Will Bush be impeached??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The public turned against congress during the Clinton impeachment, and Clinton's popularity climbed during the ordeal. There's no reason to assume a Bush impreachment would be any different.

You are confusing form for essence. In a poll taken last year, 51% of the American public supported Congress looking in to impeachment. The difference is that Clinton was impeached over a blow job, which is what offended the American public. Americans were sick the Lewinsky scandal about a week after it happened, and try as they might, the MSM could never get us to care. We saw through the BS about perjury and abuse of power and everyone knew that the impeachment was nothing more than a power play to get Clinton and not about a serious abuse of authority by the POTUS.

This is different. He lied to Congress. He has abused our Constitutional rights. He has authorized torture and other crimes against humanity. He has committed war crimes. He was derelict in his duty to defend the United States. And on and on. Not only does he need to be removed from office. He needs to be imprisoned for life. Only because I don't believe in the DP, do I not think he should suffer the same fate as Hussein.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Afghanistan is too far and the terrorists weren't Afghans anyway, they came from Arabia. And Iraq becoming a mess justifies us staying there a long time which is exactly what "we" want because Iran and possibly Syria are on the list. Where would we go if Iraq had a stable gov't that asked us to leave? We need chaos because the terrorists need chaos, an efficient Iraqi gov't is an impediment to both the terrorists "freedom" to operate and our ability to attract them onto our battlefield. But how do you sell that argument to Americans? Hey, lets invade Iraq so the terrorists will follow! Dont sound all that moral...

Hmmm, if Berz and I agree it must be true.

[Whoha]

Re: Will Bush be impeached??

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Up until a week or two ago, I would have said, no way. But circumstances are rapidly changing.

Third, Republican defections. The Democrats are not strong enough to impeach Bush on their own--even if (1) and (2) come into full flower.

Unless the democrats want their base to stay home they will and actually they can impeach him, conviction is what requires the super majority.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I am continually amazed that folks on this board calling for Bush's impeachment learned nothing form the more recent Clinton impeachment. The backlash amongs moderates far outpaces any play to the base advantages for the prosecuting party.

If people want to make Bush (and by extension the GOP) a martyr this is the correct tack. If not simply allow him to fail on his own and reap the reward come 2008. Gore by all accounts should have won handily in 2000 had he simply embraced Clinton and played up the partisan GOP card. (Please don't go into a rehash that he actually won).

[chequita guevara]

Again, the backlash was not because of the impeachment per se but because the American people correctly saw it as nothing more than the partisan power play it was. Bush, unlike Clinton, has committed very serious crimes and endangered our rights, liberties, and our republic.

Also, something that bears repeating, in the last poll I saw, 51% of the American people supported Congress looking into impeachment, at the very least.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

By all means go ahead and proceed.

Let us all ensure that the cycle of spurious impeachment continues well into 2050.

[chequita guevara]

Spurious?

I personally don't care whether he's impeached or not. I'm not out to defend the American political system from itself. I would like to see Bush imprisoned for life for his crimes against humanity, but I have no wish to see the American system strengthened. Let him keep breaking down the constitutional system we have. That will make it easier for us.

[TCO]

Che...I think the first thing we need to do is correctly identify the left with espoused communists like you. Then the battle is won.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I am continually amazed that folks on this board calling for Bush's impeachment learned nothing form the more recent Clinton impeachment. The backlash amongs moderates far outpaces any play to the base advantages for the prosecuting party.

If people want to make Bush (and by extension the GOP) a martyr this is the correct tack. If not simply allow him to fail on his own and reap the reward come 2008. Gore by all accounts should have won handily in 2000 had he simply embraced Clinton and played up the partisan GOP card. (Please don't go into a rehash that he actually won).

The republicans didn't suffer a backlash from it, and I doubt the democrats would suffer a backlash.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

GOP lost 4 senate seats and 2 congressional seats in 2000.

It turned the Senate over to the Dems. Once Jeffords jumped they retained the senate majority until the 2002 election.

This despite the fact that these were following the golden era times of the feel good 90's thus favoring incumbancy.

