News MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

[edward]

I don't know about the demographics of those who voted in this poll, but it appears that 87% want Bush to be impeached. I hope it isn't set up so people can vote twice or more. That would be too much like the 04 election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

I am not a Bush fan, but I don't think that impeachment would be good for the country at this point. Perhaps he could just go into rehab with Ann Coulter.

 

[turbo]

I think that impeachment would be a good thing for this country. Perhaps it would generate some unpleasantness in the short term, but it would serve as a reminder to arrogant jerks that if they are elected president they are not automatically the emperor or the king of this country. Bush has trampled on our rights, traditions, and constitution for years with NO oversight from the Republican dominated Congress. After 9-11, the majority of the country was willing to give him a lot of latitude to address terrorism and security issues. Instead, he used 9-11 as an excuse to rampage into Iraq (that had NOTHING to do with 9-11 despite Cheney's recent lies) and destabilize an oil-producing region for the benefit of his friends and donors. That alone justifies impeachment and he's been piling on offenses ever since. He is absolutely the worst president in our history - he makes Nixon look like a piker.

 

[Cyrus]

Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As Mclaughin loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.

 

[denverdoc]

Surely no one can honestly say that Bush's crimes against state haven't far exceeded any presidential hanky panky on Clinton's part. If nothing else it might recapture some credibility in the world that US democracy works. My concern is that it should be a double impeachment, (do we really want Cheney?) if it were to go to completion.

 

[edward]

Whats "not good for the country" about impeachment?

As loves to say, "bye byeeeeeeeeee"

I think impeachment is a great thing for the country. It shows that no one is above the law.

We are already in sh#t up to our ears. As much as I would like for it to happen, too many people who have other things to do would be tied up with an impeachment proceeding.

Now if we could impeach Bush/Cheney that would make it worth it.

 

[Cyrus]

And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.

 

[turbo]

And? Thats exactly why you should have an impeachment. What are they doing, they always do nothing anyways. They should do something for a change, instead of sitting back quietly like they always do.

Thank you, Cyrus! Our lawmakers ought to be working on our behalf instead of playing "wait and see" games with the parties and sucking up money from special interest groups. The offenses are public knowledge.

 

[loseyourname]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

 

[denverdoc]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

Perhaps, but it might serve notice to this lame duck president that he needs to get control of himself. Otherwise the implicit message is he can carry on as usual until the bitter end, a somewhat dangerous proposition IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

It's a little late to draw up impeachment proceedings. Bush is out of office in a year and a half, and the next round of presidential primaries is less than a year away.

They could still impeach him, and if convicted, disallow his pension and other benefits.

Probably won't happen though.

Bush can still pardon Libby and others who have violated the laws.

 

[mathwonk]

we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

we should blame the imbeciles who actually voted for him. no one has ever been so up front as bush about his opinions and lack of expertise. the public knew exactly what they were getting. that's what scares me. what hope is there when the electorate cannot recognize a total incompetent like george bush? of course this ignores the fact that he apparently stole the first election and was not really the choice of the majority.

For a long time I was more angry with US voters than Bush. I felt like the enemy has taken over the country; you know, people who support the use of torture and spying on innocent Americans. Yes, impeach him at any cost and no matter how long it takes. There is nothing more important; not even the war on terror. Bush has done far more damage than the terrorists of 911 did.

The actions of this administration cannot go unanswered. The Constitution and all that it stands for - the reason that people give their lives for this country - demands that Bush and Cheney be removed from office, and by force if needed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, that poll is meaningless. Clearly the people most motivated are most likely to vote. IIRC, over 30% of this nation still supports Bush.

 

[denverdoc]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

 

[ShawnD]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

Many of us are firmly convinced that any appearance of legality is only an illusion brought to you by a highly corrupt Republican party.

According to pollingreport.com, a nonpartisan compendium of polls, Bush's average approval rating for April 2007 is 34.6[%].[continued]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5696819

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is why it was so important when the Democrats took control of the Congress. Now they can now investigate the activities of this administration -hear testimony as with the fired attorneys, and subpoena documents and other witnesses. While the Republicans held control, there was no chance of legitimate investigations. For example, this whole Gonzales business never would have come up because the testimony that led to the hearings never would have been allowed.

 

[Mk]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

I want to say that is correct but I can't say for sure... I think that's what I heard as well.

Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.

