45% of Americans want Bush impeached

[pilferk]

As Truman said "the buck stops here."

If Cheney should be impeached, Bush should be impeached.

This is his war, he had the final say and he's the one that authorized the invasion. While his team may have nit-picked the intelligence to have it validate their claims, Bush should ultimately be held responsible.

Except, well, Cheney can almost be "traced" to the leak of the CIA operative and some other shady dealings.

Bush can't be...not directly.

Now, I'm not saying Bush didn't know, but the facts right now are...he has plausible deniability.

On the invasion, again, as much as I hate to say this but....Congress authorized the invasion.  Now, I'll grant you, they did it on Bush's say so...so now it comes down to was his information presented to be deceptive, or is he (and his administration) just that darned dumb that they bought the bad intel hook line and sinker because it said what they wanted it to say.  In other words, did he BELIEVE what he was saying, or was he being deceptive.

If he was being deceptive, I agree...he should be impeached, charged with high treason, etc.  The problem is: proving it.  I doubt you'll find any documentation that will outright say "We're gonna pull the wool over the eyes of that legislative body like sheep being shorn on my Daddy's farm in texas".....short of something that definitive, it's always going to be "he said/she said".  Again, it's a game the Dems don't need to play to get where they want to go....and a dangerous game to play right now.  Once he's out of office?  Sure, dredge the lake, muck out the stalls, air the dirty laundry...whatever.  But not right now...not unless you can pull something pretty much incontrovertible and tangible.

You have no idea how much it pains me to say what I did above.  I'd like to put this administration, from top to bottom, completely out of my mind and out of power in this country.  I can't think of much they've done that I've agreed with, other than their response RIGHT after 9/11, and Afghanistan.  But, at this point, we're 18 months from it's functional end.  I don't think there's much to gain from trying to end it (or worse, FAILING to end it) 6 to 8 months earlier, if that (after investigations and hearings and....etc, etc, etc).  Honestly, if you're rooting for the Dems.....you don't want to give the Repubs a platform to distance themselves from this administration, or to condemn it at every turn.  Let Bush Jr do what he's done best over his terms.

[GeraldFord]

If he was being deceptive, I agree...he should be impeached, charged with high treason, etc. 

What about gross incompetence? Shouldn't giving congress and the American people false information count as a "high crime"? He saw what he wanted to see, and presented it as reality. Plenty of people have said the Bush team ignored evidence that contradicted their claims and exaggerated flimsy 'evidence" as proof that the US needed to go to war. As Truman said, "the buck stops here." On a related note, even if the paper trail only leads to Cheney with regard to the Plame leak, Bush should have been on top of that and not let his deputy run wild and go above the law.

The problem is: proving it.  I doubt you'll find any documentation that will outright say "We're gonna pull the wool over the eyes of that legislative body like sheep being shorn on my Daddy's farm in texas".....short of something that definitive, it's always going to be "he said/she said".  Again, it's a game the Dems don't need to play to get where they want to go....and a dangerous game to play right now.  Once he's out of office?  Sure, dredge the lake, muck out the stalls, air the dirty laundry...whatever.  But not right now...not unless you can pull something pretty much incontrovertible and tangible.

People have come forth saying that Bush had his mind up to invade Iraq as early as 2001. In 2002, Bush claimed that "it's all up to Saddam," etc., and acted as though war could be avoided. But even as Bush went through the diplomatic channels first, with Hans Blix, it was all just a farce.  So yeah, I'd say Bush did lie to the American people, which seems to qualify as an impeachable offense. 

[D]

Clinton lied cause he didn't want his wife finding out.

IMpeached?

Hell it just showed that ole one eyed Willie Billy Clinton was a human like the rest of us and not some fake,rehearsed politician.

[pilferk]

If he was being deceptive, I agree...he should be impeached, charged with high treason, etc. 

What about gross incompetence? Shouldn't giving congress and the American people false information count as a "high crime"? He saw what he wanted to see, and presented it as reality. Plenty of people have said the Bush team ignored evidence that contradicted their claims and exaggerated flimsy 'evidence" as proof that the US needed to go to war. As Truman said, "the buck stops here." On a related note, even if the paper trail only leads to Cheney with regard to the Plame leak, Bush should have been on top of that and not let his deputy run wild and go above the law.

Unfortunately, gross incompetence isn't illegal.  "High crime" means illegal. In the context of the constitution, I take misdemeanor to mean much the same thing.   Not distasteful, not incompetent, not anything but what it says.  The constitution is VERY clear, IMHO.  If he KNEW he was giving them false info, and did it to be deceptive....he committed a crime.  If he was just plain stupid, ignorant, and bullheaded......he gets a pass, legally, and thus shouldn't be impeached.  How do you prove which one it was?  And, honestly, what precedent do you set if you impeach him for (as he'll say it) simply being "wrong".  I can see the argument now:  "You'll hamstring the executive branch if you impeach Mr. Bush for presenting information and intelligence he believed in to make a decision...you'll weaken the presidency and make his duties impossible to perform without being able to use executive discretion and decisionmaking".

Again, what Bush did, managerially, speaks to incompetence and being a poor leader....neither of which is illegal. We elected him again after a full term of much the same stuff.   If he didn't know what Cheney was doing, he didn't know.  Now, I think we're all smart enough to know that Bush DID know...but you'll never be able to prove it because if this administration knows one thing, it's how to ensure plausible deniability.

So, functionally, you're left with playing he said/she said.  You COULD probably draft articles of impeachment based on that but...what happens if you fail?  What happens if you can't prove anything?  Sure, Bush looks more like an idiot, because then you're ONLY left with the conclusion that he's incompetent and a poor leader...but what does that net you?  For the dems at this point...not much.

People have come forth saying that Bush had his mind up to invade Iraq as early as 2001. In 2002, Bush claimed that "it's all up to Saddam," etc., and acted as though war could be avoided. But even as Bush went through the diplomatic channels first, with Hans Blix, it was all just a farce.  So yeah, I'd say Bush did lie to the American people, which seems to qualify as an impeachable offense. 

Again, you have to prove he was knowingly giving false info to decieve Congress in order to get approval for the war.  I hate to say it, but he can lie directly to the American People all he wants....stump speeches are full of 'em....but he can't lie to Congress when they're basing their decision entirely on the intel he's letting them see.

Wanting to invade Iraq is circumstantial evidence, and not pertinent to the issue of legality.  It might show motivation if you had evidence he WAS being deceptive.  But by itself...not enough.

The "giving Saddam a chance to avoid war" actually adds to his plausible deniability.  He simply points to that and says "Obviously I believed the intel too.  Yes, I was wrong in hindsight.  But I believed it and was trying to avoide direct conflict".  See, you can spin it both ways...and that's the problem..the "evidence" you're bringing up is all fodder for a "he said/she said".  He can explain it all away.....

I would agree with your interpretation, actually.  I think he lied too.  I just dont' think you can prove it......

Edit: Let me classify all of the above with something:  We're going by MY interpretation of the constitution.  I'll not even remotely say it's the only interpretation, or that it's even the right one.   There are other interpretations that will say "High Crimes and misdemeanors" were exclusive of each other.  High crimes covers illegalities, misdemeanors would cover thing not illegal, but were gross misuses of the office or egregious offenses of some sort.   If you adhere to THAT interpretation...well, that's what our discussion is going to come down to...how we view the constitution, and in particular THIS piece of the constitution.  If that's it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  There's plenty of constitutional scholars who do just that....and I'll leave them to do what they do best.

[pilferk]

Let me also put this out there:

What scenario could you envision with impeachment?

Surely, you don't want Cheney in office..so do you impeach him first?  By the time that process is over, there would never be time to impeach Bush before his term ends.

Impeach them at the same time?  The two processes would slow each other down so much, you'd likely get neither of them before their term expires.

So...what?

[freedom78]

Let me also put this out there:

What scenario could you envision with impeachment?

Surely, you don't want Cheney in office..so do you impeach him first?  By the time that process is over, there would never be time to impeach Bush before his term ends.

Impeach them at the same time?  The two processes would slow each other down so much, you'd likely get neither of them before their term expires.

So...what?

I seem to recall Al Franken postulating that a Democratic Congress should impeach and find Bush guilty, thus making Cheney the President.  Cheney would then have multiple heart attacks, rendering him useless.  Looks good, on paper!

[Booker Floyd]

Impeachment proceedings, at this point, would be a waste of time.

[GeraldFord]

Impeachment proceedings, at this point, would be a waste of time.

I disagree. The President and vice President should be held accountable.

[The Dog]

Let me also put this out there:

What scenario could you envision with impeachment?

Surely, you don't want Cheney in office..so do you impeach him first?  By the time that process is over, there would never be time to impeach Bush before his term ends.

Impeach them at the same time?  The two processes would slow each other down so much, you'd likely get neither of them before their term expires.

So...what?

agreed - it just doesn't make sense at this point.  Hopefully things will come to light over the years after the Bush/Cheney admin and history can judge them.

[fuckin crazy]

They have both violated numerous laws. They both should not only be impeached, but also imprisoned.

A link to Congressman Kucinich's web page that list the supporting documents for his Articles of Impeachment against that dick Cheney can be found HERE.

[freedom78]

A link to Congressman Kucinich's web page that list the supporting documents for his Articles of Impeachment against that dick Cheney can be found HERE.

Like Congress with the PATRIOT Act, I'll not read them while simultaneously assuming they're in good order. 

[Booker Floyd]

I disagree. The President and vice President should be held accountable.

Thats a nice sentiment, but its simply impractical and could very possibly backfire politically.  Its unwise and not worth the effort.

[GeraldFord]

I disagree. The President and vice President should be held accountable.

Thats a nice sentiment, but its simply impractical and could very possibly backfire politically.? Its unwise and not worth the effort.

