years. Hillary agreed, as did almost every senator. And the world community had the same info. Take this one out altogether.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

Eh, in terms of scale, not really. Pearl Harbor was worse. Should Clinton have been impeached for the first WTC bombings? I don't think so. It was a horrible thing, but I think it would've happened no matter who got into office.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

As did the local government, the people themselves, and FEMA. Everybody failed. You're choosing one man's incompetence when there were countless failures up and down the chain. And the levees had been ignored for five decades of leaders, so there was a long history that led to N.O.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

N.K. developed theirs under Clinton. You're dead wrong here. As for Iran, theirs isn't developed YET, and we're actively opposing it. Should we go to war with Iran too? I'd prefer not, but it may be unavoidable.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

I support this. But it's accurate, so I won't bitch about it being in here.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

All but one senator and the House approved it. Over the last 4 years they were supposed to fix it and didn't. Blame them. Besides, you have to name one liberty that was taken away from you, and you didn't. Not that you could if you wanted to.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

By Geneva, these people aren't technically prisoners of war. Geneva shoots you in the foot.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Secretly? It's pretty open. And military recruiters HAD to be allowed on campus long before even Clinton came on the scene.

Therefore: be it resolved by the Student Congress assembled here that Congress call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Glicksman
American Heritage High School

One point out of all of those was correct. Sort of. Even at a more liberal place like Harvard, they're going to tear that up, and you'll get a pretty damn bad grade if you submit something so haphazardly thrown together. I'd fail that project personally. And they probably will too. So horribly inaccurate...

[TehChahlesh]

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Before you write this one off as another liberal scheme please understand that this is a piece of legislation I wrote for an upcoming debate. I just wanted to get some feedback and a couple of opinions before I debate it at Harvard.

Ha, Harvard???? Fat chance.

A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

Intentionally? We have no idea whether or not it was intentional. And since there is no definitive evidence this is not breaking the law, therefore no impeadchment.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

Whereas: I don't know where you're coming from with him opposing the investigation. investigation. Still not illegal, thus, no impeachment.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

And, removing this incompetent slob after seeing what kind of damagehe's done. Still not illegal, so still no impeachment.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

He had reason to believe Iraq was developin WMDs maybe? Still not illegal so still no impeachment.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

Actually he hasn't, he broke a rule. In matters of national security there is cause for flexibility in the law.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

It has not "stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties" it has simply made it easier to get a warrant and allow the CIA and FBI to communicate. Still not illegal, still no impeachment.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

No, he hasn't. Still not illegal, still no impeachment.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Since that's a flat out ridiculous lie, it is not illegal and thus is not a couse for impeachment.

Therefore: be it resolved by the Student Congress assembled here that Congress call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Terefore: you need to seriously revise your political points.

[Demosthenez]

Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous.

Any asshat with half a brain can see you are calling for impossible demands and would look like a total jackass left wing wacko if you brought this up.

Bush is a dumbass. But you, like most other leftists blinded by their rage at him, are to fuckin retarted to see what he should be blamed for and what is not his fault or completly in his hands.

Here, lets just make it a clean sweep and blame Bush for the travesty of the Colts loss against the Steelers and the terrible piece of trash Syriana is. I mean, shit, there aint much more bitching we can do about him with all the crap you covered.

[corruptXA]

This is only going to end badly, I agre with you starter of this forum, but i'm just saying, it will only end badly...

[metalhead676]

At 1/17/06 10:38 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Thats got to be like the stupidest piece of critisism I've ever heard.

meh, don't worry about him, he's just a dick faced, cuntheaded, ignorant cockfuck who does nothing but kiss bushes ass because he's really scared, but doesn't want to admit it, he's a pussy.

[Thespus]

Your arguments need refining. The only real impeachable offense in that entire post was his disregard of law when he tapped phone lines among other things.

[Thespus]

At 1/19/06 04:11 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

Actually he hasn't, he broke a rule. In matters of national security there is cause for flexibility in the law.

It doesn't take much at all to get a judge to hand out a warrant. It's not an indictment and it doesn't need a formal hearing on the matter (unless there's no probable cause). You can just call up the office, have them fax over all the warrants you want, and then tap their phones without their knowledge. But Bush sidestepped this because he knew that, in this case, his underlings didn't have enough probable cause for even the most Bush-loving judge, I'm guessing. He broke a law that was in the books for this exact reason, and that's an impeachable offense.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

No, he hasn't. Still not illegal, still no impeachment.

He really never supported the use of torture, but he didn't do a damn thing when the Abu Ghraib incident was traced back to Rumsfeld, did he? Not impeachable, however, Rumsfeld should have been fired.

Terefore: you need to seriously revise your political points.

Agreed. Let's give him some constructive criticism, though. That is what he asked for.

I agreed with most of your post, just those few points, I figured I could help him with considering the fact that they might actually work in favor of his argument.

[SEXY-FETUS]

You have gotta be insane to think that would fly in a debate at the harvard level. Hell a debate class in a junior high could probably pick up on one of the many rebuttals for each point made. seriously if you want to impeach bush you'll have to find some law that has been written wrong that you could somehow twist to fit your needs, but you show up with a pile like that you better be hoping for a debate with a functionaly reatarded individual.