Is it really time to call for a Bush impeachment ? I think this is a political move to boost a sagging campaign, which only makes Graham look a little desperate. The Democrates need to sit back and gather more evidence before they start beating the impeachment drum. Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment By John Milne CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses. While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. "If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire. "If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said. Democrats and some Republicans have raised questions about the unsubstantiated claim Bush made in his January State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Graham's comments came as reporters followed up on his remarks earlier this week that any deception by Bush over Iraq might rise to the standard of an impeachable offense -- as defined by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives when it voted to impeach Clinton. Clinton was ultimately cleared by the U.S. Senate after being impeached by the House. After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one, adding that if Bush had misled the American public he would pay the price for it in the 2004 presidential election. In Washington on Thursday, Bush told a news conference that the speech reference was based on "sound intelligence" and he was certain that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. "We won't be proven wrong," he said with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side. The flap over Iraq upstaged Graham's economic proposals. He said his plan would balance the federal budget within five years while providing middle-class tax relief and creating 3 million new jobs. His plan would repeal most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It would reinstate a 38.6 percent tax bracket for wealthy individuals and create a new "millionaires tax bracket" at 40 percent. Graham also proposed cracking down on individuals and companies who transfer assets offshore or renounce U.S. citizenship to escape taxation.
It's a little much for that. Graham might be reaching here. But he is also the one advocate of a complete investigation into 9/11 (although Kerry has joined in as well) and if that ever happens, then he might be able to start saying "impeachment." At least this can stop the administration from fattening up other countries for the kill. It is said that Cheney was twisting arms for intelligence agencies to come up with intel against Cuba; and Powell, speaking to Latin American countries, only brought up "regime change in Cuba." Nothing about their monumental economic problems. Meanwhile the troops in Iraq are stretched thin, Rumsfeld is saying we may need more, we may have to put troops there on a year-long rotation....
He may be right, but Graham is a wacko...saw him interviewed, and he freaked me out. Sort of like Dubya, in that he's just dumb enough to give you the impression that he believes his own horsesh*t...but also wacko...
That journal he keeps might be considered a bit anal I think, not to mention seriously freaky. 6:00 am- turn off alarm with left hand 6:01 stand up next to bed 6:02 walk to bathroom open door right hand 6:03 begin tooth brushing 6:04 end tooth brushing 6:05 begin flossing 6:06 etc. etc.
This is why politics is so screwed up. It's the same as redistricting. We're in power now, so we'll screw you. When you're in power, you can screw us. The most important thing is that, in the end, we all get paid.
This one is way over the top at this point. At this point, there is no reason to think that any criminal action of any kind has happened. This is a desperate ploy of a politician who wants some publicity. I do believe that any instances of falsified evidence should be investigated and whatever happened to allow unsubstantiated claims to be used should be corrected, but it is not to the point of impeachment. I do think the standard for impeachment seems a bit warped lately, but this does not qualify with what we know now.
Can we impeach Rumsfeld instead? Seriously, methinks that Bush and his Admin are underestimating this situation. The smart thing to do may be to say mistakes in judgment by the president were made, instead of blaming Tenet and hoping this blows over or WMD are found.
I think you might be right. Why not just admit that mistakes were made by saying that they wanted to make sure Americans were safe, so they treated questionable intelligance more seriously than may have been warranted. They can say they erred on the side of caution by going to war. Then again, if the Democrats are going to keep overreaching and make the whole election about the War, maybe Bush should just let them hang themselves. In fairness to Graham, at least he does support the war on terror. I still don't know Dean's position on it.
Jeff, you've make it clear that you now just want to avoid political themes, if they aren't local, and I guess non-partisan issues. Are you really saying that discussing whether lying to take the country to war is an impeachable offense is just another example of silly partisan rangling, that isn't worth discussing?
I think Graham's statement is typical of the Democrates problem right now absolutely no unity on major issues. Now the rest of the Democratic field will be asked to state their position on this impeachment issue when in reality its not strong enough to warrant serious discussion at this point. I understand what Graham is doing, but shouldn't there be some actions that are for the good of the party not just the politician? This political game of win (the nomination)at all costs will have to stop if the Democrates want to make a serious run at the White House in 2004.
i believe the statement "If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard" is why this is just another example of silly partisan rangling. essentially, you impeached our president, now we're gonna impeach yours.
Calling for impeachment, at this juncture is way off base, and in reality would probably hurt any chance for a real impeachment process should the evidence every be found to warrant such a thing. Because he's playing politics with the idea now, it truly ruins the idea of anybody taking it seriously at later date, should the evidence call or lean in the direction for impeachment. Graham does sound like an idiot.
If they would admit their mistake, the whole thing would be done with, save the questioning that would occur around the 2004 election. The worst possible thing the Administration could do is exactly what they are doing...dragging it out. Remember what happened to Nixon. If he would have admitted and apologized regarding Watergate, he might have avoided impeachment. Instead he dragged it out and tried to cover it up, and look what happened to him. Honesty is the best policy.
Given his track record, GWB appears to be a man who never admits that he has done wrong. There is a reasonable chance that his arrogance will lead to his downfall in 2004.
I think a lot of folks want to stop it, but it's like the Cold War... zealots, small-minded pols, and people bent on revenge for past transgressions drive the agenda and there is no consensus for being the first one to unilaterally disarm and then get rolled for a generation or two.
Another sad legacy from the Clinton impeachment debacle: calls for impeachment will be made far more frequently than they should. Historical evidence suggests that impeachment was never meant to cover the sort of things Clinton did. It is not appropriate now, either. THere's not even any real evidence. I suspect he lied - but that's not enough. Impeachment should not be a political tool.
