Poll - Should Bush Be Impeached?

[Cutten]

Bush has been democratically elected twice. It's not as though he did anything radically different to what could have been expected before he got elected. He hasn't tried to become US dictator, or launch WWIII. His most objectionable actions, far from being opposed, have been *supported* by Congress and a large chunk of the population. If Bush it to be impeached over the Patriot Act or Iraq, then Congress has to be impeached too, along with the Supreme Court and half the US electorate.

To impeach an elected leader, they need to either bring the office into disgrace through criminal behaviour (e.g. Nixon), become mentally/physically unfit for office (e.g. insanity), or try to become an American Hitler.

So, much as I loathe Bush's policies and actions in office, I have to say that impeachment is just the wrong solution. People voted for him, after all. To impeach without really outrageous abuse of power or some crazy descent into madness or criminality is just wrong.

Suggesting impeachment is good for a laugh or to express your displeasure, but to actually propose it seriously displays political immaturity. You do not totally misuse and subvert the checks and balances of a democratic political system just because you don't like who won the last election. This is the sort of shit you expect to hear from 19 year old college students, not adults.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

I understand your position.

Let me ask this, though, without interjecting my own opinion (because I think it's a fair question):

If one believed that Bush committed an impeachable offense or offenses, wouldn't impeaching him establish a deterrent for future presidents to act in a similar fashion, even though the damage (assuming one believes there was damage) is already done?

Yes, but the question is what impeachable offence has he committed? His worst acts got passed with HUGE MAJORITIES in Congress and overwhelming public support.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from cgroupman:

To be fair, in my opinion anyway, Clinton was not convicted of any of those allegations about white water, rose, and all the rest. There were millions spent to try to convict. Vince Foster? Nothing there either. Did the Clintons do some wrong things? Probably. But invoking the old where there's smoke there's fire is still not a legal conviction. The partisan politics makes it so hard to really judge objectively.

I do have to agree with posters who state that the invasion of Iraq was a atomic bomb compared to the slingshot of oval office screwing. Heck, even the Speaker of the House had to resign during the impeachment time frame, but Clinton went through all the impeachment inscathed, with the gigantic exception that he will always be connected to an impeachment. As I've stated before, most Americans think the word impeachment means kicked out of office.

Lying to the Senate was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. Invading Iraq was at least 3000 times worse, again, just in my opinion.



c

You seem to be implying that doing anything you personally consider "wrong" is grounds for impeachment. If that is the case, then EVERY president in the history of the country would have 30%+ of the population calling for impeachment.

Impeachment is not there to "punish" someone for a policy you strongly object to. The solution to bad/unpopular policies already exists - it is called VOTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Not electing someone twice in a row. Get it? Bush got elected 1 year after Iraq was invaded, 3 years after the Patriot Act and Guantanamo. To impeach Bush for anything done publicly before his 2nd election is to basically disenfranchise the US electorate.

 

[Thunderdog]

Cutten, I'm not a plugged in guy when it comes to politics. But if there is any truth to the allegation that Bush had intelligence massaged and skewed before anyone outside the White House had a chance to see it, then, to the extent that this is possible, I think he is culpable. Incompetence is one thing. Fraud is another.

 

[tmarket]

Quote from Cutten:

It's not as though he did anything radically different to what could have been expected before he got elected. He hasn't tried to become US dictator, or launch WWIII.

To many, the suspension of habeas corpus was a sign of a dictatorship. The suspension has been subsequently found to be unconstitutional by a majority Republican nominated supreme court.

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror

The point of impeachment is already moot; GWB has run out the clock effectively.

 

[ilikefox es]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Cutten, I'm not a plugged in guy when it comes to politics. But if there is any truth to the allegation that Bush had intelligence massaged and skewed before anyone outside the White House had a chance to see it, then, to the extent that this is possible, I think he is culpable. Incompetence is one thing. Fraud is another.

June 04, 2007
Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters
By Ronald A. Cass

"On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it. ....it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar....For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.

The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. ....

The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . ."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/sandy_berger_and_the_clinton_c.html



I suspect that, just like the msm, if this were about a Karl, you would find this amazingly of interest, would say that the Bush administration is playing us for a fool, and you wouldn't be able to understand why a complete congressional investigation weren't taking place.

Oh, yeah, and then you would tell us that we are all so wedded to our beliefs that we can't see the real truth.

It's gettin old thunderdog.

 

[ilikefox es]

Quote from tmarket:

To many, the suspension of habeas corpus was a sign of a dictatorship. The suspension has been subsequently found to be unconstitutional by a majority Republican nominated supreme court.

The point of impeachment is already moot; GWB has run out the clock effectively.

"There are many Presidents who have suspended Habeas Corpus. The first to do it considered to be one of the greatest Presidents. This was Abraham Lincoln, who did it eight times. He did in in Maryland the first time. The District Court declared the action illegal. Lincoln ignored it. The Congress passed a bill giving him the power to suspend HC. Over 38,000 people were imprisoned under his acts. In 1866 , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus since the President did not have that power......Ulysses Grant also suspended HC while trying to control the Ku Klux Klan in 9 counties of South Carolina.

