It is a given that a free and fair election will consign W to the rubbish bin of history whence he never should have emerged in the first place.
Well and good.
The question:
Is he so venal, moronic, cowardly and corrupt that by the time he is prevented by the slow grinding of electoral process from doing further harm he will have gone an appreciable distance towards ending the world as we know it? (The horrors multiply day by day. and I mean the geopolitical and institutional horrors not “merely” the human ones.)
(For TRIVIAL examples, the serial misrepresentations to Congress)
Talk about your “high crimes and misdemeanors”…
Would not the world, and certainly the nation, be better off if the Congress rose like a wounded beast to do its constutional duty and save the world?
Impeachment brooks, after all, no appellate delay.
They could send him home in a week, if they only understood the urgency.
It would stop the bleeding, and go a long way towards reassuring the world that we had, as a nation, come to our senses.
Granting that this is not politically “practical”, my guestion for debate is,
A,. Does he not merit impeachment?
B. Would it not be good for the country and the world for it to happen?
You have any proof he’s done anything to merit impeachment? You have proof he’s broken any laws at all? If so, trot those puppies out. If not, whats the point of this rant?
If he’s done anything to actually merit impeachment, then impeachment would be the right thing to do. I don’t think it would be ‘good’ for the country though…would just be another political scandal and black eye for us. But it would still be the right thing to do.
Personally, I don’t really give much of a damn about whether the impeachment of the US president would be ‘good’ for them or not. I seriously doubt whether most of them give a fuck for my opinion about whether or not THEIR leader getting impeached (or whatever) is good for me either.
Just to clairify, I meant The World™ here. As far as I’m concerned, its an internal matter IF we impeach the president, and I don’t really care if its ‘good for the world’…I care if he’s committed crimes and is punished for them.
A. Yes, of course.
B. Depends on making it seem nonpartisan and statesmanlike. That is hard to do in the post-Gingrich environment as it is, and during an election year it might be almost impossible.
But the political realities you want to set aside work both ways. They include gradually adopting the Kerry strategy in Iraq, while still claiming that it’s “staying the course”, for one. The shrinking number of people giving him the benefit of the doubt and willing to believe what he says is another. The wariness of a Congress that, unlike him, knows what comes after “Fool me once …” is one too, and so is a court system that seems unlikely to continue to let him go unrestrained.
We’re starting to see the true value of our “checks and balances” system. A rogue president is being heavily restrained from continuing his approach, belatedly though it is. We the People get the ultimate check and balance in 7 months.
*you misconstrue the impeachment vote for judicial process. For “proof” I refer you to the Clarke and O’Neill revelations for starters, coupled with “he shall take care that the laws are enforced.”. From there, segue to his incompetence as c in c.
**from an existential point of view, I disagree. I thinik a repudiation in the form of a national emesis would improve our standing immensely.
Leaving aside the fact the Republicans control both houses of Congress… Do you honestly think that articles of impeachment could be drwn up, brought to a vote and that a trial could be held before November of this year? Not a chance.
Don’t need it. It’s a purely political process, or statecraft if you like. What “merits” impeachment is whatever the House thinks it means. The legal system is entirely separate, as the Constitution makes clear.
Gotta disagree there, Chief. What we do does affect the rest of the world we are a part of more than any other country does. That entails responsibilities we can’t ignore.
I mean, he’d have to start drooling at his next press conference and culminate by waving his flagpole before the necessary urgency was generated.
(BTW, I consider his present conduct in office as equivalent to the above, but that’s just me.)
But if the institutional damage being done to congess were really grasped by even those so irredeemable as to accept the odious name of Republican , they would hustle W’s narrow white ass back to Crawford before July 4.
None of which, afaik, are grounds for impeachment. Is there even a movement in congress from the Democrats side to get impeachment proceedings started against Bush? Again, afaik there isn’t…not even a rumble about one.
Is there a movement in the House then to begin impeachment proceedings? Even from the Democrats side? There have to be SOME grounds to get it started, don’t there? I haven’t even heard a rumble about the possibility of impeachment against the prez. Of course, both houses are controlled by Republicans, so that might be why…maybe the 'Crats know they wouldn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting one started. Or, maybe they know they don’t really have anything to base one on.
