POLL: Do you want Bush impeached?

Do you want Bush impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 66.3%

  • No

    Votes: 28 33.7%
  • Total voters
    83
Ed said:
You don't have a "yes and no" option.

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.
Click to expand...
I'm for this action.
 
Tricky said:
I despise the Bush presidency. I think he may be the worst president since Grant. But I don't believe impeachment on some trumped-up charge should be used because you don't like someone. The Republicans were willing to stoop to this tactic. I am not.
Click to expand...
well...........

Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, 1998

While four articles of impeachment were created by the House Judiciary Committee, only the two below were approved by the full House. In the Senate, the vote fell short of the 2/3 majority that was required to convict Clinton and remove him from office.

RESOLVED, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .

Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:
  • willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration
  • willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
  • willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
  • allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
  • attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action

Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:
  • encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
  • encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
  • allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
  • attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
  • allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
  • giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action
  • giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation
Click to expand...

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.

Also if GWB was caught perjuring himself under oath...do you really think the dems would eschew an impeachment???

-z
 
Last edited:
No. And I despise the man.

However, for one thing, I don't think impeachemnt should be used lightly. and it has been thrown around as an option FAR too cavalierly for my taste by both sides of the political fence. 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. It is as if the minute anyone is elected to the presidency, the other party begins sniffing around for grounds for impeachment. This is dangerous path our country is going down, and one that must be stopped. Therefore I, for one, would not support ANY impeachemnt of ANY president until their behavior crosses the line into the criminal. As much as it pains me to say it, Bush's picking and choosing of the facts and misleading spin leading up to the war are acts that might be disgusting and immoral, but not truly criminal.

So unless Bush does something truly criminal (and as much as I disagree with the war, starting a war that I disagree with is not criminal) I would not support his impeachment. I will support any effort by congress to block those policies of his with which I disagree, though.

Besides, do we REALLY want two years of President Cheney?
 
Nyarlathotep said:
No. And I despise the man.


So unless Bush does something truly criminal (and as much as I disagree with the war, starting a war that I disagree with is not criminal) I would not support his impeachment. I will support any effort by congress to block those policies of his with which I disagree, though.

Besides, do we REALLY want two years of President Cheney?
Click to expand...


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?
 
Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...

lies? Is that criminal?

faulty information? How on earth could this rise to an impeachable offence.

I agree with the thought that impeachment is the new blunt instrument. It should be avoided.
 
Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...

And what crime did he commit? Especially if the war was based on faulty information and spin, rather than an out right lie. Being an incompetant boob and/or a despicable human being is not a crime. If it were, we would have had to impeach nearly every president since George Washington.

Sorry, but I don't like the cavalier way that calls for impeachemnt get tossed around.
 
Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...
Since impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process, it's truly justifiable for pretext for impeachment of Bush. But then if you want an unambiguously criminal act, then you've got the NSA domestic spying program, without warrants from the FISA court.

But then, looking at who's on the bench (in the baseball metaphor sense), I would rather we keep what we've got through 2008. 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. There will be no improvement brought about by a Cheney presidency. Let's let Bush be the poster boy for electing a Dem president in 2008.

I would like to see a constitutional change that would bring us back to the original situation where Pres and VP are elected seperately instead of on a ticket. Then an impeachment and removal might actually bring about a political change.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
I would like to see a constitutional change that would bring us back to the original situation where Pres and VP are elected seperately instead of on a ticket. Then an impeachment and removal might actually bring about a political change.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be great if they were each of a different party? That would keep the weasels honest, I'll bet. Maybe.

Yeah, I can't see how having Cheney be the official president would be any different from how things are now.
 
Mark said:
...
Yeah, I can't see how having Cheney be the official president would be any different from how things are now.
Click to expand...
It would confer on him a status and standing in history that is unconscionable.

Also, the political backlash to impeachment is unpredictable. I don't think the Clinton impeachment did Republicans any good.
 
hgc said:
It would confer on him a status and standing in history that is unconscionable.
Click to expand...

True. In fact...eeeeuuuuww.

Also, the political backlash to impeachment is unpredictable. I don't think the Clinton impeachment did Republicans any good.
Click to expand...

They control everything; I don't see how it hurt them either. Although it certainly should have.
 
Why not just throw a custard pie at him?

a knock at my door MI5 did you just suggest on intenet forum throwing custard pies at George Bush,

um, ur well maybe.......
 
If memory serves, impeachment would require a simple majority in the House, and a trial in the Senate (presided over by the new Chief Justice, a Bush appointee) with a 2/3rds majority to convict. That seems highly improbable, given the current makeup of Congress.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
So unless Bush does something truly criminal (and as much as I disagree with the war, starting a war that I disagree with is not criminal)
Click to expand...

Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ? Could the fact that it was based on lies considered criminal ? Could someone clarify this ?
 
Belz... said:
Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ? Could the fact that it was based on lies considered criminal ? Could someone clarify this ?
Click to expand...
Sure, could be. And I believe that it is very possible proveable. I'm not an atorney so don't take my word for anything. I think there is ambple deniable plausibility. Further I think there is simply no desire on the part of the legislature to impeach. I just don't see any evidence that there is (see Tragic Monkey's post above).
 
Belz... said:
Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ? Could the fact that it was based on lies considered criminal ? Could someone clarify this ?
Click to expand...


As far as I am aware none of the recognised international courts have ruled whether in their judgment it was an illegal or not war. So all we have is the legal opinion of lawyers and there is a range of opinion from legal to illegal.

Unfortunately this seems to have become one of those "say it enough and it will become the perceived truth" i..e that the war was illegal.
 
Belz... said:
Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ? Could the fact that it was based on lies considered criminal ? Could someone clarify this ?
Click to expand...

I don't like the war, I think it is an utter complete waste of lives and money, and I don't agree with the stated reasons for the war. Nonetheless, I have to admit that since it was started with the consent of congress, it was started legally. As I said, starting a war I dislike is not a crime.
 
Belz... said:
Hummm... was that war legal or not ? Wasn't that a war of aggression ? Could the fact that it was based on lies considered criminal ? Could someone clarify this ?
Click to expand...

Which war are you talking about? Is the the one in Afghanistan that is a NATO action or is it the one congress authorized in Iraq?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom