I don't think he needs to break the law to be impeached. In a lot of ways, impeachment is pretty much at the discretion of Congress and how they feel like voting. They need about as much proof on impeachment at this point as Bush has proof on WMD in Iraq. I think the charge I feel most strongly about is lying to Congress. The consequences of that action has resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars lost as well as tens of thousands of US casualties. I consider it to be a gigantic fraud and he should spend time in prison for it.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE IMPEACHING BUSH FOR? I have to put this in caps because I have only seen one person (azadre) address this. I am tired of bush's act like a ton of people but what proveable offenses are out there? clinton lied under oath even if it was bs to go after him. the guy was disbarred. name the crimes if you want impeachment. DON'T NAME EXAMPLES OF STUPIDITY AND INCOMPETENCE. I don't like Bush anymore, but I can't answer the question because I don't know what to impeach him for.
Bush is telling lies left and right. All you need is a democrats congress that forces him to lie under oath.
But that's not a "high crime or misdemeanor" - Bush must have broken a law to be impeached. Clinton did break the law. But has Bush? Lying and being Incompetent is not enough...
that's fine but that doesn't answer the question. you are just stating ifs. yeah I think he has lied as well, but what you told me does not mean he has committed an impeachable offense. so again...what impeachable offense(s) has he committed?
robbie/new yorker you guys are dead on. and azadre has provided the only thing even close (regarding wiretaps). everything else is either feelings like most dems give (give me some substace), or circumstantial. "he lied to congress," ok prove it. show me on tape where he says, here's what im gonna tell them even though its not true. i want to see a tape or hear audio similar to that when the katrina ordeal came out. if that happens, does it still make it an impeachable offense? probably not. but atleast then you guys can actually have proof for once. quit bashing the guy, the map looks this way for a reason: and no, not because of rigged machines, and blocking out voters.... once again give me proof of this as well. sure paperless ballots are suspect, but prove it. otherwise he is innocent even if you dont like it. also, this map would look very very similar if a vote was done today. dispite 20% approval rating or however low it is now, i dont see 3+ million voting for your ultra liberal candidate. give me a liberman or even a chris bell and then i'd consider it.
Very good point. That is how they can win...But I'm afraid, democrats don't want to go back to the "older style" democrats such as Truman that seemed more moderate...Clinton seemed like a moderate, but by infringing the 2nd admendment rights, (which he admitted some regret afterwards as elections in the aftermath cost some several seats) ...and very ineffective tactics to counter the growth of terroristic attacks in the 1990's...In my view, a moderate with more aggressive tactics would have been best, and the urge to curb the 2nd admentment would not have taken place...(fortunately, the AWB only lasted 10 years after it proved futile and ineffective) The far left Cindy Sheehan brigade is not the answer, and a danger if their political thought process is accepted by democrats in general.
Before the republican congress decided to make a big fuss about Clinton's affair with that woman, the only "crime" Clinton had committed was infidelity. Let's say if Democrats take over the congress and start asking Bush tough questions, do you think Bush will be totally honest under oath?
maybe, maybe no. reminds me of this video, go to 2:23 and, are there really any honest politicians? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/owIkvWXIbJg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/owIkvWXIbJg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
You would have the nation bogged down in another TV drama rather than address issues like energy, war, education (or lack of it), national health insurance and climate/pollution? Under the terms many of the board members are specifying, almost every President back to George Washington could have been impeached. Here are two classic examples: Would there be a Panama Canal had Congress stopped to impeach Teddy Roosevelt because he told some whoppers to get that bill passed? Would we have a different world had Congress impeached Franklin D. Roosefelt for stretching the truth to get aid to Britain under Lend-Lease? All politicians lie, and not just some of the time. Impeach every one of them? I'm not a proponent for lying, but I know it happens frequently on both sides of the aisle. Maybe we should set a two-term limit for every politician with a one-term limit for President and Senate. There are some things that are realistic, some that are practical and some that won't ever happen even in never-never land.
Forget impeachment. The timetable doesn't allow it... First, Dems have to win both House and Senate. Second, you spend the Spring Session having committees investigate various things and laying the ground work legally and politically. Third, if you move very fast, you start impeachment proceedings in the appropriate committees by Fall, but they will take a while. Thus, under the absolute quickest option, you'd be lucky to have a vote on impeachment 2-3 months before New Hampshire and Iowa with a more realistic timeframe placing the hearings and votes smack in the middle of primary season. If you want to impeach Bush and Cheney, it'll take much longer. What's the point? Let him walk back to Crawford a reviled President unable to travel abroad. A special committee... preferably bipartisan with the few remnants of the real Republican Party (you know, the ones that put country in front of party and personality) that are left in Congress... functioning as a Truth Squad would do wonders.
Why did the Republicans go after Clinton - digging for years into one thing then another and they couldn't find anything until they got him with sex? By your argument, the whole impeachment of Clinton was a farce and a waste of our time...and it was a mistake to do it. Do you agree with that? And to others who fear the far-left...well, I fear it too....but right now, I'm much more concerned with the neo-conservatives in power - they are far more dangerous at the moment. No, we can't replace one extreme with the other, but at least recognize they are both dangerous.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/47/sections/section_1001.html Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. This covers the uranium from Niger which they were warned by the CIA was fake, the aluminum tubes which they were warned was not military use, the repeated statements from Cheney about reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program, the mobile weapons labs claims that they were warned were not credible, and the intentional linking of 9/11 with Iraq to give people the perception there was a link when there was not a link. There's not a lot to prove. He defrauded the US Congress and the people of the United States. What proof do you want? He lied, he filtered intelligence data before it got to Congress, he misdirected the link between 9/11 and Iraq. He lied. Thousands are maimed and dead because of it and hundreds of billions have been lost. Join us in the now please.
I have no idea. His impeachment stirred the fires of division and resentment that still burn today. Actually, I do. I thought Bush the Younger would be a moderate conservative. I'm in agreement that leadership by the extreme right or extreme left is always a disaster waiting to happen. That is not to say that extreme voices are not needed because they tend to provide the ideas and ideals we need for adaptation to the real world.
As I pointed out earlier, under the terms of this proviso, you would have perhaps one or two past Presidents not subject to impeachment. Lying -- or not telling all the truth by not accepting all the facts -- is a tool of virtually all politicians of all political parties -- left, right or indifferent. I urge you to let go of your rage and work for the politicos you believe will generate the type of government you want.
This is true, but are you suggesting the Democrats return the favor and go on a witch hunt? Is that's what is best for the country right now? I think if there is legitimate reason to bring Bush under oath, then that's fine...but it must be legitimate or our nation will be in dire trouble if we have back-to-back impeachments of presidents. It will mean our complete system of government and balance of powers has failed.
