POLL: Do you want Bush impeached?

[Freakshow]

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 had nothing to do with a lawsuit over sexual harassment?

 

[RandFan]

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.

Iacchus? Lifegazer? KuriousKathy? Shirley, you jest.

 

[Freakshow]

Iacchus? Lifegazer? KuriousKathy? Shirley, you jest.

Randfan, don't you know that anyone that doesn't follow the left is part of the "goon squad"?

Myself, I don't like either Clinton or Bush better than the other. So pretty neither political side has any use for me.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, don't you know that anyone that doesn't follow the left is part of the "goon squad"?

Myself, I don't like either Clinton or Bush better than the other. So pretty neither political side has any use for me.

Yeah, but for what it's worth Tricky is a pretty decent guy. Pretty damn smart also.

ETA: The list of folks I posted were people from the religion forum.

 

[Tricky]

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).

No, you've got it pretty much right. Both of the Clintons had dirty hands after the Whitewater deal, but not dirty enough to make a case against them. I'm not a great big Clinton fan. He was not a great president, except perhaps by comparison. And, like most politicians, he had some shady deals. I didn't like them, but they weren't worth impeachment, just as I stand by my contention that nothing Bush has done is worth impeachment. Impeachment hurts the country, not BJs.

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

I agree with all of this.

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, the 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.

Many parts of the law are very much about harm. In order to prove slander, you must prove that you were harmed by the slander. In order to prove negligence you must prove that you were harmed by the negligence. The phrase "let the punishment fit the crime", which is very much a part of our legal code, is all about harm. Otherwise, I agree with the above (again).

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.

I wouldn't say "no possibility". He has ticked off the right wingers. If the Dem's brought charges, his political base might be less inclined to defend him. But I agree impeachment is unlikely, for which I am glad.

My two cents from the goon squad.

<sigh> Were that there were more goons like you.

Iacchus? Lifegazer? KuriousKathy? Shirley, you jest.

For all their stupidity, they are less inclined to become abusive than the partisans here. And don't call me Shirley.

 

[Tricky]

It had nothing to do with a lawsuit over sexual harassment?

As I recall, that case had been settled long before the Ken Starr investigation that led to Clinton's impeachment.

Randfan, don't you know that anyone that doesn't follow the left is part of the "goon squad"?

Actually, I wasn't talking about you Freaky. We actually agree on a number of issues. There are left wing goon squads too. And no, I'm not naming names.

Myself, I don't like either Clinton or Bush better than the other. So pretty neither political side has any use for me.

Though I don't care for Clinton personally, he did a great deal to bolster the opinion of America in international circles. That's good for the country. Bush has done just the opposite. So based on that, I like Clinton better than Bush. I wouldn't invite either to a party. (Although Clinton can play saxaphone. )

 

[Freakshow]

Actually, I wasn't talking about you Freaky. We actually agree on a number of issues. There are left wing goon squads too. And no, I'm not naming names.

I know, dude. I was just BS'ing around. Hence the ""

It has been a TOUGH past 2 days at work. Gotta goof off and blow off some steam now and then.

 

[Freakshow]

A I wouldn't invite either to a party. (Although Clinton can play saxaphone. )

I'd invite Clinton just for all the chicks he'd bring along with him.

 

[Art Vandelay]

However, it served as a tool (sorry) to entrap the man, forcing him into a lie.

He wasn't "forced".

It's unfortunate he handed them the means, but he was, essentially, impeached for getting a blow-job.

There's no sense in which that is true. If you want to tall about the immediate cause, it's clearly the perjury. If you want to talk about the ultimate cause, there's an argument that it was rightwing persecution. But the blow-job was not in any meaningful way the cause.

 

[jman19999]

Guys,

I'm just disgusted will all political ◊◊◊◊◊! I am tired of the games and shananigans of politcal parties. I wish we could pick people who are best for the job, but too much mud-slinging has come our way.

I just want to go swimming on some tropical resort someplace, relax, watch sun sets and just think about.............NOTHING!

Jeff

 

[Upchurch]

Wanting someone out of office and thinking that impeachment is a reasonable possibility are two different things.


Unfortunately.

 

[davefoc]

Randfan wrote:

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.

I certainly agree that Bush won't be impeached. If the Republicans continue to control congress the chance of an impeachment is zero. If the Democrats get control of congress the chance of impeachment is greater than zero but less than significant.

As to whether Bush should or shouldn't be impeached, I think it is possible that Bush has committed acts that might constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

He may have done something that would qualify with the NSA spying stuff, but since few people know exactly what was done, few people are in position to know about that.

My thought is that the best case against Bush is in the area of the lies* about the evidence for WMD and Iraqi Al Qaida connections. Normally lying by a president is not any kind of crime at all, but in this case the Bush lies were used to influence congress on a decision of whether the country should go to war which might be some kind of a crime.

But as a practical matter, I reluctantly agree with Randfan that Bush shouldn't be impeached. First and foremost a successful impeachment would make Cheney president. Since Cheney was the liar in chief on Iraq, it would be strange justice to replace Bush with Cheney because Bush lied about Iraq. Couple that with Cheney's health problems and it looks like impeaching Bush would be a cause without a purpose.

One interesting side note to all this is that the country was put through an impeachment of Clinton over a domestic matter that affected very few people and yet Bush won't be impeached over a matter that affects millions of people.

