Should G W Bush be impeached

[Ladewig]

Should G W Bush be impeached?

Much as I dislike the man, I do not believe he has committed an impeachable offense. Impeachment must be much more than a vote of "no confidence." A serious crime must be committed for such proceedings.


On the other hand, I have a strong suspicion that if I had a $12 million budget, two years to collect facts, and unlimited subpeona power, then I could put GWB under oath (without Cheney and Rove in the room) and catch him in at least a couple of lies with 45 minutes. I am absolutely convinced that we will never see President Bush placing his hand on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth.

 

[Manny]

Bush doesn't make decision based on polls because he doesn't give a rat's a** what the people of this country want unless they are rich, elite, corporate millionaires.

There are 60,693,281 rich, elite corporate millionaires? (OK, 60,693,283 if you count George Soros and that guy at Progressive insurance.) Wow. I'm thinking you might want to re-evaluate your opinion of the President's stewardship of the economy.

 

[Mark]

There are 60,693,281 rich, elite corporate millionaires? (OK, 60,693,283 if you count George Soros and that guy at Progressive insurance.) Wow. I'm thinking you might want to re-evaluate your opinion of the President's stewardship of the economy.

Ah, yet more conservative spinning. I didn't say a word about who voted for him; I said who he cares about. Nice try at putting (incorrect) words in my mouth, though. Karl Rove would be proud of you.

 

[Mark]

Should G W Bush be impeached?

Much as I dislike the man, I do not believe he has committed an impeachable offense. Impeachment must be much more than a vote of "no confidence." A serious crime must be committed for such proceedings.


On the other hand, I have a strong suspicion that if I had a $12 million budget, two years to collect facts, and unlimited subpeona power, then I could put GWB under oath (without Cheney and Rove in the room) and catch him in at least a couple of lies with 45 minutes. I am absolutely convinced that we will never see President Bush placing his hand on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth.

In the interest of fairness, it should a 44 million dollar budget, adjusted for 10 years of inflation, and put in the hands of an over-zealous Democrat special prosecutor.

 

[RandFan]

If it will prevent Bush from causing the deaths of thousands (you are conveniently ignoring the Iraqi civilians. I guess they don't count), I will personally pay a hooker to give him a blowjob and he can lie about it under oath all he wants.

Sure I think the Iraqis are important. That is a straw man.

Fact: We went to war in Iraq as a result of the 9/11
attack.

No, we went to war because Saddam was in breach and we had spent 12 years to get Sadadm to comply and he didn't.

Conclusion: The Bush Administration either a) lied or b) is incompetent.

Actually there is another reason. Bush believed that Saddam was dangerous to the region and Saddam had proved that he was willing and capable to be dangerous. He had spent 12 years obfuscating. He could have complied and he didn't.

So, yes, my mind is made up: I want Bush and his cronies out before more people die for no reason....especially our soldiers. Remember them? Support the troops does not mean sending them off to die so Bush can look good.

I don't believe that Bush is fighting this war to make himself look good. And I never had any question that your mind was made up. That is obvious from your posts. At best you will soften your judgement from desertion to AWOL as long as it still fits your world view.

 

[joe1347]

No, we went to war because Saddam was in breach and we had spent 12 years to get Sadadm to comply and he didn't.

Actually there is another reason. Bush believed that Saddam was dangerous to the region and Saddam had proved that he was willing and capable to be dangerous. He had spent 12 years obfuscating. He could have complied and he didn't.

With all of the "debate" over the reasons we went to war in IRAQ. I still don't think that we (the public) actually understand what is the "real" reason the current administration decided to occupy IRAQ. Until I started visiting this board - I believed that the Bush Administration took a very pragmatic view and sincerely believed that with relatively few troups and a little money (few billion) that they could "control" the flow of oil out of IRAQ (i.e., make sure most of it goes to the USA - since we really need it). Kind of a deal of the century. Terrorism and WMD were just a convienent smoke screen and justification for the military operation/occupation. After all, isn't the administration supposed to look out for the American people first. Don't we need all the oil we can get?

Now with the conservative side of the board (plus the Bush Administration) postulating that America really is the world's policeman with a mission to stamp out brutal dictators and install representative goverments with free elections - I just don't know what to think anymore. The preventing another Hitler/Stalin justification for the war almost seems reasonable - but weren't the sanctions proven (by those searching for WMD) to have worked (i.e., kept Sadam down). Could the real reason for the war have been as simple as revenge for trying to kill Bush Sr.