 

[turbo]

Excuse me? Jimmy Carter has had the lowest in US history I believe. He may have been beat by Andrew Johnson, but he was even lower than Nixon after Watergate.

He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.

 

[BobG]

Ivan,
Do you know if thats(popularity rating) the lowest figure of its type since we began these polls?

Lowest was Harry Truman at 23%
Second lowest was Nixon at the time of his resignation: 24%
Carter was 28%
Bush I was 29%

Highest poll ratings by a President?

Bush II at 90% (right after 9/11)
Bush I at 89% (during Gulf War I)
Truman at 87% (right after FDR's death during final stages of WWII)
FDR at 84% (after Pearl Harbor)

Could be worse. In an Israeli poll, 3% would pick Olmert as Prime Minister ... with 3% margin of error.

 

[edward]

He may not have been wildly popular as president, but he is widely regarded as an honest and earnest president, who did his best to fulfill the duties of his office. The same cannot be said of "W".

Jimmy Carter advocates for world peace, monitors elections, and domestically helps build homes for poor people. When Bush leaves office, he will join the Carlisle Group with his father, suck up up money from energy and defense businesses and enrich himself under the tutelage of James Baker.

Ironically by current definition, Jimmy Carter was the only true born again Christian president in recent history. His greatest failing was that he thought people were as honest as he was, especially his CIA director GHW Bush.

 

[loseyourname]

What is required to impeach a president? Does the president need to break the law, or is it similar to a non confidence vote in other countries?

I don't particularly like Bush but it's hard to think of any valid reasons for impeaching him. Crap like the patriot act was done legally, so that's not it. I think the war in Iraq was also voted on and passed legally, so that ain't it.

It would need to be proven that he personally broke a law, which is probably impossible to do unless he either admits to it or gets ratted out by one of his top officials. It should be possible to prove that his administration broke many laws, but that isn't a ground for impeachment and in fact happens to almost every administration, though the current one is probably only matched by Harding's.

I would be pretty surprised if support was as low as 30%. He still has a lot of support from extremist christians, and they make up a very large chunk of the country; think 40% ballpark. On top of that you need to add the "git er done" crowd who are not evangelical, and that might bump it up to around 50%, just like it was in the past 2 elections.

30% disapprove of him, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him. That all depends on who he is running against. If they approve of him more than they do of the other guy, he'll get the vote without having any meaningful level of approval.

 

[mathwonk]

but who would do something to get rid of him? when i waS YOUNG I pUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE TO END THE WAR IN VIETNAM, now i don't even want to risk my retirement plan.

and sadly, the younger generation is pretty much the same.

none of us really wants to risk much. we do it when there is a reason. the move to a volunteer army was the primary smart move to reduce opposition to war.

when i was a kid i learned that draft deferments were granted to students and clergy to reduce their opposition to war.

now we have granted essentially everyone deferments, which removes almost all opposition to war. there was an antiwar demonstration at my campus friday, and not one person from my class went to it, even though i granted everyone immunity.

in fact even the one kid who helped organize it didn't show up. he said he didn't have a car and his ride didn't come.

 

[ShawnD]

Just to throw this out there again but maybe his approval is the same as during the election if you account for low voter turnout. Say maybe 60% of people vote, he wins with 50% of the vote (this part is true), that would leave 30% of the country wanting him in.

I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president; I would go as far as saying most people don't support their current governments simply because most people did not vote for the current government. For example, Canada's current government won with a minority lead meaning they won less than 50% of all seats (there's more than 2 parties). Even if you said Canada had a 100% voter turnout, that still leaves the majority of the country not liking the current prime minister. Should we impeach him simply because he's not popular? No. He may not be popular, but he's the most popular.

 

[edward]

I'm not trying to thread crap, I'm just thinking that his support was never exactly high. An impeachment process shouldn't start just because the vast majority of people don't like the president;

Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.

 

[Astronuc]

One cannot impeach a president or federal/state official for being unpopular.

One can impeach a president or federal/state official for criminal misconduct, or various offenses (e.g. high crimes and misdemeanors), as prescribed by the appropriate legal documents.

To proceed with impeachment requires the initiation by a member of the appropriate government institution. Anyone in the population can claim that a president or government official has committed some act which would subject that president or official to impeachment. Various people have already drafted 'articles of impeachment' against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, . . ., however it is up to member of Congress to act upon one or any of those charges.

The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.

