Any chance of Impeaching Bush?

Do you think Bush could be impeached?

Is it possible to penalize after he's left office?

 

1. Yes, he could.
2. After he is in office, he is subject to laws just like anyone else. Impeachment has no purpose and would not be an option after he left office.

This is pointless anyway. He will not be impeached. He will serve until the end of his term and then, thankfully, the United States can move forward and put his Presidency behind us.

 

I agree. I'd rather have seen him thrown out years ago. Hopefully we learn our less, but I doubt it.

Here's an article on it. I wonder why it took so long...

Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney

 

McGovern's op ed was horrible. I can make a much better case for impeachment off the top of my head. I was very un-impressed reading it when it came out.

I think there are probably impeachable offenses committed, but I would be against starting an impeachment proceeding at this time. I don't think the country would benefit, in fact, I think it would severely hurt the chances to turn a corner after this election.

 

There's no case against him.

He hasn't acted above the law. Everything he did had to pass through the proper channels.

So in any hearing for something Bush did, every member of congress in the majority that agreed with the president would also face hearings.

Every member of congress had all the same information that the president did. If they want to claim they were lied to then they have to explain to the country why they didn't do their homework before voting. Ignorance is no defense.

If the Iraq war is illegal then every congress person who voted for it is as guilty as the president. If the PATRIOT ACT is treasonous then every congress person who voted for it is guilty of treason.

"Torture" is a very vague term. Not only has the CIA used waterboarding for a long time, they have a whole process of increasing difficulty. You'd have to prove that waterboarding was not used until Bush came into office. Otherwise, accusing Bush of anything regarding it would require prosecution for former presidents as well.

 

I think you're right. I don't know that the public has much of a stomach for the mud that it would stir up.

I know that he's skirted the law and used a lot of loopholes to get what he wanted, but I'm not sure about impeachable offenses. I think Reagan had done more questionable things in his time, but Reagan was an absolute genius compared to Bush. I think that Bush and his actions only show that the President should have limited authority. The checks and balances have a reason to which Bush/Chaney have removed many of them.

 

Facinating quote

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

That's a wee bit different than waterboarding an enemy combatant or member of a military. It wasn't until Vietnam when the practice was made public that a US soldier was tossed out of the Army for doing it. It was common practice at the time and yet only one soldier was kicked out of the army.

Seems to me the government has never had a problem using the technique as long as it wasn't done on civilians and the public didn't know about it.

Such as?

 

Kalvin,

So far you have raised 3 issues that I don't even think are the basis for impeachment. So I am not sure what the point is of arguing with yourself.

the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and Waterboarding are not the impeachable offenses in my mind.

Ignoring the 4th Amendment to the Constitution by authorizing warrantless wire taps and bypassing the FISA Court is just one example of what I consider an impeachable offense.

 

I get a laugh every time I hear kids say "impeach Bush" - all you have to do is ask "for what?"

I sure don't agree with everything he has done, but there isn't a thing he can be impeached for unless we change something in the constitution, but maybe that's what they want - to edit the constitution for their BDS.

 

You may be right, but only on technicalities. The people around him however have a lot more dirt on them.

 

So we impeach congress? then what?

 

Good question. What do you think?

This is all covered in the Declaration of Independence.

 

I was actually joking, at the same time I wouldn't mind impeaching them all if it didn't cost money. Again, just like Bush most would be impeachable, since there isn't anything as a whole they did. Although, it seems they all are involved in outside illegal activities.

 

Click on Watch Online, in the upper right to watch it for free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/etc/synopsis.html

That's what I'm talking about.

 

You might find this article interesting.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/03/060703fa_fact1


Like most New Yorker articles, it is well written but far too long. . . but worth the read.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that the wiretaps issue was Constitutional.

So are you saying you understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court?

Perfectly within the bounds of international law. Bush didn't invent that term. It's just very rare to have an enemy that fits the definition since most wars involve countries.

Because terrorists do not wear a uniform and do not fight for a country or have a system of leadership they are not protected by the laws that protect POWs, etc. They also fight and hide within the civilian population which further limits their rights under international law and our own laws.

So seriously, give me a specific example of something Bush did that was unconstitutional. I'm not going to waste my time drudging through a bunch of baseless accusations.

 

Yeah, it's one of the few scholarly newspapers in the US. As you said, well written, but long.

I'll read it tonight.

 

No I am not saying I understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court.

However, my opinion on what is constitutional is no less valid than their opinions are.

The Supreme Court makes rulings, sometimes they are 5-4 and that becomes the law of the land. Don't you understand that different people have different beliefs in what the words mean and how they apply to various factual circumstances?

 

Your opinion may be valid but it holds no weight.

The supreme court justices have studied and practiced law their whole life. That makes them more qualified to rule on things pertaining to law.