Will Bush be impeached??

[TCO]

Originally posted by Elok


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?

It's just interesting to me how the left says that they are not communist. Even wants to rewrite history and say that they were anti-communist during the 80s (when they gave Reagan grief with unilateral disarmament proposals). But really they snuggle up to avowed communists right here on this board.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's just interesting to me how the right says that they are not fascist. Even wants to rewrite history and say that they were anti-fascist during the 40s (when they gave Franklin Roosevelt grief with the New Deal). But really they snuggle up to avowed fascists right here on this board.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's just interesting to me how the right says that they are not fascist. Even wants to rewrite history and say that they were anti-fascist during the 40s (when they gave Franklin Roosevelt grief with the New Deal). But really they snuggle up to avowed fascists right here on this board.

Lame.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed... it was lame the first time around, so the parody will necessarily be lame as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's just interesting to me how the right says that they are not fascist. Even wants to rewrite history and say that they were anti-fascist during the 40s (when they gave Franklin Roosevelt grief with the New Deal). But really they snuggle up to avowed fascists right here on this board.

they gave FDR grief over the new deal in the '30s. During the 40s President New Deal became President Win the War.

If youre gonna try to be funny about history, get your dates right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


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.

Duh. Guev has elsewhere expressed his disdain for the Democratic Party. Is unreasonable to think that the polticcal damage impeachment would do to the Democrats is not a bug, but a feature?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I stand corrected... though, of course, the Supreme Court would later declare the act to be unconstitutional in the first place.

Oh, and besides, one of the charges that the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton on was "abuse of power". However, that article of impeachment failed to gain the requisite number of votes. I'm sure lying to Congress about the reasons for a war falls under the "abuse of power" charge.

And interestingly enough, the first use of impeachment was in 1802 when the Congress impeached District Court Judge John Pickering for the high crime and misdemeanor of "chronic intoxication".

Judges are appointed for life tenure, subject to "good behavior" not high crimes and misdemeanors, as I thought we all heard quite clearly during the 1998 and 1999 (but then maybe you didnt - were you one of the impeachment supporters then?) The standards for impeaching a president are higher than for impeaching a judge.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was a travesty. I thought the Senate, and the public, put a stake through the heart of that temptation.

[Zkribbler]

BTW: The official rumor is that new Tuesday, Bush will announce he is sending a "troop surge" to Iraq. This will satify Prerequisite 2 of my three-prerequisits necessary to impeach and convict:

1) Legal figleaf (we still need a smoking gun of some "high crime or misdemeanor")
2) Bonehead political move which totally alienates the nation and provides the true motiviation (here, sending more troops into the Iraq fiasco)
3) Mass defection by Republicans, who abandon Bush to save their own political hides.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed... it was lame the first time around, so the parody will necessarily be lame as well.

Sequels are almost always lamer than the originals.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Duh. Guev has elsewhere expressed his disdain for the Democratic Party. Is unreasonable to think that the polticcal damage impeachment would do to the Democrats is not a bug, but a feature?

Not so much a feature as much as I don't care if the Dems get hurt or not. It's like this whole, "Ford helped the nation get past Watergate" thing that has been ejaculated all over the MSM lately, ignoring the fact that by failing to root out the criminal acts then has resulted in decades more criminal acts by imperial presidents. Sewing up an unclean wound doesn't help it to heal. It causes gangrene.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Obviously the two situations are different, yes. But I'm assuming a couple of things:

Four is not a couple.

[q]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.[/i]

At no point did a majority of the American people favor an impeachment of Clinton. Right now, a slim majority favor the investigation of the President.

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,

That assumes, probably correctly, that the American people are fickle and don't care about their country or justice. On the other hand, however, if an investigation showed wanton disregard for the law and the rights of Americans by the POTUS, I'm not sure that people would suddenly get impeachment fatigue and turn on the Democrats (not that I care). More likely, if serious law breaking and threats to their rights were shown, they would be pushing for the POTUS' removal.

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.

You are forgetting that investigations would be held, and they would uncover many unsavory things that many people don't want to believe are true. Many people were opposed to impeaching Nixon right up to the end, when things switched very rapidly as the evidence came to light.

4) The Dems need to be pragmatists, too.

Cuz this has been such a winning strategy. That's what those ****ers said about voting to fund the war in Iraq too. This is why you Democrats suck. Because you compromise your principles, justice, and the Republic because you are trying to curry favor with the public. You refuse to stand for anything and so people don't trust you to stand up for them. The GOP may be stupid and evil but at least they stand for something. The Dems are just stupid.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, in my sig, which I've had for over a year it says ITMFA which stands for, Impeach the Mother F***** Already

[Impaler[WrG]]

ZK: I dont see #1 as very important, any thing can be cooked up if he is unpopular enough. If #2 happens and precipitates #3 then I would see a Bi-partisan blocking of war-funding happening before impeachment. Republicans could defuse the crisis caused by #2 and distance themselves from him without going all the way to (tasitly) allowing an impeachment. I cant see even moderate republicans switching to active support for impeachment no matter what Bush dose ( or perhaps I just don't want to think about anything THAT bad )

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Che, the point is not to let Bush off the hook. The point is that there shouldn't be recourse to impeachment until its clear that there is overwhelming public support for it. Your analogy to Nixon, which you seem to be trying to use to refute me, actually makes my case: the Dems spent two years painstakingly investigating his crimes before they tiptoed toward impeachment. That's how it should happen now.

And, yes, the Right Thing be damned. I'm sick to death of being ruled by the evil f*ckers who've been in power for the last six years, and if pushing them out of power means compromising principles, so be it. You're right that being pragmatic without standing for something is how the Dems got where they are; but standing for something without being pragmatic is how the Left got where it is, and that's one small, cold, lonely place.

[Berzerker]

the Dems spent two years painstakingly investigating his crimes before they tiptoed toward impeachment. That's how it should happen now.

The nature of the Watergate crime was hidden, there aint much hidden about the Bu****es lying us into a war...now...