POLL: Do you want Bush impeached?

[Regnad Kcin]

I despise the Bush presidency. I think he may be the worst president since Grant...

But Grant may have had an excuse -- the aftereffects of having, y'know, actually seen a battle or two.

 

[Tricky]

So Tricky...I'll need you to kindly point out the article of impeachment that states "we don't like him" as a reason. I'm confused...I just don't see it. Also please point out the charge which was "trumped up". I don't agree with the investigation which led to this impeachment myself...but I can't really find a way to disagree that BC shouldn't have faced these charges once his actions were known.

LOL. Come on, Rik. Are you honestly suggesting that the legal article of impeachment would include the phrase "besides, we don't like him"?
He lied under oath. About sex. And the country was not harmed. While several Republicans were uncovered as also using their office to get sexual favors. But you don't think it was trumped up? Oh, is it the "oath" thing? Well guess what. They all take an oath of office.
If you want to use the argument that a politician should be impeached if he gets caught lyiing, then yes Bush should be impeached. Frankly, I find that argument specious.
My position is that it is the importance of the offense that dictates the punishment, not the legal technicalities.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But Grant may have had an excuse -- the aftereffects of having, y'know, actually seen a battle or two.

By many accounts, Grant's biggest problem was naivete. He was an honest man and had a hard time realizing that the people around him could be lying to him. Unfortunately, his underlings were lying scum.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Wasn’t that the case with Clinton? He was impeached for something that occurred during his first term.

Only according to liberal spinmeisters.

Also, additional information became available during his second term.

Enough to make a difference?

Since when has impeachment had a statute of limitation?

This isn't about a statute of limitation. Impeachment should only be used when the people have not had an opportunity to rule on the charges.

Have you seen the related thread yet?

I started the related thread. No one produced a single basis for the charge.

Thing is that as much as I'd like to see his sorry ass booted out, I shudder at the climate that we would be left with. The best solution, IMHO, is to get a democratic majority in congress at the midterm elections thus performing a testiculectomy.

Don't you mean "Democrat majority"?

It should be reserved for when the president does something truly egregious, not for when he gets a BJ or you just don't like the guy.

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ.

You bring up an interesting point. If starting a war based on, at worst lies, and at best faulty information, is not criminal, what on earth would be?

You, too, failed to post a basis in my thread.

Since impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process, it's truly justifiable for pretext for impeachment of Bush.

It's specifiacally for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Seems like it's a criminal process to me.

Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ?

It was started by Hussein.

He lied under oath. About sex. And the country was not harmed.

Yes, it was.

Oh, is it the "oath" thing? Well guess what. They all take an oath of office.

Equivocation.

If you want to use the argument that a politician should be impeached if he gets caught lyiing, then yes Bush should be impeached.

That's not the argument, and Bush hasn't been caught lying.

 

[hgc]

...
It's specifiacally for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Seems like it's a criminal process to me...

But one needn't be convicted, or even indicted, for a crime to be eligible for impeachment. None of the rules of criminal proceedings (e.g., as for evidence) are applied or enforced, and there is no judicial review or appeal.

The constitution may say "high crimes and midemeanors," but leaves it to 2 political bodies (House and Senate) to impeach and convict. This all adds up to a political process, not a legal process. The person may, incidentally, be a criminal, but that is beside the point.

Don't take this to mean that I think there's something inherently wrong with the impeachment process. I am just acknowleging it for what it is.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ.

No, he was impeached for the incredibly serious crime of claiming he didn't get a BJ when he did.

My point was and is that the current trend of each party trying to trump up BS charges with which to impeach the president when they lose an election is idiotic and ultimately harmful to our democracy. "If you can't win an election, just impeach the guy who did", seems to be standard operating procedure these days.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Let's face it, this is Cheney's administration already, and always has been. It was he that wanted to make war in Iraq from the minute they were elected in 2000.

Yes, and what we've learned from Bush is if you attack America, we'll invade some other country which had nothing to do with it and get lots of the good guys and gals killed in the process.

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

 

[hgc]

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

Oh my, you found DavidJames and I wrote contradictory things in 2 different threads. Big Deal. I, for one, am not "the Left." I can't speak for him. Find something important to gripe about.

 

[bjb]

OK, so you were able to find two different statements from two different people that didn't exactly agree with each other. But were those statements innacurate? Did Dick Cheney want to invade Iraq back in 2000? Did George Bush want to scare the world into thinking we would invade countries whenever we felt like it?

RandFan, thanks for the prayer! I'm sure I'll have to live with 'want', but that's what the poll asks. If it were to ask, "Do you think Bush will get impeached", I would have to answer no.

At this point, I don't know if it matters. Republicans who want to be re-elected are starting to give up on defending Bush. Maybe the worst thing that can happen to the Republican party is for Bush to remain in office another two years as an ineffective president. But I think it would also be bad for the country overall. Just some opinions.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!


TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE SAID TWO DIFFERENT THINGSS!!!!

what is the world coming to?