 

[ShawnD]

The other side of that is that members of congress may be reluctant to rush into impeachment based on political considerations, e.g. aspirations of being president themselves or stability of the government, or lack of support in the general population, or lack of substantial evidence.

That's why multiple party countries (Canada) try to avoid non confidence votes. Sure the conservative government in Canada could be thrown out, but the amount of hatred towards the party(s) responsible for causing another election would probably make them lose seats overall. I think back in the earlier 1900s prime minister McKenzie's government had to call an election due to a non confidence vote, and the result was that he got re-elected, but with an even stronger government than he had before (he won more seats). The same thing could very easily happen to the republican party in the US if the democrats can't come up with a better candidate. Impeach bush and some other neocon will take his place; no real gains there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.

 

[Astronuc]

The subpoenas have only just begun. Many of us will remember that not that long before he left office, no one believed Nixon would go down. And he was never even tried for a crime.

Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

IIRC, the president enjoys some immunity from prosecution, even after leaving office, for acts committed while serving as president.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

I think Nixon shows us that given a smoking gun, things can happen very quickly. In his case it wasn't even necessary to go through the impeachment or trial. And Bush is far worse than Nixon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What gets me the most is how much is right up front

...Bush has indicated that he does not intend to enforce laws or parts of laws or whatever he thinks interferes with his powers as president. In effect, he's vetoing Congress without vetoing," Greco said.

In doing so, Greco said, Bush is denying Congress its authority to enact laws and exercise oversight of the executive branch, "because there's no veto to override."

I asked Greco for his response to the contention of some Bush supporters that the signing statements merely comment on the laws being enacted and are not a vow to ignore them at will. I asked: Are the signing statements more of a theoretical than actual threat to the separation of powers?

"The proof is what he's doing," Greco replied. He cited Bush's signing statement to the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Defense Department appropriations bill, which prohibits the torture of prisoners. Bush added the caveat that as commander in chief he can waive the torture ban if he thinks harsh interrogation techniques are needed to prevent terrorist attacks. [continued]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150967122583

Time and time again Bush has acted as if above the law. Only now can we actually investigate all that has occurred over the last six years. But they must act quickly, that's for sure. I also now believe that the power of the Presidency must be significantly curtailed. It seems that given the right conditions, one can nearly rise to the level of a dictator.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.

Congress gave the vote to goto war so if you want to impeach Bush on these terms we need to impeach several sitting members of congress, and arrest and try several members that are no longer in office.

What part of the Constitution did Bush try to erase and other things. As far as I can see and several other people have stated everything his administration has done has been legal.

Where as our 110th congress has been the "do nothing" congress that got in on a pack of empty promises. With there endless investigations, non binding garbage, armchair quarterbacking, trying to take powers that are not theres, stabbing our troops in the back, ,and appeasement to a very dangerous enemy that wants to put the entire world back to the late 13th century. There doing all of this for what? So they can look good in the 2008 presidential election. This political garbage is what is killing this country, not G.W.B.

 

[denverdoc]

Twilight zone post. Sure all politicians are opportunists, its in their blood. Would they have collectively decided invasion was a good thing w/o pressure?
I doubt it. The problm in this country is appearing weak. There was lots of rage going about, and GWB figured out how to harness it, as have many past presidents. He lied about a connection to Iraq and sucked the media into the drumbeat for war for ulterior motives, and has repeatedly desecrated the constitution and checks/balances to say nothing of a thumb in the nose for any other decision vs his own, whether by treaty, his own joint chiefs, the american public, various world bodies... Reminds me of Cho, a man who has never been able to succeed and has a bunch of rage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, Congress only knew what they were told.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Ok let's look at the Bush and his administration purposely lied to congress and the American public about the WMD's in Iraq, and the terrorist connection.

First with the WMD claim, Saddam used various toxic gases in his war with Kuwait and Iran. If he had and was willing to use them once he would have no problem having and using a second time. Plus there was the fact that Saddam would not allow UN inspectors the free reign to look where they wanted to. Plus the fact that there are several nations that granted were enemy's of the Saddam regime, would probably jump at the opportunity to get WMD's and are not a friend of the USA, and would also rejoice at the opportunity to make the US look bad on the international stage. If it looks like a dead fish, smells like a dead fish, then it is a dead fish and not a rose.

As for the terrorist connection, I never thought that was as an important point so i never really looked into it. However I am willing to believe the information provided by the Bush administration. I'm willing to do this because of my third point.

