Democrats Considering Impeachment of President George Bush

Democrats Considering Impeachment of President George Bush

www.truthera.com

Congressional Democrats could use the threat of impeachment as a lever against President Bush in the battle over the handling of the Iraq war, Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., said Sunday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” said Murtha, according to the Web site Politco.com. Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, made his remarks on “Face the Nation.”

www.truthera.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

:shk: 2008 was the Democrats to lose and they seem hell bent on handing things back to the GOP. Instead of actually doing menaingfull things, they seem intent of showy grandstanding.

How did that impeachment work out for the GOP when they tried to get Clinton?

Originally posted by FredT
How did that impeachment work out for the GOP when they tried to get Clinton?

Well, let's see... they had control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, for six years straight, so I'd say it worked out pretty well for them at the time. What LOST them those things was the complete and utter incompetence with which they handled that power.

Personally, I'd support an impeachment of Bush 100%, as well as criminal charges against Cheney. Especially Cheney. It's not grandstanding, it's bringing an international criminal to justice.

However, that's an idealist perspective. I doubt the dems would use it for bringing Bush to justice, but rather strongarming him into compliance with their re-written funding bill.

Still, any port in a storm, right?

I agree with impeachment as well. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Dem's have the nads to do it. I mean, if the crap Bush/Cheney & Co. has pulled in the last several years doesn't qualify for impeachment then we are all truly screwed.

I, as well, agree with the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Our current Pres/VP/Cohorts allowed the deaths of 3,000 American citizens, lied to get into a military muscle flexing campaign (never was a declared war) in Iraq (not to mention the thousands *and counting* of lives lost), and have inexplicably butchered the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Christ on a cracker!... Clinton got impeached for sexual behaviors. (abusing Executive powers to cover it up, anyway)(Obstruction of Justice was the formal title).

Impeach Bush and Cheney!!!
(not to mention, Congress needs to be changed out... BADLY!!)

[edit on 4/30/2007 by Infoholic]

...and wish beyond all wishes that I could recall that ballot. Impeachment, as far as I'm concerned, is Loooooooooooong overdue. When is someone in the Dem party going to drop a pair and do the right thing? I mean, I realize that they're all in this thing together - what plutocracy/meritocracy/oligarchy isn't? But aren't they scared that the public is beginning to catch on to their little game? Hell, a simple impeachment gesture might be all it takes to fool the masses into thinking that this really IS a two-party system.

Dag nab it... I hate to say this, I agree with everything infoholic has said but I am opposed to the impeachment of bush minor.

Impeachment should only be used rarely in extreme cases and yes in my opinion bush minor and his cronies represent an extreme case BUT... we cannot use impeachment as a way of enforcing public opinion. After all congress did vote giving him the go ahead to invade Iraq. It is up to congress now to rescind that authorization. If he then refuses to comply then legally there is grounds for impeachment, but not now, not as it stands.

We have already had one president impeached for lying about sexual behavior as infoholic has so politely put it but we run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent in impeaching another so soon. We do not want it to become a tit for tat kind of thing and if the Democrats tried to at this late stage that is exactly what it would look like. So then what happens, the Republicans try and impeach the next Democratic president in revenge.

What I am favor of at this late date is a through (and I do mean through) series of investigations into the behavior of this administration with the intent of passing the resulting information on to a grand jury, once they leave office for criminal prosecution, and then subsequently trying them for any crimes that might be uncovered.

Originally posted by grover
We do not want it to become a tit for tat kind of thing and if the Democrats tried to at this late stage that is exactly what it would look like.

Not at all. If that were the case, they would have brought it up during his first term. Even though they didn't have any kind of majority, the public would have given them brownie points.

If anything, we're all wondering what's taken them so long.

[tinfoil]
Maybe the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton knowing that Bush would follow him. Remember, the PNAC was already written, everything was in place, except their 'Stooge-In-Chief'.

Maybe they knew we would be having this conversation, and that the ever-polite Dems would balk at any such implication, thereby stalling this very conversation before it ever started.
[/tinfoil]

What I am favor of at this late date is a through (and I do mean through) series of investigations into the behavior of this administration with the intent of passing the resulting information on to a grand jury, once they leave office for criminal prosecution, and then subsequently trying them for any crimes that might be uncovered.

From what I understand, and I'm sure there are people much more knowledgable than I am on this topic, but didn't Bush pass some legislation saying that neither he, nor his people, could be prosecuted for anything they did during his tenure?

And, didn't Bush purchase a whole bunch of land in Paraguay (which doesn't extradite political prisoners to the US)?

I say, let's get 'em now... before they flee the country.

ps, Halliburton and Iran, on c-span tonight at 8pm, EST

HarlemHottie,

You're right. I do believe that was a back door deal put in the Military Commissions Act of 06? I could be, and probably am wrong. Take a stab at any of the major bills passed over the last 6 years, and I'm sure you'll find it somewhere.

grover,

You make very good points. I should have clarified that when I posted. The originally posted article is using the impeachment for the reasons you mention... to sway by public opinion. That is wrong, and you were right to point that out.

I, however, still stand with my opinion to impeach Bush/Cheney & Co. for what they've done. I do not, whatsoever, want an impeachment to sway opinions.

An impeachment this late in the game, I have to agree with grover. It would only hurt the Democrats (boo hoo ) and their chances of getting someone into the Executive seat in Washington.

I would also like to agree with grover on the idea of the thorough investigations. However, in order to do that, you'll need to find that fancy little piece of legislation that gives immunity to Bush & Co, and get that stricken first, or you'll be "pissing up a wet rope".

HarlemHottie,

On a side note, I adore the [tinfoil] tinfoil [/tinfoil] coding you put in there.

‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this
chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful
enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
‘‘(b) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS.—Military commissions under
this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants.
Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are
subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under
that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant
for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS
DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a
Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary
of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive
for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission
under this chapter.
‘‘(d) PUNISHMENTS.—A military commission under this chapter
may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe,
adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter,
including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter
or the law of war.
source - pg 4

[edit on 4/30/2007 by Infoholic]

I think that impeachment is the only solution at this point. It would serve several purposes.

1. First and foremost it will serve as a warning to any fiuture President that you can't mess with the people and get away with it.

2. It will drive the point home to Bush and his supporters that the USA does not conduct itself in such ways and that Bush was not conducting himself properly.

3. It will show not only the Iraqis but a lot of other people in this world that we were wrong and we are taking steps to correct ourselves.

From what I understand, and I'm sure there are people much more knowledgable than I am on this topic, but didn't Bush pass some legislation saying that neither he, nor his people, could be prosecuted for anything they did during his tenure?

No it was a law protecting CIA operatives from being prosecuted for orders that they had followed. If bush minor had tried to himself and his administration from crimes they may have committed, there would have been an uproar from both the left and the right. Also Scooter Libby would not have been tried.

I agree with ThePieMaN

It seems like if we were to impeach him it would make us look a lot better as a country.

So I say they should impeach him.