Poll - Should Bush Be Impeached?

[ByLoSellHi]

The Impeachment movement is beginning to gain a head of steam yet again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080710/cm_thenation/1336149

The vote is simple; Yes, No, or I Do Not Know.

Do not vote based on what you think will happen, but what you think should happen. Thanks.

Comment as you wish.

 

[acronym]

I went with not sure, due to the fact the damage is already done.The time has been and gone-and there was an opportunity to remove him from office, some sort of vote thing a few years back.

Bothering with it now, to me seems just vindictive, yet another waste of money with no likely good result.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from acronym:

I went with not sure, due to the fact the damage is already done.The time has been and gone-and there was an opportunity to remove him from office, some sort of vote thing a few years back.

Bothering with it now, to me seems just vindictive, yet another waste of money with no likely good result.

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?

 

[acronym]

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?

Good question.
I'm of the general opinion "punishment" style retribution isn't much of a deterrent, they either get better at it, or get busted-and if the bush admin is a precedent of any sort, i don't know how they could get better at it!
These are the uber-powerful, the elite, they don't sit around wringing there hands that maybe they might get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they own the cookie jar, they control the cookie jar, they ruthlessly shut down dissent.

An impeachment would likely be no more than a public spectacle, a soap opera regardless of the evidence or outcome.


Gee, all of a sudden i feel like having some cookies....

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from acronym:


Bothering with it now, to me seems just vindictive, yet another waste of money with no likely good result.

Personally I think the primary motivation for an impeachment is revenge for their beloved Clinton.

 

[acronym]

Quote from Lucrum:

Personally I think the primary motivation for an impeachment is revenge for their beloved Clinton.

That's kinda immature, i think, but then we are talking politics here, you could be right.
Starr's prosecution was cowardly, pointless, an utter waste and an unnecessary impost on the public, (taxpayer) the private life of "someone" and a dirt shovelling pile of crap from start to finish.

Big deal, semen stains from an office liaison, compared to bush's tenure?
I believe bush has a case to answer, just not on the standardised formats of this process, where none of his dealings can actually be properly scrutinised, and given politics, the nature of inquiry will likely be so slim as to be entirely pointless.

There's no evidence!!!
Falsification by omission, clear intent to "lean" toward a war/hawkish view, gross negligence, stupidity, cowardice and blatant violation of international law or protocols, equals a big pile of nothing, why bother with it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I think Bush has a lot to answer for, beginning with Iraq and the aftermath, and particularly immigration. I firmly believe Border Patrol agents Campeon and Ramos were prosecuted vindictively because of pressure from the Mexican government which no doubt was responding to pressure from drug cartels. I would love to see that issue investigated, but of course democrats are not interested in it since they are for open borders as well.

The problem with impeachment when there is no clear evidence of personal wrongdoing, ie bribery or other crimes, is that it is tough to distinguish from criminalizing policy differences. When a president gets impeached because of policy differences, we are uncomfortably close to banana republic status. The only time that happened in the modern era was with Nixon.

Let's not forget that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a deposition in a lawsuit against him. He wasn't prosecuted for sex with an intern.

The last thing Barrack Hussein Obama needs is an impeachment sideshow to remind voters how irresponsible congressional democrats are. That is why this goes nowhere.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...Let's not forget that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a deposition in a lawsuit against him. He wasn't prosecuted for sex with an intern...

True. And this came about following an all-out investigation. Let there at least now be an equally thorough investigation on a somewhat more far-reaching matter. What's good for the goose...

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from Thunderdog:

True. And this came about following an all-out investigation. Let there at least now be an equally thorough investigation on a somewhat more far-reaching matter. What's good for the goose...

...and what about Congress and Pelosi herself???

there was congressional debate, questioning and APPROVAL authorizing force in Iraq...

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from TM_Direct:

...and what about Congress and Pelosi herself???

there was congressional debate, questioning and APPROVAL authorizing force in Iraq...

Based on evidence slanted at the pleasure of the President.

Therein lies the basis of the investigation.