My third point is that the information that we had at the beginning of the war was accurate for several reasons. First as several of you point out you think that the Bush administration is full of a bunch of blundering lying dolts that can't figure out the difference between their heads and a hole in the ground. For any administration to pull off the kind of deceit and forgery that is being suggested you would need some very sharp, savvy, and cunning people. Hardly the picture some people want to associate with GWB, so please make up your minds. Second for that big of a conspiracy to of taken place you'd of needed many people (up wards of 100 by my guess) all willing to keep there collective mouth shut. I think this would of been possible 50 some odd years ago but not today in our Internet blog-o-sphere society. Conspiracy's like that only happen today on the silver and/or TV screen, and are always unraveled by the end of the movie or session.

 

[edward]

Congress gave the vote to goto war so if you want to impeach Bush on these terms we need to impeach several sitting members of congress, and arrest and try several members that are no longer in office.

Actually congrss gave Bush the vote to go to war only if diplomacy failed. Bush never tried diplomacy . Hans Blix peaded for more time for weapons inspections, but then Blix could not have found what was not there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html

What part of the Constitution did Bush try to erase and other things. As far as I can see and several other people have stated everything his administration has done has been legal.

Only diehard Bush supporters are stating this, especially the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.



Note that this video mentions the 2006 election as slowing down any investigations. The investigations have now begun and that is what this thread is all about.

Where as our 110th congress has been the "do nothing" congress that got in on a pack of empty promises.

That is entirely your opinion. As for my opinion the 109 was a do nothing rubber stamp congress. Well you they did debate the Terri Shiavo case.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=272311

 

[Cyrus]

As for the Impeachment. Again, I don't care if its fair. My objective is to remove him from office because of his epic performance. He has absolutely ruined our country, our status and our prestigue around the world.

You want a real reason? When the country has the biggest natural disaster in US history and he takes days to respond to the incident, meanwhile American citizens are stranded in their homes while dead bodies float around them. That, if nothing else, should be reason to Impeach him.

Bush is 100% incompetent.


*NOTE- This is a response from a closed thread that didnt get merged to Argentum Vulpes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Parallel discussion linked to this thread from
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166744

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

As for the Impeachment. Again, I don't care if its fair. My objective is to remove him from office because of his epic performance. He has absolutely ruined our country, our status and our prestigue around the world.

You want a real reason? When the country has the biggest natural disaster in US history and he takes days to respond to the incident, meanwhile American citizens are stranded in their homes while dead bodies float around them. That, if nothing else, should be reason to Impeach him.

Bush is 100% incompetent.


*NOTE- This is a response from a closed thread that didnt get merged to Argentum Vulpes.

Ok I will give you a bit of points for the Katrina disaster. The blending of FEMA into the office of Homeland security was a good idea on paper but we all see what the result was. However New Orleans had many problems that are not Bush's or FEMA's fault. What do people expect when they build a city that is below sea level, and not up to snuff of a category 5 storm. Also if it rains on my 4th of July parade I'm not going to blame the President for it. If an earthquake levels LA, or a tornado blows most of Oklahoma off of the map, or up state New York get burred under 20 ft. of snow I'm not blaming the president. The office doesn't have power over the weather.

As for the terrorist not being active anywhere other then Europe, the ME and the US. What about the Philippines, Darfur, or the disputed area of Kashmir? Also thanks for your response I will have to go back and check some of my cold war period history. It did give me something to think about and either confirm or debase in my own thoughts.*

*Note this was a response Cyrusabdollahi response also in a closed but not merged thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok I will give you a bit of points for the Katrina disaster. The blending of FEMA into the office of Homeland security was a good idea on paper but we all see what the result was. However New Orleans had many problems that are not Bush's or FEMA's fault. What do people expect when they build a city that is below sea level, and not up to snuff of a category 5 storm. Also if it rains on my 4th of July parade I'm not going to blame the President for it. If an earthquake levels LA, or a tornado blows most of Oklahoma off of the map, or up state New York get burred under 20 ft. of snow I'm not blaming the president. The office doesn't have power over the weather.

Ah, no. I am not blaming Bush on the weather. I am blaming him for his lack of leadership when he was needed most as a leader in a time of national crisis. I don't care if it was 100 feet below sea level, that's not the point. The point is that he did next to nothing. HE is the president of the United States, and if he wants to have a vacation during a national crisis he deserves impeachment.