Additionally, as others have posted, the lions share of the worlds oil reserves may actually be in South America. So maybe controlling oil reserves wasn't the reason for conquering IRAQ after all. So if we don't need IRAQ's oil after all - why not just leave (IRAQ). Why should we (Americans) care what happens after our troups leave? Protecting Iraqi civilians from a civil war arguement seems specious or else we (the US Military) would be more engaged in Africa.

 

[Mark]

1. Sure I think the Iraqis are important. That is a straw man.

2. No, we went to war because Saddam was in breach and we had spent 12 years to get Sadadm to comply and he didn't.

3. Actually there is another reason. Bush believed that Saddam was dangerous to the region and Saddam had proved that he was willing and capable to be dangerous. He had spent 12 years obfuscating. He could have complied and he didn't.

4. I don't believe that Bush is fighting this war to make himself look good. And I never had any question that your mind was made up. That is obvious from your posts. At best you will soften your judgement from desertion to AWOL as long as it still fits your world view.

1. No, it was sarcasm. Which is still not constructive, so I withdraw the comment.

2. Oh, come on!!!! You seriously believe we would have gone to war with Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened?!?!?! That's just completely absurd and flies in the face of every fact available.

3. You may be able to read Bush's mind, but I sure can't. And the evidence (many more, far more dangerous regimes whom Bush did NOT attack) indicates with a fair amount of certainty that this reason is false.

4. I really don't know why Bush started this war. The argument has been made by some who know him well that it was to "show up" his father. I have no idea; I can think of NO reason that makes any sense.

In another post, you said you will admit when you are wrong, but I have seen no evidence of that. On the other hand, I gave an example on this very thread where I did admit I was wrong (and I just did so again on a another thread); you now claim that I didn't even admit I was wrong, that I merely "softened" my stance. Facts are whatever you say they are it seems. No wonder you can continue to support this administration.

 

[RandFan]

2. Oh, come on!!!! You seriously believe we would have gone to war with Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened?!?!?! That's just completely absurd and flies in the face of every fact available.

"Every fact?" Wow. I don't think so. In any event, I think 9/11 certainly facilitated the war. I know that Bush wanted to go to war before 9/11. Regime change was an administration policy in both Bush's and Bill Clinton's presidencies.

3. You may be able to read Bush's mind, but I sure can't. And the evidence (many more, far more dangerous regimes whom Bush did NOT attack) indicates with a fair amount of certainty that this reason is false.

But none presented this opportunity and none of those regimes were in breech.

4. I really don't know why Bush started this war. The argument has been made by some who know him well that it was to "show up" his father. I have no idea; I can think have NO reason that makes any sense.

Myself and others can. The Mideast has been for sometime a very serious problem. If this action changes the dynamics it could bring stability to the region and could dramatically change the lives of millions. It also signals to other nations that we are quite serious about the type of threats posed by Saddam Hussein. He did have WMD and he did invade a neighbor (Kuwait). No, he didn't have WMD when we invaded. Yes there was evidence that he didn't have WMD.

You don't have to agree with with the reasons it but you do have to open your eyes to see those reasons. There ARE reasons for the war. Just because you don't like them does not mean that they don't exist.

I have and will concede that 9/11 was used as an impetus for war and there clearly was NO link. I will concede and have conceded in the past that Bush overplayed the evidence. However there is little or no concession from people like you that there was any reason for Bush to go to war. That is fine. I accept the intransigence of people like you who see the world in stark black and white. To you Bush represents everything wrong. He and his ideas must be attacked at all costs.

In another post, you said you will admit when you are wrong, but I have seen no evidence of that. On the other hand, I gave an example on this very thread where I did admit I was wrong (and I just did so again on a another thread); you now claim that I didn't even admit I was wrong, that I merely "softened" my stance. Facts are whatever you say they are it seems. No wonder you can continue to support this administration.

I do it all of the time. I did it with Orwell recently after pages of debate. Admitting that Bush was ONLY AWOL and not a deserter is not much of admission. It's like saying, oh well, the guy is only half an a$$hole. I don't know what that "other" thread was.

I'm not overly impressed with your objectivity. If you are not impressed with mine that is fine. I don't really care. There are plenty on this forum who know that I'm willing to appologize and adimit when I'm wrong.

 

[Mark]

"Every fact?" Wow. I don't think so. In any event, I think 9/11 certainly facilitated the war. I know that Bush wanted to go to war before 9/11. Regime change was an administration policy in both Bush's and Bill Clinton's presidencies.

But none presented this opportunity and none of those regimes were in breech.

