OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

The headline may be a bit extreme, but it represents a growing theme we will be seeing over the coming months. Few can deny the increasing level of controversies and doubt surrounding President Bush and several members of his administration including Vice President Dick Cheny. We're on the verge of a flood of articles in mainstream media proclaiming "Bush is the worst President ever" in one way or another. Among the first is a piece from someone with a bit of experience.

VanityFair.com

Senate Hearings on Bush, Now
BY CARL BERNSTEIN

Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.

John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.

This is a serious issue that demands national debate. The call for impeachment is a serious call, not to be taken lightly. However, with recent White House rhetoric including the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike on another nation, we need to send a strong and clear message that the time for accountability is past due.

I'd like to open the "floor" so to speak to a lively discussion of this issue among ATS members. Where do you stand on this is issue?

May I proppose a question?

WHY!!???

Why is this up for "serious" discussion?

Disagreeing with policy is not justification for impeachment.

Domestic Spying? Half the population agrees and disagrees.

Iraq? Congress said ok so impeach the whole government?

So please share with us the unwashed masses why this deserves anything beyond scoffing.

Good points, but the reason it calls for "serious" discussion, is because it is being thrown around so much.

The discussion can be about why people are talking about impeachment and how it makes no sense.

or...

The discussion can be about why people are talking about impeachment and how it makes sense.

You have a lot of people calling for impeachment. Rolling Stone is even got a cover with the President on it calling him the worst President ever. Well, lets find out. Is he really? Did he really commit crimes? The wire tapping, I dont know. Iraq war? My opinion would be yes.

crmanager, I agree. There is nothing absolute that Bush can be impeached on, although that 'John Dean' argument sounds damn intresting. I'll be looking into that.

inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington

What is that supposed to mean? Is this article stating that there are files that will bring down the Bush presidency? Why not just say that? To leave his options open? He should not need to keep his options open if there is rock-hard evidence of *whatever*. Or am I just chasing my own tail here?

But I believe that this warrants further debate, and a lot of it. (possibly more structured than all the other crap posted in the past years, hmm?).

I would not know where to begin, though. I'm no political analyst.

Wow ...nearing 50 percent at polls...
Wouldn't it have been better if 100 percent of Americans had their say?

Why is it that people can whinge about Bush and his administration when more than 60 percent of the polling population didn't vote?

Maybe apathy in the American conscience can take a back seat and people finally take an interest in who is going to govern the the worlds most powerful nation to the benefit of themselves and the rest of the world!

If people want to know why the president should be impeached, they'll have to do some reading. The people's opinion polls mean nothing. Impeachment is an investigation into alleged illegal behavior of the president and this administration. It needs to take place. The House of Representatives needs to charge this administration with the crimes alleged and see what comes out of it.

crmanager, you ask why. Here's why.

The Four Reasons
Bush's Impeachable Offenses

It doesn't matter whether you or the population agrees or not. This is not a popularity contest, it's an official, formal investigation and it's the only way to tell whether or not the president has committed impeachable offenses.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It doesn't matter whether you or the population agrees or not. This is not a popularity contest, it's an official, formal investigation and it's the only way to tell whether or not the president has committed impeachable offenses.

Your right in one aspect, but in another aspect, a move to impeach is politically motivated. Case in point: the Clinton impeachment--the Republicans pushed for it. In the case of a possible Bush impeachment--it will amount to the Democrats politically motivated enough to push for it.

For me, the issue is not that it is "official," or a determination to see if there was wrong doing or not. It is a matter the Democrats having the political will and motivation to push for impeachment proceedings.






seekerof

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Considering the market volatility lately and the metals spiking then selling off, something big is rolling under the surface.

Five civil rights groups, business leaders join suit seeking to stop wiretaps

Novak breaks ranks with President Bush:



Big list here of possible violations of US laws, civil rights, and international laws:
Bush’s Impeachment As Serial Law Violator

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Few can deny the increasing level of controversies and doubt surrounding President Bush and several members of his administration including Vice President Dick Cheny. We're on the verge of a flood of articles in mainstream media proclaiming "Bush is the worst President ever" in one way or another. Among the first is a piece from someone with a bit of experience.

Virtually all of the above is because of all the negative news coverage by the media.

Now if they would print more positive stories that could change in an instant, but wait the media will not do that they are on a roll and get their jollies by printing only the negative news.

Now I ask you why if you or anyone feels Bush should be impeached, why hasn't senate/congress started the process? My guess would be the legal experts feel there is/are insufficient grounds.

I don't think its so much the legalities, but the political strength and will needed to begin impeachment proceedings.

I also doubt the media is filtering out the positive news. Certainly the White House would be tooting its own horn and I'm not hearing anything upbeat from them. In fact, several administrative figures have recently left or resigned.

Originally posted by shots

Now I ask you why if you or anyone feels Bush should be impeached, why hasn't senate/congress started the process? My guess would be the legal experts feel there is/are insufficient grounds.

Keep in mind that you've got a GOP controlled Legislative Branch. Hencequently, you are unlikely to see any impeachment proceedings occurring until/unless there is a party shift in Congress in November.