I find that most Bush supporters blame everyone except Bush. You blame FEMA, you blame the person that leaked plames name out. Who is the boss of all these people? BUSH. Time and time again, one scandal after another happens under his watch. This leads to only one conclusion, he is either (1) not in charge and can't control his own people or (2) he is incompetent. Either way, he deserves to go. I don't care if it was everyones fault under him and never his fault. By default, he gets the blame because he's an ineffective leader. It does not have to be explicitly his fault. If you want to say that's not fare, well, life is not fair. You do a bad job, and as Donald Trump says, "You're Fired!

 

[Cyrus]

What about the Philippines, Darfur, or the disputed area of Kashmir?

(1) Kashmir is between India and Pakistan. A hot zone and land dispute. Goes right to what I said, "get off our land". Also, that has nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with the bad blood between Muslims and Hindus in India. Thats why Pakistan broke away from India and formed its own country. Not related to terrorism, sorry.

(2) Also, Darfur (which I am I know somewhat about but not a whole lot), as far as I am aware, is NOT about terrorism. Its about genocide between two rival groups. So again, this is not a terrorism taking over the world issue. Thats a different story.

(3) As for the Philippines, I do know of some terrorist incidents that occured, but I am not aware as to the reasons behind those bombings. I don't recall them being because anyone wanted to convert the Philippines to an Islamic state.

 

[loseyourname]

Ah, no. I am not blaming Bush on the weather. I am blaming him for his lack of leadership when he was needed most as a leader in a time of national crisis. I don't care if it was 100 feet below sea level, that's not the point. The point is that he did next to nothing. HE is the president of the United States, and if he wants to have a vacation during a national crisis he deserves impeachment.

Bad and incompetent leadership isn't grounds for impeachment, and neither is presiding over an administration that breaks the law. The Constitution and precedent is pretty clear that he needs to personally break a law, and it needs to be provable that he did so. Getting rid of him because he's a bad president would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote, which our system just doesn't provide for. This isn't like coaching a basketball team, where if you fail to meet the requirements of the position, you're gone at any team your employer feels fit to get rid of you. We get one chance, at the end of the first term, to get rid of the guy for incompetence, and we didn't do it. That's the only chance we get. After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

 

[Art]

After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

I didn't think a law needed to be broken? I thought 'abuse of power' and 'serious misconduct' are considered valid grounds for impeachment? In fact wasn't the first successful impeachment for a judge for his bizarre rulings; not in itself technically a crime.

Also president Andrew Johnston was impeached (though unsucessfully) for purely partisan motives.

 

[Manchot]

First with the WMD claim, Saddam used various toxic gases in his war with Kuwait and Iran. If he had and was willing to use them once he would have no problem having and using a second time. Plus there was the fact that Saddam would not allow UN inspectors the free reign to look where they wanted to. Plus the fact that there are several nations that granted were enemy's of the Saddam regime, would probably jump at the opportunity to get WMD's and are not a friend of the USA, and would also rejoice at the opportunity to make the US look bad on the international stage. If it looks like a dead fish, smells like a dead fish, then it is a dead fish and not a rose.

Yeah, he used mustard gas and sarin two decades ago. However, Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors themselves said that he had no WMDs, so why didn't we believe them? Instead, we chose to believe the rantings of an alcoholic informant who had been known to sell false information for a quick buck, even after an experienced diplomat traveled to the country accused of selling yellowcake and found that the alleged document was completely inconsistent with the truth, even filled with spelling errors. It's no question that the CIA knew all of this; the only question is whether Bush did. (And no, the Congress certainly didn't: they only had the evidence affirming a Saddam nuclear program, and none of the mountains of evidence against it.)

As for desiring a WMD program, so what? He country had been under sanctions for years, and couldn't have possibly gained even the raw materials.

My third point is that the information that we had at the beginning of the war was accurate for several reasons. First as several of you point out you think that the Bush administration is full of a bunch of blundering lying dolts that can't figure out the difference between their heads and a hole in the ground. For any administration to pull off the kind of deceit and forgery that is being suggested you would need some very sharp, savvy, and cunning people. Hardly the picture some people want to associate with GWB, so please make up your minds. Second for that big of a conspiracy to of taken place you'd of needed many people (up wards of 100 by my guess) all willing to keep there collective mouth shut. I think this would of been possible 50 some odd years ago but not today in our Internet blog-o-sphere society. Conspiracy's like that only happen today on the silver and/or TV screen, and are always unraveled by the end of the movie or session.

