Not that there is any chance of changing your mind, but, in case there is someone who has not seen this particular horse whipped into jello, here is a brief post about the materiality issue.
Very informative - thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
WRT to this and WRT to the OP, I note that nobody in this thread, not even Shodan, has troubled to offer any arguments that Bush is not actually incompetent.
So, did Clinton get him some mouth-action, or what?
Since no one has made any case that “incompetence as defined by the SDMB Bush-haters” is a valid cause for impeachment, it hasn’t been necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Gee, I wonder why that is. No one has offered arguments that he isn’t still beating his wife either. He was competent enough to get re-elected, which is more than can be said about some presidents. The competence of a president depends on what you expect him to accomplish. If we look at judicial appointments, for instance, I’m sure I’d find him exceedingly competent and you’d find the opposite. So, where does that leave us?
OP checking in again. It is not clear that incompetence alone meets the requirements for impeachment, but that is not the question in my mind. There are many possible grounds for impeachment related to Bush’s illegal intelliegence gathering, signing statements, and other areas. To my mind, the question is given the incompetence that the Bush administrationis showing is it now time to look at those possibly illegal activities as a way to remove him from office.
If Bush was doing an otherwise cracker jack job (Bin Laden captured, Iraq at peace, N Korea and Iran abandoning their nuclear programs) then presumably the answer would be “no” from moderates and conservatives.
Like the majority of Americans I voted against Bush in 2000, and I do have a visceral dislike for the man, so it is not people like me that I am interested in. It’s those folks that voted for him and now see that we are up shit creek that I am interested in.
But the whole “given the incompetence” statement is assuming something that many people aren’t willing to assume. You want to just skip over that part.
First you need to prove that we’re “up shit creek”, which I don’t see much evidence that we are.
Not to put words in your mouth, but your answer is “No, it’s not time to impeach him for incompetence because I don’t think he is incompetent”.
Really, John? Honest Native American? You don’t see much evidence?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to us all the really splendid accomplishments? You know, kind of thing that balances out a truly hideous war based on false premises, a foreign policy that has alienated just about everybody on the planet? A policy of altering science to fit a political agenda? A policy of pandering to our worst instincts as a people?
What might that be, John? Is it his firm stance against human-animal hybrids? OK, I admit, that is pretty strong stuff, but still…
Perhaps we need to define “up shit’s creek”, then. I wouldn’t want to live through another Bush term (if it were allowed, constitutionally), but I have no doubts that we’d still be a thriving country even if we had to. The rest of the world would survive just fine, too.
BTW, here’s a cite that we are *not *up shit’s creek, and that even most of the posters around here don’t think so.
Then I would venture to disagree with you there.
If Bush is doing something illegal, then he should be impeached regardless of how well the country is doing.
It wouldn’t be from me, even if all the other things were happening.
I did not and do not accept the argument that a certain former President should have been given a pass on his clearly illegal activities no matter how successful his foreign policy was, or how much progress was made on civil rights or nuclear disarmament, or anything else.
Nixon deserved to be driven from office nonetheless.
Regards,
Shodan
Like wiretapping US citizens without a warrant in violation of FISA? I’m glad to hear you support impeachment.
To avoid further hijack, I’ll just point you to this post and the entirety of that thread, where I discuss Schmidt’s mistakes, and the other post hoc defenses this administration and it’s lackeys have raised.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to this thread, but I’ll take a stab.
There is no need to impeach Bush for “incompetence”, or find some action of his that can be justified as grounds for impeachment.
See, long before such an impeachment can get off the ground, we’re gonna have an election. In 3-4 months, we’re going to have an election.
And the odds that the republicans will still hold a majority of both the House and Senate are pretty slim. Extremely slim.
And the biggest thing contributing to Bush’s irresponsibility is the Republican controlled congress. They aren’t interested in exercising oversight over the executive branch, because the executive branch is occupied by a member of their own party. I know 6 years ago the Republicans scrupulously exercized their duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch. And I have the sneaking suspicion that a congress controlled by the Democrats will have no problem exercizing that oversight.
All this handwringing over “The Imperial Presidency” is misplaced, there is no Imperial Presidency, just a Congress that supports the president even when he makes dumb decisions. Change the congress and The Imperial Presidency will wither away in about 10 seconds. Comparable to stuffing a pound of ice cubes down Bush’s shorts withering.
So divided government is the answer…and working for Democratic takeover of congress is something you can do without shooting yourself in the foot. Because I strongly suspect that an attempted impeachment of Bush for being an idiot and an asshole would backfire and would probably rescue Bush politically.
You may be surprised, come November.
I doubt that even if the Dems win control of one House in Congress, that they’ll be able to get their act together in the last two years of Bush’s presidency. The NSA program will go on, the Iraq war will still procede along Bush’s timetable, and the Gitmo detainees will still be languishing in limbo.
I’ve been a long-time advocate of divided goverenment, but only a means of curtainling the Imperial Presidency, not of eliminating it. Congress as a whole has allowed the presidency to strengthen far beyond what the founders imagined. This process goes back at least to FDR, and isn’t so strongly a function of one party or the other. Remember, the Dems did control the Senate for most the first two years of Bush’s presidency, if only by 1 vote (Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, but he caucused with the Dems).
Just a minor point for clarity, John-boy. About this:
“…the Iraq war will still procede along Bush’s timetable…”
There’s a timetable? Do you know what it is? Does he?
His timetable is predicated on events on the ground, not the position of the hands of a clock-- I don’t see why that can’t be called a “timetable”. If you prefer, I’ll rephrase it as: Congress will not impose a timetable on Bush for withdrawl of troops-- he will procede with his plan to withdraw them when thinks the condition warrant. If you want to quibble about use of the word “plan” in that sentence, feel free to read it as “misquided attempt to muddle thru the situation”.
In case you haven’t noticed, Bush appears to live in constant denial of the events on the ground!