The lack of activity on this front does not, by any means, indicate that a crime has not been committed or impeachment is not due. In expecting that a GOP controlled congress would begin impeachment proceedings against a GOP President, I would imagine that you think that the third base coach should help the fielders to catch a grounder and throw out his own hitter. Not likely.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by chaosrain]

My vote is for impeachment.I would recommend an early vote for the next president.Because as soon as Bush gets impeached Cheney would be in charge and we would have to impeach him too.


[edit on 20-4-2006 by Illusory]

Just an observation. Let us for the moment assume that articles of Impeachment come before the Senate for consideration. That'll be two consecutive presidents. This tells us much about the state of American politics, and ain't none of it good.

Rampant corruption crossing party lines, neither party can claim anything even resembling the moral high ground. It's time for American's to reclaim the political process.

I've supported Mr. Bush, as many of you know, even with the more than occaisional misgivings. My misgivings were occaisioned more by the people around him, than by the man himself. It's only been in the past few weeks that I've began to have serious doubts about him.

I'm not even sure how to explain these misgivings...it is nothing concrete that I can quote, or link to. It's just a feeling. His refusal to see that several of his key "henchmen" are incompetant boobs. SecDef Rumsfeld, amongst them. It's a good thing that his term is over in two years, unfortunately, we're replacing him with what? More of the same. A member in good standing with Americas power elite, a corrupt or corruptable puppet.

If ever there was a time for a multi-party system to be instituted its now. The sooner the better.

Originally posted by seagull
It's a good thing that his term is over in two years, unfortunately, we're replacing him with what? More of the same.

Oh how I wish you were correct. The Bush Administration will be in the White House until 1/20/09. Almost three more years. Elections in '08, take office in '09.

What exactly are the charges that are going to be brought up? You could say that he lied to get us into the Iraq war, but then pretty much all of congress saw the same intelligence and voted to give him the authority and funding to start the war. At worst you could say that he was guilty of believing bad information.

The Valarie Palme "scandal" isn't much of a scandal. The special prosecutor hasn't found anyone suspected of being guilty of anything other than lying about a non-criminal issue.

The "domestic" (actually international) spying isn't anything new and you'll be hard-pressed to find fault with the President when the Attorney General said it was legal and the Senate Intelligence committee was briefed numerous times on the program.

Of course this spat with Iran is nothing more than a few words tossed back and forth. Can't convict on that yet. The only crime I'm sure that will stick is the crime of not following the Democratic parties wishes. Basically this is a partisan issue and not one in which you'll be able to point to evidence and point to an existing law that shows guilt. All this of course is if and only if the Democrats are able to get enough seats in the House this election term. By then we could be in a war with Iran and who wants to Impeach a president during war times? Come on! How un-patriotic! The cycle never ends.

*some satire was used in this reply

chaosrain. Oops. Misread my calender. Still it is January of 2009, not long into the new year, so I wasn't too badly off .

I will admit I have grown increasingly disenchanted with President Bush and his administration over the last year. The neo-cons and religious right have far to much say in what does and does not get done. However, I don't personally believe there is any one or any two, or three things that have been done that constitute an impeachable offense and I think it would be an enormous folly and prove extremely counterproductive to the nation to even try to do so.

Very well said dbates--satire & all.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I will admit I have grown increasingly disenchanted with President Bush and his administration over the last year. The neo-cons and religious right have far to much say in what does and does not get done. However, I don't personally believe there is any one or any two, or three things that have been done that constitute an impeachable offense and I think it would be an enormous folly and prove extremely counterproductive to the nation to even try to do so.

It's still possible to play the game that the GOP played w/ Clinton. ASK QUESTIONS. It was only because the GOP led Congress asked Clinton questions which he believed of such a sufficiently personal nature as not to be worthy of the truth that he got busted. (i.e. he lied about hooking up w/ Lewinsky because his activities with her, in his mind, did not materially affect his conduct as President). Put Bush on the stand and push him about his reasoning for going to war. His ego will not allow him to admit mistakes or even bow to the obvious truth of the situation. (i.e. the Administration was gunning for Iraq and was looking for an excuse since he was sworn in.) As a result he will either 1) continue to put forth the same false arguments used to gain support for the war or 2) lie to protect the "soverign decision making power of the Presidency" a la "I'm the decider!"

Either way, his ego would likely eclipse his judgement and he'd walk into a much uglier firestorm than the last guy who said "I did not have sex with that woman (she just selflessly took care of my needs)".

[edit on 20-4-2006 by chaosrain]

The legalities of this of course make it kinda difficult since we would be impeaching quite a few people if we wanted to "clean house." I'm relying on "waking" people instead, but I wouldn't say no to impeachment if it could be done. Look at all the people that still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 (i'm saying that while hoping that we don't leave topic). My point is that people aren't paying attention, or not paying attention to the right points. Wait and see what happens if Hillary gets in, it'll still be the same thing. I will be ready to see her impeached if she gets near the podium to be sworn in. The Elite think they know what they're doing... for now.

This is country is far more polarized right now than I have seen it since President Truman was in office. I personally believe impeachment proceeding would do serious harm to this country and drive people further apart at a time when we should be trying to come together.