I think you overestimate the work required to go into Iraq under false pretenses. All of the facts are out there. The critical point here is that Bush and Cheney have plausible deniability. The only people who truly know whether they believed what they told the American people is them. As a result, any case against them in court would never hold up.

 

[Cyrus]

Bad and incompetent leadership isn't grounds for impeachment, and neither is presiding over an administration that breaks the law. The Constitution and precedent is pretty clear that he needs to personally break a law, and it needs to be provable that he did so. Getting rid of him because he's a bad president would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote, which our system just doesn't provide for. This isn't like coaching a basketball team, where if you fail to meet the requirements of the position, you're gone at any team your employer feels fit to get rid of you. We get one chance, at the end of the first term, to get rid of the guy for incompetence, and we didn't do it. That's the only chance we get. After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

No, I don't think that's entirely true. You can set a presidence by impeaching him on incompetance as a warning to future presidents that fail to do their job. Where does it say he has to break a law? He can break a law, or he can have a high misdemeanor. A high misdemeanor would be subject to interpretation by the congress.

I see no reason why we should not impeach him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_misdemeanor

The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior. The standard for impeachment of members of the legislature is/would be the same as the Executive standard, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


Nothing would make my day more than to see Bush impeached. I don't care if he has one day left, its the symbolism that the entire country gets justice for this guys stupidity. If clinton had a trial for a blow job, Bush should have had 10 impeachments by now for his actions.

 

[BobG]

I didn't think a law needed to be broken? I thought 'abuse of power' and 'serious misconduct' are considered valid grounds for impeachment? In fact wasn't the first successful impeachment for a judge for his bizarre rulings; not in itself technically a crime.

Also president Andrew Johnston was impeached (though unsucessfully) for purely partisan motives.

Johnson was accused of illegally replacing his Secretary of War. Congress was using the logic that a cabinet member that requires Senate confirmation to be hired also requires Senate approval to be fired.

That's a huge stretch and the impeachment was definitely motivated by politics rather than an actual crime. Regardless, one more vote for guilty during the impeachment would have forced Johnson out of office. It's not something Johnson could have appealed to Supreme Court.

In fact, having the Supreme Court decide a President's acts were illegal does nothing aside from making it public record that the President has violated his authority under the Constitution. Andrew Jackson just ignored Supreme Court rulings he didn't like. When the Supreme Court ruled Georgia couldn't impose its laws on Cherokee lands, Jackson replied, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Having a President ignore the Supreme Court probably makes it a lot easier for Congress to impeach a President without alienating the folks that vote for Congress. In fact, it could raise public outcry enough that Congress would be silly not to impeach.

Still, Congress is pretty much the only "decider" of whether the President has committed a crime or not. An impeachable offense is whatever they say an impeachable offense is.

 

[russ_watters]

You can set a presidence by impeaching him on incompetance as a warning to future presidents that fail to do their job.

Is that a precedent you really want to set? You really want a "no confidence" vote? That's a huge change in the power structure of the government.

If clinton had a trial for a blow job, Bush should have had 10 impeachments by now for his actions.

Clinton's trial was for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both, crimes. I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

 

[Art]

I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

How about for illegal wire taps and obstruction of justice, his latest being obstructing the congressional hearing into the sacking of the DA's

 

[turbo]

Clinton's trial was for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both, crimes. I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

Bush lied about intelligence on Iraq to start a war. He has the blood of 100's of thousands of people on his hands, and has damaged (irreparably, at least in the short-term) our standing in the world. His minions outed a CIA NOC (the most expensive, extensive, and complicated cover that they can manufacture, with the most personal risk for the operative) who was tasked with uncovering and preventing transactions in WMDs. They did this when her husband reported that there was no evidence to support their fabricated story that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Bush et al have unilaterally withdrawn the US from participation in the Geneva conventions without Congressional approval, so that they can kidnap people with unpopular political views, torture them, and hold them indefinitely without charges and no access to our legal system. There are many more transgressions. These are sufficient. We have war criminals at the highest levels of our government, and they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers in the pursuit of their war for profit. When Bush's term ends, there will be pardons all around and all the players will retreat into "private" life to collect their blood-money from the corporations that profit from this war. Our country was founded on higher principles and we should not tolerate this perversion of human rights perpetrated by the present administration.