Then what exactly does warrant impeachment? Where do you draw the line? What do you have to do in order to be held accountable? These people who were not truly elected to begin with have created a horrible disastrous war based on lies.

What do you think someone needs to do before the people say enough is enough?

[Booker Floyd]

Then what exactly does warrant impeachment? Where do you draw the line? What do you have to do in order to be held accountable? These people who were not truly elected to begin with have created a horrible disastrous war based on lies.

What do you think someone needs to do before the people say enough is enough?

The people had their chance to hold him accountable in 2004 and they chose not to.  And despite what this poll might say, I doubt strongly that impeachment efforts would be successful on any level - procedurally or politically. 

I welcome more hearings and investigation.  If something truly extraordinary comes out, then it can be considered.  At this moment, I maintain that its a waste of time.

[SLCPUNK]

It's a waste of time, and unfortunately we have more important things to deal with.

[GeraldFord]

Then what exactly does warrant impeachment? Where do you draw the line? What do you have to do in order to be held accountable? These people who were not truly elected to begin with have created a horrible disastrous war based on lies.

What do you think someone needs to do before the people say enough is enough?

Accountability.

[The Dog]

Then what exactly does warrant impeachment? Where do you draw the line? What do you have to do in order to be held accountable? These people who were not truly elected to begin with have created a horrible disastrous war based on lies.

What do you think someone needs to do before the people say enough is enough?

Accountability.

i don't think accountability is grounds for impeachment though.  it'd be great if SOMEONE had the balls to stand up and say "yeah, we fucked up big time and now I'm going to resign or fire this person" but I think an impeachment is more likely to happen than that.

[pilferk]

Then what exactly does warrant impeachment? Where do you draw the line? What do you have to do in order to be held accountable? These people who were not truly elected to begin with have created a horrible disastrous war based on lies.

What do you think someone needs to do before the people say enough is enough?

Accountability.

Accountable for what?

Being a poor leader?  Being incompetent? Sucking at their jobs?

That's why they get 4 year terms and we have another election.  That's how they're held accountable for stuff like that.  The party has certainly been held accountable (see the mid term results) and are floundering going into '08.  The Neo-Con movement is on lifesupport at this point.... I think history will certainly hold this administration accountable, too.

Impeachment is for those in office who have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors".  To me, that means done something illegal.  So far, as of right now, we don't have proof positive that's been done....all we have is speculation, anecdotal evidence, and some guesswork with Bush.  With Cheney, you have a tiny bit more...but the wasp nest you'd have to weave through to get anything concrete would probably take a Herculean (and very LONG) effort.  Again, you MIGHT be able to draw up articles of impeachment based on that, but......not on the most solid of foundations.  And then you get into EXACTLY what I said you would: He said/she said.  And if the dems fail (since that's where the articles would come from) the political backlash could, potentially, be HUGE.  Why?  When they can simply wait out the next 18 months and very likely take the white house and possibly a bigger slice of the legislature?

Look, I "get" the angry thing.  But I think calling for impeachment is based more on that emotion, and the feeling of almost "betrayal" of the American people by this administration (although the American people did a good job betraying themselves by reelecting this admin), than on anything really concrete.  Again, I get that.  But the time for revenge, or whatever it is people are seeking from impeachment, is long past.  The country is in shambles (relatively speaking), in the middle of a wrongheaded war, and has basically succeeded from the world with our isolationist foreign policy in regards to much of the free world (the "we'll do it whether you like it or not" attitude has killed us).  And the fact of the matter is, impeachment isn't going to solve any problems.

It's time for us to start counting down the days until the current turducken is out of office, and for Congress to minimize his influence as much as possible.  It's time for them to use their "balance" in the checks and balances.  Yes, it likely means 18 more months of Iraq, and all the crap that goes with it.   But impeachment MIGHT (and I stress might) cut 6 months off that...maybe.  Likely not, because that time frame is based on only impeaching Bush.....which means Cheney would be in office, and I doubt things would get better.  You impeach them both.....and their terms are over before you get a "verdict".

You gain, really, nothing by impeachment except a sense of satisfaction or revenge.  It's just not worth it.  It's not worth the resources you'd have to commit, which are better used in other places.  It's not worth the time you'd have to spend, which is better spent in other places, and it's not worth the political capital that would need to be risked, that could better be risked in other endeavors.  That's the reality of the situation.  I agree, it's not ideal...but it's playing with the hand we've been delt in the game we've been playing the past 7 years.

[GeorgeSteele]

Different cultures have different perspectives on accountability.  The Chinese recently executed a former government official for taking bribes.  And here's what the Italians did with Mussolini...

http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm

Maybe a bit harsh.  I'd say Bush, at minimum, deserves a public caning.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Different cultures have different perspectives on accountability.  The Chinese recently executed a former government official for taking bribes.  And here's what the Italians did with Mussolini...

http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm

Maybe a bit harsh.  I'd say Bush, at minimum, deserves a public caning.

If we were a communist or facist country maybe that would fly.