 

[DavidJames]

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

There is nothing inconsistent. HGC believes Cheney wanted to make war with Iraq "from the minute they were elected in 2000." I pointed out the excuse they used to carry it out.

That just basic reading comprehension Art.

 

[Art Vandelay]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!


TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE SAID TWO DIFFERENT THINGSS!!!!

what is the world coming to?

These are both common charges made by the Left. Is the rule now that as long as you get two different people to say your contradictory talking points, it's okay? If one person from the Religious Right says that they oppose abortion because life is sacred, and another says that they support the death penalty, I guess we can't say they're being inconsistent.

As for DJ's response, I've explained in the other thread how that's dishonest.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

These are both common charges made by the Left. Is the rule now that as long as you get two different people to say your contradictory talking points, it's okay? If one person from the Religious Right says that they oppose abortion because life is sacred, and another says that they support the death penalty, I guess we can't say they're being inconsistent.

If anything, it illustrates why on any given issue it is far more fruitful to look at the issue itself than where it falls on some sort of 'left/right' scale. I know darn few people whose every belief is in perfect lockstep with either side of the spectrum.

Personally, I think the whole 'left/right' thing isn't very useful except as a strawman generator.

 

[FreeChile]

At this point, I don't know if it matters. Republicans who want to be re-elected are starting to give up on defending Bush. Maybe the worst thing that can happen to the Republican party is for Bush to remain in office another two years as an ineffective president. But I think it would also be bad for the country overall. Just some opinions.

I think the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party is for Democrats to rule Congress past November and for investigations to take place. A very significant chunk of the Bush administration will probably go down. I say probably because there is always the possibility that Democrats would get iffy about destabilizing the White House.

That is almost inevitable. It brings back memories of Nixon.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, thanks for the prayer! I'm sure I'll have to live with 'want', but that's what the poll asks. If it were to ask, "Do you think Bush will get impeached", I would have to answer no.

At this point, I don't know if it matters. Republicans who want to be re-elected are starting to give up on defending Bush. Maybe the worst thing that can happen to the Republican party is for Bush to remain in office another two years as an ineffective president. But I think it would also be bad for the country overall. Just some opinions.

Fair enough.

 

[Tricky]

A post by Tricky in the politics section.

Sure, I know, you got a life. Don't rub it in.

Yeah yeah. And within a handfull of posts, the goon sqad showed up. Now you know why I make infrequent appearances here and stay in the religion section. The fundamentalists are less pavlovian.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It should be reserved for when the president does something truly egregious, not for when he gets a BJ or you just don't like the guy.

Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ.

Mr. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury about a consensual, personal, sexual affair. The oral sex itself was incidental. However, it served as a tool (sorry) to entrap the man, forcing him into a lie.

The President was going to be got by his enemies one way or the other. It's unfortunate he handed them the means, but he was, essentially, impeached for getting a blow-job.

He lied under oath. About sex. And the country was not harmed.

Yes, it was.

How? (You may choose to start a new thread.)

 

[Freakshow]

Mr. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury about a consensual, personal, sexual affair.

And why was he talking to a grand jury?

 

[Tricky]

And why was he talking to a grand jury?

Because they were investigating the Whitewater deal. There was nothing they could nail him for there, so the investigation branched out into unrelated matters. It was a witch hunt.

 

[RandFan]

Because they were investigating the Whitewater deal. There was nothing they could nail him for there, so the investigation branched out into unrelated matters. It was a witch hunt.

It's true that there wasn't anything there that they could nail him on. There was however a check that was improperly deposited into a bank account from a defunct savings and loan that Benefited Bill Clinton. Only 4 people could have written the check. Clinton was the only one that benefited. However there absolutely was plausible denyability. Jim McDougall first said Bill didn't know and then said that Bill did know but Jim McDougall had a severe credibility problem and had motivation to lie since he cut a deal with the prosecutor. Jim has since died. Susan McDougall went to jail refusing to testify. She became a hero to many on the left for her obstinance. She claimed she was being railroaded. She said that she was being threatened that if she didn't lie should go to jail so she chose not to tell the truth and go to jail. I always thought that odd. I spoke with her BTW and called her a liar on national radio (Stephanie Miller Show Los Angeles). She was later convicted on unrelated charges and her sentence was commuted for health reasons. Many suspect the judge was not too happy with Susan's treatment under the special prosecutor (from memory I don't doubt that a detail or two is wrong).

I wasn't for impeachment. Further I liked life under Bill Clinton. I rather think Bill knew that he knew about the check.

In any event, the law isn't about harm. That's the problem. People in high places always justify their actions with "who will it harm?". Still, th notion of harm is arguably more relevant in this case. There should have never been a Lewinsky investigation. Bill should have told the truth though I understand why he didn't. He shouldn't have been impeached.

FWIW, no, I don't think George Bush should be impeached nor do I think there is even the slightest possibility that he will be impeached.

My two cents from the goon squad.