Myself and others can. The Mideast has been for sometime a very serious problem. If this action changes the dynamics it could bring stability to the region and could dramatically change the lives of millions. It also signals to other nations that we are quite serious about the type of threats posed by Saddam Hussein. He did you WMD and he did invade a neighbor (Kuwait). You don't have to agree with it but you do have to open your eyes to see it. There ARE reasons for the war. Just because you don't like them does not mean that they don't exist.

I have and will concede that 9/11 was used as an impetus for war and there clearly was NO link. I will concede and have conceded in the past that Bush overplayed the evidence. However there is little or no concession from people like you that there was any reason for Bush to go to war. That is fine. I accept the intransigence of people like you who see the world in stark black and white. To you Bush represents everything wrong. He and his ideas must be attacked at all costs.

I do it all of the time. I did it with Orwell recently after pages of debate. Admitting that Bush was ONLY AWOL and not a deserter is not much of admission. It's like saying, oh well, the guy is only half an a$$hole. I don't know what that "other" thread was.

Trust me, I would never say Bush is only half an a$$hole.

Bush's war on Iraq has done NOTHING to stabilize the region. And has, in fact, made things much worse. So if that was his reason for doing it (this week), then I go back to what I said earlier: he is either a liar or incompetent. And either way, he should not be running our country.

 

[RandFan]

Bush's war on Iraq has done NOTHING to stabilize the region. And has, in fact, made things much worse. So if that was his reason for doing it (this week), then I go back to what I said earlier: he is either a liar or incompetent. And either way, he should not be running our country.

I don't agree at all. I don't think it has made things much worse. The elections carried out by the Iraqis was a powerful and iconic moment. There is reason to hope where there was not reason before. I don't think Bush was incompetent and I do think he should be running our contry.

That being said there are lot's of things that I don't like that Bush has done. I'm not a Bush sycophant and I don't have a problem with critisim of Bush and I don't have a problem with those who point many of these things out. I don't have a problem with those who don't like Bush. I understand there is a visceral hatred for the man.

 

[Mark]

I don't agree at all. I don't think it has made things much worse. The elections carried out by the Iraqis was a powerful and iconic moment. There is reason to hope where there was not reason before. I don't think Bush was incompetent and I do think he should be running our contry.

That being said there are lot's of things that I don't like that Bush has done. I'm not a Bush sycophant and I don't have a problem with critisim of Bush and I don't have a problem with those who point many of these things out. I don't have a problem with those who don't like Bush. I understand there is a visceral hatred for the man.

Two points:

1. (Hold on to you hat) I agree there is reason to hope in Iraq. It is a thin hope at best, based on the history of the region. I suspect that what will happen there is that, to restore order, the new government will end up as harsh (or worse) than Hussein was, and we will be blamed; that has been the usual pattern over there. But there is reason to hope.

2. I don't hate Bush; that is a right wing canard, used often. He's probably a great guy to have a beer with. But I do hate in the extreme what he is doing to my country. He is dismantling the Constitution bit by bit, sending our soldiers to die pointlessly, and bankrupting the nation. I do indeed hate what he is doing. How can I not? I have kids...

 

[RandFan]

Two points:

1. (Hold on to you hat) I agree there is reason to hope in Iraq. It is a thin hope at best, based on the history of the region. I suspect that what will happen there is that, to restore order, the new government will end up as harsh (or worse) than Hussein was, and we will be blamed; that has been the usual pattern over there. But there is reason to hope.

2. I don't hate Bush; that is a right wing canard, used often. He's probably a great guy to have a beer with. But I do hate in the extreme what he is doing to my country. He is dismantling the Constitution bit by bit, sending our soldiers to die pointlessly, and bankrupting the nation. I do indeed hate what he is doing. How can I not? I have kids...

I have kids also, a 17 year old who is right now considering military service. It troubles me deeply. I don't hate what Bush is doing to this country and BTW, if I hated what someone was doing to my country I wouldn't have a problem hating that person. That is just me though. If I thought some guy was sending young men off to die for no reason I sure as hell wouldn't have a beer with him.

I appreciate your fist point.

 

[Mark]

I have kids also, a 17 year old who is right now considering military service. It troubles me deeply. I don't hate what Bush is doing to this country and BTW, if I hated what someone was doing to my country I wouldn't have a problem hating that person. That is just me though. If I thought some guy was sending young men off to die for no reason I sure as hell wouldn't have a beer with him.

I appreciate your fist point.

The bottom line is that I don't (personal opinion) consider Bush to be evil; I think it likely he is incompetent, and easily manipulated by the Republican leadership. As such, I see no reason to hate the man.