[chequita guevara]

The GOP did suffer a backlash in two elections, but the Dem's were too cowed to exploit it in both '98 and 2000. The problem for the GOP in that instance was their blind hatred for Clinton and utter reliance on right-wing media sources only led them to believe that the majority of Americans cared as passionately about Clinton's hummer as they did. The MSM also had extensive coverage of it, but poll after poll showed that most Americans believed that it was important only in that it was distracting the government from doing its real job and that the GOP should let it go.

If, for example, the FBI uncovered evidence that Clinton had taken money from the Chinese, the GOP could have nailed his hide to the wall and seen an increase in legislative control, but instead they went after his sexual peccadilloes, which the majority of Americans believe is no one's business. They gravely miscalculated.

So to compare an impeachment of Bush and Clinton would be improper, unless the Dems sought to impeach him for having an affair with Rice.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You are confusing form for essence. In a poll taken last year, 51% of the American public supported Congress looking in to impeachment. The difference is that Clinton was impeached over a blow job, which is what offended the American public. Americans were sick the Lewinsky scandal about a week after it happened, and try as they might, the MSM could never get us to care. We saw through the BS about perjury and abuse of power and everyone knew that the impeachment was nothing more than a power play to get Clinton and not about a serious abuse of authority by the POTUS.

This is different. He lied to Congress. He has abused our Constitutional rights. He has authorized torture and other crimes against humanity. He has committed war crimes. He was derelict in his duty to defend the United States. And on and on. Not only does he need to be removed from office. He needs to be imprisoned for life. Only because I don't believe in the DP, do I not think he should suffer the same fate as Hussein.

Obviously the two situations are different, yes. But I'm assuming a couple of things:

1) More people are likely to approve of the idea of impeachment than of the actual fact of it -- even though the numbers and reasons are different, this is also what happened with Clinton. This is especially true because a recent poll showed that Dems have broad popular support for many aspects of their congressional agenda; if that agenda is sidelined by an impeachment, it will only alienate those voters who want the Dems to actually govern.

2) 51% is not exactly a ringing mandate for action as drastic as impeachment; it wouldn't take much for the majority to turn against impeachment, and I think pursuing impeachment instead of, say, improving the perscription drug laws (a Dem initiative with 70+% support) would probably tilt things in the other direction.

3) Americans are pragmatists; they like results and don't like empty gestures. Given that a 51-49 Senate is never, ever going to cast 67 votes to remove Bush from office, a House impeachment falls into the empty gesture category.

4) The Dems need to be pragmatists, too. They're in a position to solidify their control of both houses of Congress and take the White House in 2008, which they absolutely need to do (let's face it, John Paul Stevens can't live forever). Pitching all that in favor of a self-rigteous, feel-good exercise would be stupid, stupid, stupid. And, for once, the Dems actually seem to be smarter than that.

That's not to say impeachment wouldn't be eminently justified. But it's not worth it. Investigatory committees -- lots and lots of them, raking everyone they can over the coals -- is the way to go. Let God dole out the capital-J Justice, and let Congress get on with the business of actually trying to get the US back on track.

[Berzerker]

GOP lost 4 senate seats and 2 congressional seats in 2000.

Didn't the House actually vote to impeach and the Senate got stuck with the trial?

Does anybody know how they defined "misdemeanor" 200 years ago? Demeanor is behavior, conduct... Misdemeanor would seem to be a lesser offense than a high crime, like being a drunk and embarassing the country. Or lying about adultery under oath during a sexual harassment trial in which the Prez is the accused...

[Elok]

Originally posted by TCO
Che...I think the first thing we need to do is correctly identify the left with espoused communists like you. Then the battle is won.

I'm a moderate, I think Communism is idiotic, and I'd support driving GWB out of office, preferably with a hickory switch, if he weren't almost out of there anyway. The man is manifestly unfit for his office. I oppose giving him the boot mainly because it would distract from efforts to clean up the massive mess he left us. If he gets in the way of said efforts, we may have no choice but to give him the boot early, but it'd be best for the country if he just laid low and let the adults take care of things for the next two years.

So it's not just commies who want Bush out. Or was this just a troll on your part?

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Didn't the House actually vote to impeach and the Senate got stuck with the trial?

Yes, I do believe Article I of the Constitution, in Sections 2 (House) & 3 (Senate), says that the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment, and the Senate shall get stuck with the Trial.