Impeachment

[Linux98]

Talking about impeaching Bush is so silly. What did he really do that was wrong? He made mistakes in leadership. But that doesn't stick so people slander him by saying he lied.

But no rational people believe that he lied so the next move is to try to make a mountain out of a mole hill with the firings.

There's always that group that is so partisan that they will start shouting impeachment at the drop of a pin.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Are you saying that most of the country is not rational?

 

[stelow]

Talking about impeaching Bush is so silly. What did he really do that was wrong? He made mistakes in leadership. But that doesn't stick so people slander him by saying he lied.

But no rational people believe that he lied so the next move is to try to make a mountain out of a mole hill with the firings.

There's always that group that is so partisan that they will start shouting impeachment at the drop of a pin.

Partisan to the Constitution only, silly or not there is a movement going on to impeach but it should include the V.P. also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

 

[Linux98]

There will always be a movement to impeach every president we ever have. It's just sour grapes.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

There will always be a movement to impeach every president we ever have. It's just sour grapes.

Or it's a passion for the actual rule of law...something the Bush administration abhors.

 

[KomissarSteve]

There will always be a movement to impeach every president we ever have. It's just sour grapes.

Just by looking at his polling numbers, it seems to be a pretty widespread case of "sour grapes."

I think it probably has more to do with the undermining of the Constitution. But that might just be crazy ol' me, as usual.

 

[Linux98]

Yeah, I'm sure all the reasons for wanting to impeach are noble.

 

[Anovah]

another great (paraphrased) quote

"impeachment is the cure not the disease"

The general consensus seems to be this is a corrupt administration from which any number of illegalities could commence impeachment proceedings. It would be healthy for the nation and could solve what is becoming a constitutional crisis (another point the video illustrates well)

In my opinion of course

 

[MachZer0]

Regarding Nixon, you're right - threatened to be impeached is what I should have said.

Exactly. It should be noted that Nixon, for all of his faults, had the integrity to do the right thing

Regarding whether or not Clinton was the only one to be impeached - wrongo. Andrew Johnson, a Republican, also was impeached.

Correction!! What I said was that Clinton is the only ELECTED president ever to be impeached. Feel free to show me when Andrew Johnson was elected president

 

[KomissarSteve]

Exactly. It should be noted that Nixon, for all of his faults, had the integrity to do the right thing

Now if only Bush would show as much patriotism.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Yeah, I'm sure all the reasons for wanting to impeach are noble.

Nobody said all of them are. Just some of the big ones.

 

[Linux98]

Nobody said all of them are. Just some of the big ones.

OK, what are the big reasons?

 

[KomissarSteve]

OK, what are the big reasons?

A genuine wish to deter any future Heads of State or members of the Executive Branch from thinking that they're above the law, much less the highest law in the land (the Constitution) for starters. Also a wish to eject from government a President whose foreign policy is so clumsy that he managed to squander all the political capital we'd gained from 9/11 in just a few years' time - that type of Head of State, to me, spells "liability."

There are more that come to mind, but I'm going to be out for the rest of the evening; I'll post more when I return.

 

[KomissarSteve]

EDIT: Double-post, baleet.

 

[Linux98]

A genuine wish to deter any future Heads of State or members of the Executive Branch from thinking that they're above the law, much less the highest law in the land (the Constitution) for starters. Also a wish to eject from government a President whose foreign policy is so clumsy that he managed to squander all the political capital we'd gained from 9/11 in just a few years' time - that type of Head of State, to me, spells "liability."

There are more that come to mind, but I'm going to be out for the rest of the evening; I'll post more when I return.

Hos did Bush demonstrate that he is willing to work outside the scope of the constitution?

Since when are mistakes in foreign policy grounds for impeachment?

If you think he is making mistakes then the proper response is recall, not impeachment. If you can't demonstrate that he is/was working outside the scope of the constitution then impeachment is an improper response as well.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Hos did Bush demonstrate that he is willing to work outside the scope of the constitution?

The NSA illegal wiretapping program is the most visible example of his flaunting of the Constitution.

Since when are mistakes in foreign policy grounds for impeachment?

No one said it's grounds for impeachment; it's a motive for pushing for impeachment on other grounds. It's the same principle as trying Al Capone for tax evasion.

If you think he is making mistakes then the proper response is recall, not impeachment.

There is no provision for recalling a President.

 

[Linux98]

The NSA illegal wiretapping program is the most visible example of his flaunting of the Constitution.

No one said it's grounds for impeachment; it's a motive for pushing for impeachment on other grounds. It's the same principle as trying Al Capone for tax evasion.

There is no provision for recalling a President.

There is a very good argument that he did not break the law with the NSA wiretapping: the border search exception. Thus, the NSA most likely had the right to search incoming and outgoing international calls just as the Border Patrol has the right to search your car when you drive to or return from Canada.

And if there is no provision for recalling a President because you think he is doing a poor job then you are stuck with him. Manufacturing reasons to impeach him would just be sour grapes in this situation.

 

[cavalier973]

Also a wish to eject from government a President whose foreign policy is so clumsy that he managed to squander all the political capital we'd gained from 9/11 in just a few years' time - that type of Head of State, to me, spells "liability."

There was no way Bush could not have squandered the goodwill of the world. Every other nation seemed to be getting oil bribes from Saddam. Of course they're mad we invaded, because a source of funds has been cut off. But Bush's job as President involves keeping us safe, not making us liked by the world. After 9/11, he established the "Bush Doctrine", which is: we not only go after the terrorists themselves, but the states that sponsor the terrorists. I still believe it's a good policy.

 

[JustOneWay]

There was no way Bush could not have squandered the goodwill of the world. Every other nation seemed to be getting oil bribes from Saddam. Of course they're mad we invaded, because a source of funds has been cut off.

I don't suppose that you can substantiate any of this with proof?

But Bush's job as President involves keeping us safe, not making us liked by the world.

So Bush's job is to keep us safe, and not liked? Bush has made the world dislike the US and they have become more afraid of the US. Making more enemies so he can make us feel safer?

After 9/11, he established the "Bush Doctrine", which is: we not only go after the terrorists themselves, but the states that sponsor the terrorists. I still believe it's a good policy.

Preemptive wars....a good reason to not like us.

 

[KomissarSteve]

There was no way Bush could not have squandered the goodwill of the world. Every other nation seemed to be getting oil bribes from Saddam.

I second JustOneWay's insistence that you either cite evidence or retract this assertion.

Of course they're mad we invaded, because a source of funds has been cut off.

What about nations that wouldn't have needed oil bribes, like Russia (the second-largest oil producer in the world)?

But Bush's job as President involves keeping us safe, not making us liked by the world.

Making us liked by the world keeps us safe.

After 9/11, he established the "Bush Doctrine", which is: we not only go after the terrorists themselves, but the states that sponsor the terrorists. I still believe it's a good policy.

Then tell us why it's a good policy. What successes can a Bush defender such as yourself cite for the so-called Bush Doctrine?