Impeach Bush, Seriously

The evidence is limitless really...


- Leading the american military into an unjust war under false pretenses of a WMD program in Iraq.

- Department of homeland security being a total beauracratic mess with little or no power to wield.

- The proposition of a young woman with little or no judicial experience to the Supreme court. (granted they were 'tight')

- being a complete and total idiot.


I would be GLAD to hear any evidence that Bush Jr. is a competent leader of the #1 nation in terms of power in the world.

We were up in arms when Bill Clinton recieved oral pleasure in the oval office and almost brought him to his presidential end prematurely. SURELY bush has provided enough reason to prove he is an incapable leader.

Yawnnnnnn....

Not another impeach Bush thread....

It's not going to happen.

The Iraq war is just, and Saddam had every opportunity to comply with UN resolutions, he refused.

There is a reason we have not been attacked since 9/11/01, and the Department of Homeland Security played a huge part in that fact.

If judicial appointments justify impeachment then Clinton should have been impeached twice. Once for lying in federal court, and once for nominating Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.

another supporter fresh from the bible belt, wonderful.


I wonder why Saddam didnt want the UN weapon inspectors in there. PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DIDNT EXIST???

Ironically he didnt want his weapon program absence to be discovered for fear of Iran would attack them realizing there severe weakness. Whoops, over 2,000 US troops have to die for it, sorry.

Also the department of Homeland security is a complete farce. I'll build a case for that in the next while. I wrote a thesis on it for my 2nd year of graduate school.


I understand you like a nice asskicking and all that, but this man is seriously in jeopardy of leading us into world war III.

I just think it would be a show of good faith to the rest of the world that we realized what an idiot he was.

Aren't there enough "impeach Bush" threads already? I have problems with the job Mr. Bush is doing. I have my doubts whether or not anything he's done is impeachable, however.

Mr. Clinton apparently lied under oath to a grandjury. That's, by the rules, impeachable. The attempt to impeach Mr. Clinton wasn't about him getting some outside of his marriage, but his lying about it under oath. You or I would have found ourselves in jail for the same offence. It's called perjury.

In his own way, Bill Clinton is as slimey a character as you accuse Mr. Bush of being.

Going to war, under the aegis of UN conscent, isn't. Saddam, IMHO, didn't want inspectors in Iraq, because he may have feared that one or more of them might have discovered the mass graves that dot the countryside. That alone, aside from any other issue, justified the war. I believe the current count of murdered victims is 300,000? Whatever I may think of the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam's regime, the initial invasion was justified.

As to the WMD issue, Iraq is a large place, and WMD aren't the size of buildings. There may or may not have been any, but the jury is still out. What is in, is that in the past he had them. Remember the yellow clouds of mustard gas? The Kurds and Iranians do, and some of Saddams own citizens do, too. Had 'em, coulda made more.

It's time to get ready to move on. Seriously.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by seagull]

[edit on 22-5-2006 by seagull]

There are many dictators that are far worse than saddam, in Saudi Arabia for example. Why didn't we invade saudi arabia? i guess saddam should have offered us more oil, it makes you less evil.

Originally posted by seagull
Mr. Clinton apparently lied under oath to a grandjury. That's, by the rules, impeachable.

No, it's not. Please consider this article on the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors.", quoted below (outside source):

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "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."

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.

Petty crimes such as lying about getting a blowjob, even under oath, do not constitute "high crimes" in the sense intended by the Constitution.

You or I would have found ourselves in jail for the same offence. It's called perjury.

The United States Congress is not a court of law, and an impeachment action has no legal validity, nor is it intended to determine guilt or innocence of a crime, nor can it impose any criminal penalties on the impeached official even if he/she is convicted. The Constitution specifically forbids Congress, in fact, from imposing any penalties beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold office in the future. The impeached official must be tried in a real court before any criminal penalties can be imposed, and the impeachment hearing itself does not invoke double jeopardy.

In short, impeachment has no legal, criminal standing whatsoever, and nothing to do with criminal justice. Do not confuse illegal actions with impeachable ones. An illegal act is NOT necessarily an impeachable offense, and an impeachable offense might not be an illegal act. The first federal official impeached and removed from office by the Senate was District Judge John Pickering. He was removed from office in 1804 for chronic intoxication, which was not illegal. Also, see below re Mr. Bush's possibly impeachable offenses, at least some of which are not illegal.

In his own way, Bill Clinton is as slimey a character as you accuse Mr. Bush of being.

I'll agree with that. Not that it means anything; the same could be said of most politicians. Anyway, sliminess isn't an impeachable offense, either.

Going to war . . . isn't [an impeachable offense].

That depends. (Sadam's actions alleged to have justified the war have no bearing on the question, and so I snipped your comments on that.)

Going to war in Iraq would be an impeachable offense to the extent it can be shown that Mr. Bush, in arranging that war, injured the country to the profit of an individual or group. He has certainly injured the country to the profit of some individuals and groups, the question though is whether this was intentional. I certainly believe it was, but proving it to two-thirds of the Senate might be problematical.

Please note that, even if the war in Iraq is impeachable, Mr. Bush violated no U.S. criminal laws in arranging it. This is a case where an arguably impeachable offense is NOT a crime. Mr. Clinton's impeachment is a case where a non-impeachable offense might actually have been a crime. There is really no relation between the two, although SOME impeachable offenses (e.g., treason) ARE crimes.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]