And I understand in return that you fully support gratuitous impeachment, and thought it was a good idea.
Regards,
Shodan
What happened was that we didn’t re-elect him. But it didn’t seem to make any difference. Maybe we should’ve tried garlic or silver?
Actually, yes. I was eager to see Clinton impeached, if not removed from office, for exactly the reason I stated above.
Am I as correct in characterizing your position on impeachment in the 1990s as you were in characterizing mine?
Nah, that’ll be his election.
I was just sitting in a room yesterday with some nice, older Mississippi women. They talked about how Obama being elected would mean that “America would stop being America” and how they “love my country, so I can’t see moving, but what am I going to do?”.
Already covered.
-Joe
Before branding the Republicans as traitors, isn’t it fair to say that the Democratic leadership are traitors for not getting behind Kucinich? No Republican has “blocked” impeachment yet; they are the minority party in the House and it only takes a majority to pass articles of impeachment. There is no cloture rule in the House, for that matter. Obviously the brave Kucinich is not a traitor, but how about Nancy Pelosi? But for her stifling efforts, this impeachment bandwagon would be rolling merrily along.
Where’s your ire for her?
Yes, but whether he can be prosecuted while he’s president is an unsettled question.
Then it won’t be possible to impeach him.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s much on that list that is debatable (that is, debatable whether it constitutes an impeachable offense or not – guilt on each point is clear enough), but nothing that is absurd like the Clinton impeachment charges were absurd.
That’s certainly an easy way out of addressing the specific arguments that I and other posters have raised.
As I pointed out earlier (in a post you apparently read, btw):
When the GOP gets out of the way of the Dems’ attempts to actually deal with the problems of this country, your question will have merit. But not until then.
Well, if you feel it sounds better to admit that the Democrats aren’t capable of dealing with the problems of the country, then by all means repeat the point.
Oddly enough, back when the Republicans first controlled Congress, they were capable of balancing the budget, passing welfare reform, fulfilling the Contract with America, and impeaching Clinton. Of course, they had the advantage of impeaching a President who actually did violate the law, so there is that.
But again, if you think this will have the same effect for Bush and Democrats as it did for Clinton and Republicans, by all means, carry on.
Like you seem to be saying, it’s not like Democrats can do anything worthwhile.
Regards,
Shodan
Complete horseshit. The list is a mixed bag of accusations who’s only real purpose is to get left wingers some raw meat (granted, this may be a good thing since many left wingers don’t get enough meat in their diets). It’s debatable if ANY of these charges constitute an impeachable offense as is whether Bush is guilty of them. You see, until the charges are laid out and the defense gets a chance to defend himself with counter arguments and a verdict is made it’s just a lot of hot air…no matter what the frothing at the mouth partisans THINK the outcome will be. Myself, I’d be surprised if any of those charges could be made to stick…assuming there ever was a real impeachment trial, which there won’t be.
This list is as absurd as the Clinton list was and for much the same reason…it plays right into the desires of the fringe fanatics who are obsessed with a president of the other party. In Clinton’s case the charges played right into the moralistic right wingers…in Bush’s it plays into the anti-war left wingers. The only difference is that the Republicans were actually stupid enough to carry through with the impeachment en masse…while the Dems have so far limited the damage to on moonbat and a few half hearted cheers from a few other Dems in the house and senate (and wild screeching from the foaming at the mouth left wing crowd).
Hm…maybe the Dems ARE smarter at that. We’ll see if they stay smart.
-XT
That’s kinda like saying, “I burned your house down. Now if you feel it sounds better to admit that you aren’t capable of keeping a roof over your family’s head, then by all means repeat the point.”
“Oddly enough, because you didn’t burn down my house, I was able to keep my family housed.”
Wow.
I could say the exact same thing about the articles of impeachment for Clinton: debatable as to whether it constitutes an impeachable offense, but his guilt on each point was clear enough.
The bottom line is this: an impeachable offense is what Congress says it is. Congress won’t say any of these things are impeachable offenses.
From a more objective standard, an impeachable offense SHOULD BE an act that’s criminal. At least Clinton’s impeachment had the dubious distinction of being technically a matter involving violations of criminal law.
Well, no, it’s like saying “I can’t pass my agenda over your objections, but you could pass yours over mine”. In fact, that is what it’s saying.
As mentioned, Democrats control both houses of Congress, but can’t get anything done, including impeachment. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and could get everything done, including impeachment.
We didn’t have to make whiny excuses or play fantasy games about the election. How come Democrats have to?
Regards,
Shodan
You’re right. That is the least.
Speak plainly. Is it your opinion that GeeDub is not guilty of any of these charges?
Actually, that was my quote not Brickers (though he would be able to answer this better than I can). Since you asked, I don’t know if he was guilty of some of those charges as the matter hasn’t been properly reviewed in a legal setting. As we are talking impeachment here it really isn’t a matter of GW’s guilt or innocence anyway (in a strictly legal sense)…but what Congress THINKS it is.
My GUESS is that unless there is real evidence of criminal wrong doing it would mostly break down along party lines IF it was ever seriously considered, and I would say that impeachment would most likely NOT be carried through as there wouldn’t be enough votes (this of course assumes that there isn’t any real smoking gun type evidence that in fact GW et al ave done something illegal…I’ve never SEEN any, but that doesn’t mean such evidence doesn’t exist).
Is that plane spoken enough?
-XT
No action will be taken against GW Bush for anything he may or may not have done during his tenure. This impeachment thing is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush will finish his term, hopefully doing no more damage than he’s already done. Someone else will be elected president; hopefully that someone will be an improvement or, at the very least, no worse. At best, this impeachment garbage will be a tiny footnote in history.
Not “some”, but “any”. Take your pick. Is GeeDub guilty of any of these charges, in your opinion? Not provably guilty, not indicatable according to every jot and tittle of legal technicality that might be brought to bear. Just simply: is he guilty of any of these charges? In your opinion.
That comes closest to my own opinion.
Ed
Well, you’re quoting xtisme, but I’ll take a quick run at what I think.
“Not guilty” has a very criminal-law feel to it. Are you asking if I think these are crimes, and if they are, if he’s guilty? It’s unclear to me what crime is even being alleged for most of these.
For example, “Article I: Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.” What’s the crime? Let’s say he did that – let’s say he deliberately created a false impression so we’d go to war in Iraq. Is that a violation of criminal law? Not so far as I can tell.
Or maybe you meant “not guilty” in a looser sense – do I think this kinda-sorta describes something he might have done?
Then, maybe. I think he cherry-picked intelligence to create a case for war. Is that a “secret propaganda campaign?” Yeah, I guess. But that’s why criminal statutes rarely create crimes with elements like “Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign.” The terms are imprecise. And there’s a key difference – intent. I don’t think Bush knew he was pushing falsehoods. I think he listened closely when people told him what he wanted to hear, and ignored the warnings of people he disagreed with. That’s foolish, but it’s not lying.
So --there’s a bunch of stuff on that list I think Bush probably did. There’s a bunch of other stuff I don’t think he did. I don’t think there are any crimes on the list that he did.