I will also say this: Bush is the first president in my lifetime whose policies I have considered to be so reprehensible as to seriously endanger the future of this country. Off topic (feel free to ignore it), but here is my personal ranking of presidents in my adult life:

Clinton: A pretty good president overall, who was beyond stupid in his personal life. The balance between a Republican Congress and Democratic President worked very well.

Bush Sr.: A pretty good president. Although his reluctance to speak out against his son's policies troubles me.

Reagan: Horrifying environmental policies. Disengenuous on government spending (he asked Congess for 16 Billion dollars more in his presidency than they budgeted). Inspiring leader as far as making people feel good about themselves.

Carter: The most integrity of any person to hold the office in my lifetime. A far stronger man than ever given credit for: he held fast against negotiating with the Iranians, while Reagan immediately caved and gave them weapons. Thus proving Americans want the illusion of toughness in their president, not real toughness (that's too difficult). But an uninspiring leader. By far the best ex-president I know of.

Ford: Harmless, but also useless. At least he got us out of Viet Nam.

Nixon: A thug and a paranoid, but a very effective foreign policy leader. Inherited the Viet Nam mess from Johnson, but did little to solve it.

 

[RandFan]

The bottom line is that I don't (personal opinion) consider Bush to be evil; I think it likely he is incompetent, and easily manipulated by the Republican leadership. As such, I see no reason to hate the man.

I will also say this: Bush is the first president in my lifetime whose policies I have considered to be so reprehensible as to seriously endanger the future of this country. Off topic (feel free to ignore it), but here is my personal ranking of presidents in my adult life:

Clinton: A pretty good president overall, who was beyond stupid in his personal life. The balance between a Republican Congress and Democratic President worked very well.

Bush Sr.: A pretty good president. Although his reluctance to speak out against his son's policies troubles me.

Reagan: Horrifying environmental policies. Disingenuous on government spending (he asked Congess for 16 Billion dollars more in his presidency than they budgeted). Inspiring leader as far as making people feel good about themselves.

Carter: The most integrity of any person to hold the office in my lifetime. A far stronger man than ever given credit for: he held fast against negotiating with the Iranians, while Reagan immediately caved and gave them weapons. Thus proving Americans want the illusion of toughness in their president, not real toughness (that's too difficult). But an uninspiring leader. By far the best ex-president I know of.

Ford: Harmless, but also useless. At least he got us out of Viet Nam.

Nixon: A thug and a paranoid, but a very effective foreign policy leader. Inherited the Viet Nam mess from Johnson, but did little to solve it.

Interesting observations. In some ways mine are similar. I give more weight to inspiring people than you do and I don't see Reagan quite the way you do. Reagan could be both pragmatic and tough when it came to dealing with others and was down right tough with Moamar. Reagan brought us out of our "malaise" and give us hope and reason to be proud of ourselves. Immensely important in my eyes. A large part of a leader is to lead. Ford had little opportunity to do anything following the Impeachment of Nixon. His pardon of Nixon didn't help anything. Nixon certainly was the very picture of a Greek tragedy. Heroic and corrupt. Carter an honest man, a good bureaucrat but a damn lousy leader. Clinton, I was happy when he was president. Things were good. The budget was balanced and the stock market was rising. He inspired and led and he led well. He was sadly self destructive but the self destruction resulted from a minor indiscretion that should not ever have seen the light of day except that there was an ongoing investigation. He should not have lied under oath (I'm not certain what I would have done under the circumstances) and he should not have asked his aides to lie for him. The latter was one of the most weasely thing I have ever seen anyone do outside of Nixon.

I don't at all see Bush's presidency the way you do. I think this nation was dealt a serious blow and I think Bush handled it very well. I'm not a historian and certainly not an expert. I only have my opinion based on what I know and that is it.

 

[Mark]

Interesting observations. In some ways mine are similar. I give more weight to inspiring people than you do and I don't see Reagan quite the way you do. Reagan could be both pragmatic and tough when it came to dealing with others and was down right tough with Moamar. Reagan brought us out of our "malaise" and give us hope and reason to be proud of ourselves. Immensely important in my eyes. A large part of a leader is to lead. Ford had little opportunity to do anything following the Impeachment of Nixon. His pardon of Nixon didn't help anything. Nixon certainly was the very picture of a Greek tragedy. Heroic and corrupt. Carter an honest man, a good bureaucrat but a damn lousy leader. Clinton, I was happy when he was president. Things were good. The budget was balanced and the stock market was rising. He inspired and led and he led well. He was sadly self destructive but the self destruction resulted from a minor indiscretion that should not ever have seen the light of day except that there was an ongoing investigation. He should not have lied under oath (I'm not certain what I would have done under the circumstances) and he should not have asked his aides to lie for him. The latter was one of the most weasely thing I have ever seen anyone do outside of Nixon.