* I realize it is debatable that Bush actually lied about the strength of evidence for WMD. I think most reasonable folks would agree that he did given the publically available facts. However, at least some reasonable people seem to disagree with this judgment including Rikzilla. So assuming that Rikzilla can be categorized as reasonable it seems that this is an area where reasonable people disagree which makes the arguments for impeachment even more problematic.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...One interesting side note to all this is that the country was put through an impeachment of Clinton over a domestic matter that affected very few people and yet Bush won't be impeached over a matter that affects millions of people...

Art Vandelay claims in this thread the country was harmed by Bill Clinton's lying under oath. Despite my request, he has yet to support that claim. I believe I'll begin a new thread and see if he does so there.

 

[Mark]

Art Vandelay claims in this thread the country was harmed by Bill Clinton's lying under oath. Despite my request, he has yet to support that claim. I believe I'll begin a new thread and see if he does so there.

Well, duh. Everyone knows that lying about a bj is worse than 2,500 dead American soldiers, 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians (estimates as high as 75,000), massive RECORD federal deficits, outing a CIA operative and covering it up, torture (and hiding behind the skirts of a private to cover it up), trampling the 1st and 4th ammendments...

Just thank God Bush restored integrity to the White House.

 

[Freakshow]

Well, duh. Everyone knows that lying about a bj is worse than 2,500 dead American soldiers, 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians (estimates as high as 75,000), massive RECORD federal deficits, outing a CIA operative and covering it up, torture (and hiding behind the skirts of a private to cover it up), trampling the 1st and 4th ammendments...

Just thank God Bush restored integrity to the White House.

The solution is obvious. We need to get someone to give him a BJ. Then he can be impeached. Any volunteers?

(Note: The above is a joke. I don't want him impeached, because I don't see how it would improve anything.)

 

[FreeChile]

I certainly agree that Bush won't be impeached. If the Republicans continue to control congress the chance of an impeachment is zero. If the Democrats get control of congress the chance of impeachment is greater than zero but less than significant.

Why do you feel a Democratic congress won't impeach if I may ask? A Republican congress investigated and impeached Clinton.

As to whether Bush should or shouldn't be impeached, I think it is possible that Bush has committed acts that might constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

He may have done something that would qualify with the NSA spying stuff, but since few people know exactly what was done, few people are in position to know about that.

My thought is that the best case against Bush is in the area of the lies* about the evidence for WMD and Iraqi Al Qaida connections. Normally lying by a president is not any kind of crime at all, but in this case the Bush lies were used to influence congress on a decision of whether the country should go to war which might be some kind of a crime.

I think Congress should be allowed to decide. Impeachment is a congressional power. So investigations are the most important thing. Take for example DeLay and Abramoff, where would they be without the media and investigations right now?

But as a practical matter, I reluctantly agree with Randfan that Bush shouldn't be impeached. First and foremost a successful impeachment would make Cheney president. Since Cheney was the liar in chief on Iraq, it would be strange justice to replace Bush with Cheney because Bush lied about Iraq. Couple that with Cheney's health problems and it looks like impeaching Bush would be a cause without a purpose.

Since you consider Cheney also to be the lier in chief, isn't it more practical then to investigate both and impeach both if they are found to have commited crimes. If Bush were impeached, two things would be possible: that Cheney were also impeached, or that he would be severely limitted in power as a result. For example, the White House may be forced to be less secretive as a result. I understand it is more difficult to impeach a second in command as he can defend himself based on his lack of power. But the house cleanup would be the most important benefit.

One interesting side note to all this is that the country was put through an impeachment of Clinton over a domestic matter that affected very few people and yet Bush won't be impeached over a matter that affects millions of people.

* I realize it is debatable that Bush actually lied about the strength of evidence for WMD. I think most reasonable folks would agree that he did given the publically available facts. However, at least some reasonable people seem to disagree with this judgment including Rikzilla. So assuming that Rikzilla can be categorized as reasonable it seems that this is an area where reasonable people disagree which makes the arguments for impeachment even more problematic.

See there are more things to the whole story than just WMDs. In the end we may just find that Bush acted on his bias. Bush was probably given multitude of opinions on the issue of invading Iraq. And he chose WMDs. Many Americans have acted out of bias. But again, these are things for Congress to decide by conducting investigations.

That is why the next Congressional elections are the most important for this country right now. Unfortunately, most people don't know their representatives and what they really represent. So the next election may again be based on who can chat the best. They also have no clue as to how rotten our government has become.

 

[Mark]

The solution is obvious. We need to get someone to give him a BJ. Then he can be impeached. Any volunteers?

(Note: The above is a joke. I don't want him impeached, because I don't see how it would improve anything.)

Actually, I tend to agree about impeachment. As far as the bj...well, you'll first have to convince me it would really work. And take me to dinner first.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Well, duh. Everyone knows that lying about a bj is worse than 2,500 dead American soldiers, 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians (estimates as high as 75,000), massive RECORD federal deficits, outing a CIA operative and covering it up, torture (and hiding behind the skirts of a private to cover it up), trampling the 1st and 4th ammendments...

Besides presenting strawmen, you haven't given a cite for that "record federal deficits" claim.

 

[fishbob]

Besides presenting strawmen, you haven't given a cite for that "record federal deficits" claim.

You live under a rock or what?

 

[Mark]

Besides presenting strawmen, you haven't given a cite for that "record federal deficits" claim.

You have convinced me that you really are trolling.

President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday.

Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding."

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511/NAT20051104b.html