During World War I, 2000 people were convicted for opposing the war. 245 were deported. Franklin Roosevelt granted amnesty to most of these. The Supreme Court later declared the previous actions to be illegal. .....During World War II, HC was suspended because it was a time of war. Thousand of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans were forcibly resettled without any hearings.....After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton signed a bill that allowed suspension of Habeas Corpus by adding a statute of limitations of one year for one to be filed. This bill also precluded subsequent writs from being filed....After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton signed a bill that allowed suspension of Habeas Corpus by adding a statute of limitations of one year for one to be filed. This bill also precluded subsequent writs from being filed....The latest suspensions have come in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush signed the bills passed by the Congress......Several of the Presidents that have done these things are considered to be some of the best the country has every had."
http://drknow.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/12/1361886-a-president-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus

Why is it again that you think GWB should have been impeached? Could it be a case of BDR?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Unless I am very wrong, Bush did not "suspend Habeas Corpus." The administration took the position that detainees at gitmo were not entitled to file for habeas. In an exercise of raw judicial activism, the Supreme Court ruled they were entitled, despite ample contrary precedent. Congress then passed a law withdrawing habeas from them. The Supreme Court then invalidated that law.

If anyone acted outside the Constitution, it was the Supreme Court, not the administration and not the congress. This has been one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, right up there with the FDR Court, which he coerced to his will through his infamous court packing scheme, and the Warren Court. Those Courts may have contributed mightily to ruining our country, but even the FDR era Court was responsible enough to stay out of national security matters. They looked the other way when FDR, the great hero of liberals, put innocent Japanese Americans in concentration camps. The current Court has no sense of any limitation on judicial power, the security of the country or our troops be damned.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

This is a more right wing Supreme Court than the one that helped Bush win in 2000.

You really crack me up with your ditto head spew...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Unless I am very wrong, Bush did not "suspend Habeas Corpus." The administration took the position that detainees at gitmo were not entitled to file for habeas. In an exercise of raw judicial activism, the Supreme Court ruled they were entitled, despite ample contrary precedent. Congress then passed a law withdrawing habeas from them. The Supreme Court then invalidated that law.

If anyone acted outside the Constitution, it was the Supreme Court, not the administration and not the congress. This has been one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, right up there with the FDR Court, which he coerced to his will through his infamous court packing scheme, and the Warren Court. Those Courts may have contributed mightily to ruining our country, but even the FDR era Court was responsible enough to stay out of national security matters. They looked the other way when FDR, the great hero of liberals, put innocent Japanese Americans in concentration camps. The current Court has no sense of any limitation on judicial power, the security of the country or our troops be damned.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Cutten:

You seem to be implying that doing anything you personally consider "wrong" is grounds for impeachment. If that is the case, then EVERY president in the history of the country would have 30%+ of the population calling for impeachment.

Impeachment is not there to "punish" someone for a policy you strongly object to. The solution to bad/unpopular policies already exists - it is called VOTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Not electing someone twice in a row. Get it? Bush got elected 1 year after Iraq was invaded, 3 years after the Patriot Act and Guantanamo. To impeach Bush for anything done publicly before his 2nd election is to basically disenfranchise the US electorate.

Check my first post regarding impeachment, I don't really think it wise at this late date anyway. I agree with the voting for someone else, thus the World will have Obama this time around. Whether I choose to vote for him or not, that's another story.

Disenfranchising of the U.S. electorate is what really concerns me. Perhaps I should say the polarization of the extremes at both ends to cause a my way or the highway type of rhetoric between parties. This blind following of either side's talking points, much more the repeating of them, instead of actually thinking about the valid areas of concern is what worries me. When you catch yourself repeating a radio guy's adamant ramblings, then maybe it's time to turn off the radio, and try to find somewhere to think about the arguements from both sides, with preconceived notions.

This blind following of a handful of media types has gotten so much worse since the mid 1990's. Humorous that all the callers simply agree with their chosed leader and call the other side names like neocon or moonbat or whatever. I would be willing to bet that if we put together a laundry list of issues that should matter we would find a lot of things to agree on.

Here, I'll start with some examples.

I hate abortion, but can't stand those that want to legislate morality or get into our bedrooms. I am for birth control, but not via abortion. After one, that's it.

I hate war, but if we're going to do it, do it right with a well planned out exit strategy. I believe in discussion instead of bombing, silly me.

I hate the idea of big governement, I pay the highest rate of taxes and want to see spending cut, and yet don't mind paying my fair share instead of having my grandkids pay for my generations mistakes and over spending.

I want the cops chasing murders and rapists, not in our bedrooms or setting up hooker sting operations.

I support and respect all first responders, and hate to see them relegated to doing things they don't believe in.

I don't want pharmacists making my religious or medical decisions for me, I'll leave that my doctor or, heaven forbid, myself.

I'm not sure what is causing the climate change, and I'm not sure Al Gore has all the answers. At the same time it makes sense to recycle, reuse and all that, just common sense.

Drill for more oil? Maybe. Put money into alternative fuels, damn yes.

I hate labeling, but I guess if I had to attempt it. A fiscal conservative, and social liberal, and open minded on issues that fit into the middle somewhere.

I could go on, but you guys get the idea, we are probably more in agreement overall than not. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong.



c