I don't at all see Bush's presidency the way you do. I think this nation was dealt a serious blow and I think Bush handled it very well. I'm not a historian and certainly not an expert. I only have my opinion based on what I know and that is it.

So there you go; we're closer in viewpoints than we thought.

Couple of points:

Clinton: I know just what I would have done...not cheated on my wife in the first place. (I am sure you are the same.) He handed the right wing a club to beat his own brains in with, at a time when he KNEW they were after him by any means possible. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Bush: He did start off as a great leader after 9/11, I agree completely. Where we differ is his behvaior since, which I feel utterly squandered all of the international good will we gained through that tragedy. But he started off well. Ultimately, I suspect his problem could be his "winner takes all" mentality. His attempts to dismantle Social Security...well, never mind, that's another issue entirely (Have you ever seen Eisenhower's quote on that subject? Very enlightening.).

 

[CapelDodger]

Reagan brought us out of our "malaise" and give us hope and reason to be proud of ourselves. Immensely important in my eyes.

But at what cost. And I do mean dollars. Is deficit spending the only way to do this? Is it that pride in yourselves that has got the US embroiled in Iraq? Maybe humility and paying-your-way would have seen a better outcome.

 

[CapelDodger]

The bottom line is that I don't (personal opinion) consider Bush to be evil; I think it likely he is incompetent, and easily manipulated by the Republican leadership. As such, I see no reason to hate the man.

To me it seems blindingly obvious that Bush is a pretty face and nothing to do with what actually emerges as policy. He plays a role in a team, and he isn't the team-leader. Presidents such as Johnson, Nixon, Bush the Elder and Clinton shape their administrations. Bush the Younger (and Reagan before him) does not. The real powers are Rove and Cheney (as Bush the Elder was for Reagan).

I don't hate him, I despise him as the worthless trust-fund zit he is.

 

[CapelDodger]

And that, even more than any example from Karl Rove's recent remarks, is an increasingly popular and increasingly terrifying aspect of modern liberals in the United States.

You use the word "liberal" in a peculiarly transatlantic way. Those we call liberals over here are the reason the vote is handed out like cheap candy. Expansion of the franchise was a vital topic in the 19thCE but it went too far. I myself am not a liberal. Not by a long way.

Likewise, CapelDodger can either learn to engage them and win, which shouldn't be too hard if one has the facts on one's side

You should run that one past Randi. Rule One : No person with magnets in their shoes shall be entitled to vote.

I'll start a thread on Universal Suffrage : Dumb v Dumber

 

[Mark]

To me it seems blindingly obvious that Bush is a pretty face and nothing to do with what actually emerges as policy. He plays a role in a team, and he isn't the team-leader. Presidents such as Johnson, Nixon, Bush the Elder and Clinton shape their administrations. Bush the Younger (and Reagan before him) does not. The real powers are Rove and Cheney (as Bush the Elder was for Reagan).

I don't hate him, I despise him as the worthless trust-fund zit he is.

You would be very interested in a book called "Dick: The Man Who is President" by Nation correspondent John Nichols.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/09/int04046.html

 

[Rob Lister]

To me it seems blindingly obvious that Bush is a pretty face and nothing to do with what actually emerges as policy. He plays a role in a team, and he isn't the team-leader. Presidents such as Johnson, Nixon, Bush the Elder and Clinton shape their administrations. Bush the Younger (and Reagan before him) does not. The real powers are Rove and Chaney (as Bush the Elder was for Reagan).

I don't hate him, I despise him as the worthless trust-fund zit he is.

You know, I've been hearing that now for the last . . . five years or so. I just don't get it. But, I'm willing to put it aside because, well, because it doesn't matter. The end result is the same. You mention Reagan as a figurehead with Bush (the elder) running him. But Bush the elder, during his presidency, didn't hold a candle to Reagan. Nothing stuck to Reagan and everything stuck to Bush. I don't buy it. I didn't buy that he was dumb either. I did buy that Bush (the elder) was dumb, even though he appeared not to be. He fell for more dem/media traps continuously. By the end of his four years I was HOPING for a Clinton.

Same with Bush. Seems to me he's really not as smart as those around him but, by golly, he knows how to surround himself with really smart people. Rove and Chaney are just two of the very many. That counts too. But, from what I've heard, Bush is no dummy either.

But, 'misunderestimate' him all you wish. It doesn't change the equation one iota.