Well then, we obviously disagree. To me, if you impeach or not impeach, its because there is merit, not because you are trying to cater to The World™. If it happens that we impeach Bush and it makes the world smile, well, thats just a happy chance IMO. However, its OUR internal affair, and we should do it because its the right thing to do…not to score points with The World™. Therefore, I don’t give a damn if it makes the world happy or not…it shouldn’t factor in at all with our decision process.
Stop brining reality into these things John. Its an alaricthegoth patented thread…its supposed to be experienced, not thought about.
Well, let’s take the last one as an example. Perhaps you recall something about it. The hearings were rushed through in December 1999, and the trial was over in February 2000, less than 2 months end to end. “Not a chance”, you say? Why? It’s been done.
xtisme, for a bill to be considered, the House Judiciary Committee chairman would have to allow it. Being a loyally partisan Republican, he won’t. It’s pointless for a Democrat to introduce such a bill, and politically counterproductive in this environment anyway. We also don’t disagree all that much about the position of the rest of the world - it is primarily our responsibility and our decision, just not exclusively. How’s it feel being my strange bedfellow?
In an ideal world, lying before the world to start an unnecessary war which has resulted in 800+ US servicemen and -women losing their lives should qualify as a “high crime and misdemeanor” somewhere. It’s certainly a lot more damnable than lying about consentual sex, for Og’s sake.
But then again, in an ideal world, George W. Bush wouldn’t have been nominated for President in the first place, so the point is all rather moot.
By David Enrich
ver since President Bush’s controversial victory in the 2000 election, die-hard Democrats have dreamed of revenge for the Clinton impeachment.
Now, as the country braces for war, some liberal Democrats in Congress are preparing to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and perhaps members of his Cabinet, according to lawmakers and congressional aides.
Hard though it be to believe, the National 'Review is apparently hipper than you and me…
alaric, you seem like a nice kid and your heart seems to be in the right place, (or, at least, your way seems paved with good intentions), but I would ask you to do some searches on any number of threads that the now departed december created in this Forum. There are some truly unfortunate similarities between your OPs, based as they tend to be on a rather hysterical reading of events, with arguments cast in a very lopsided fashion, and those that december was wont to post.
It is not at all clear that President Bush will be defeated in the coming election.
I (who disagree with nearly every major decision that he has made) do not believe that there is any evidence that he has deliberately acted outside the law. I see no benefits to the U.S. or the world to removing him on disagreements over policy.
Consider:
His successor is Mr. Cheney who would continue the same policies–and who would not be subject to impeachment for past actions since, as president of the Senate, he had no legal role in carrying out those past practices.
Nothing precludes an impeached president from running for office, again, so Mr. Bush could continue to run for (re-)election, with an added impetus of a certain sympathy vote. (And you are going to look pretty silly if that sympathy vote gives him a solid majority in the popular and electoral votes after working to remove him. It would be a clear “signal” to the rest of the world that the U.S. preferred an ousted president to continue his policies. From your perspective, it would be a statement that the American people preferred a criminal president.)
(And without clear examples of actual lawbreaking, the idea that a Republican Congress would move to impeach or try a Republican President are simply pipe dreams.)
You skipped the necessary preliminaries. The whole process took about 5 months, starting in Sept '98 when the House Judiciary Committee announced it would draft a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry, and ended in Feb '99 with the Senate vote. And that was with a “hostile” Congress. So, unless you start the process today, and turn the Congress from “friendly” to “hostile”, I’ll stick by my original statement that there just ain’t enough time.
Well, for laws, (tho I consider it a chickenshit surrogate for ass-fucking the constitution the way he has) I believe he is in violation of the Districts’ rather draconian gun laws, by virtue of :
Every one of your OP’s is a reference to the consumption of illegal substances.
I hate Bush. If it would get him out of office I’d personally spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom with Dick Cheney. But come on. Is the debate here really whether or not he should be impeached because he has a pistol in his office?
