Neither of them are what you describe and the talk to impeach was never seriously discussed. Face it, Democrats just give a damn about this country not to try to tear it apart unlike Republicans
That’s ridiculous.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re getting the timeline confused. The 9/11 attacks happened in 2001. Americans were angry at the time. But we directed our anger at the government which was protecting al Qaeda - the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The invasion of Iraq was two years later in 2003. The post-9/11 emotions had calmed down. The Bush administration wasn’t responding to popular outcries against Iraq - they manufactured it.
The Democrats are too spineless and weak to do any such thing no matter how bad a Republican President is; they suck up to Republicans, they don’t impeach Republicans. Look how Obama has worked to cover for Bush, outright forbidding investigations into the torture campaign and the like. Republicans are treated with kid gloves by the Democrats, pandered to.
I hate agreeing with you.
That’s probably why I don’t much.
Bush couldn’t have been impeached over Iraq, too many Dems agreed with the war publicly or couched their criticisms in terms of mistaken strategy or execution and not that invading itself was wrong. That was mostly limited to far left liberals on the internet or people in other countries, and it was hardly ever shown on TV on in the newspapers until it was way too late (maybe around Katrina, when Bush’s popularity started to tank).
He was never impeached for the torture and blatant spying stuff either, but of course the Dems want in on that too and don’t have any moral opposition to it, so it’s all good.
Living through the 2001-2006 period was really interesting, politically. The national debates, naked jingoism, patriotic fervor, and anti-intellectualism was insane. People, even on this board, still have straight up mistaken notions about what happened and when, or what was lie and what is truth. The amount of propaganda, media collusion, and shouting down of opponents was astonishing. A great pulling back the curtain moment that should frustrate any optimist.
Bush wasn’t a puppet, like Obama he was clueless and went along with his advisors. The sad part is the neocons who misled Bush and the liberal interventionists who mislead Obama are two sides of the same coin.
More than anything the media failed America in the run up to Iraq, it amazes me the Right is still able to sell the lamestream media as liberal tools, neither right nor left the media is only there to grease up their bums for the powerful, what did Mao used to say? running dogs, lackeys…
The Democrats would never have found 67 votes to convict in the Senate. Holding pointless votes that you know won’t pass and serve to accomplish nothing but waste everyone’s time is the GOP’s job.
Also, you can’t impeach a President for something that isn’t a crime.
Clinton had been impeached for real crimes-for which crime would Bush have been impeached?
His actions and the authority for them are/were all Constitutional.
I hope that you don’t think that a ‘war of choice’ or ‘instigating under false pretenses’ are any kind of crime. Esp. since they are not phrases that mean anything.
It’s an impeachment. The rules are intentionally left as broad as possible. Congress could have charged Bush with war crimes (or thirty thousand counts of reckless homicide) if it had wanted to and been legally covered. Congress passed a special law just so they could charge Andrew Johnson with violating it and impeach him.
That’s not completely true. The House can vote for impeachment for anything they consider serious enough, whether or not it is a crime. There is no overruling authority; the Supreme Court is not going to step in and vacate the Bill of Impeachment on those grounds.
One question that is unanswered is: “What is a High Misdemeanor?”
Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense…if the House of Representatives votes in favor of it.
Well, the point is/was that the Constutition allows for the impeachment of a Pres for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and there would be a bit of a stretch in re: wars of choice and false instigation. Since we had the votes from the Congress, etc… for the actions, he would have been able to have his Justice Dept. charge all who would have voted for an impeachment with being accessories. In short, he was covered Constitutionally, and, by, off the top of my head w/o reading the specific laws, the same stuff that allows Obama, Clinton, Reagan, all the others, to commit troops with impunity.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:24, topic:691224”]
The Democrats are too spineless and weak to do any such thing no matter how bad a Republican President is; they suck up to Republicans, they don’t impeach Republicans. QUOTE]
Tell Dickie Nixon that.
Your overall point is absolutely correct. Impeachment is unreviewable and “high crimes and misdemeanors,” are essentially whatever Congress says they are.
But I don’t agree that the intention of the Tenure in Office Act was to provide a reason to impeach Johnson. It was intended to protect Staunton from removal. Congress passed the reconstruction laws over Johnson’s veto; Johnson’s only recourse in his efforts to soften the harsh treatment favored by the Radical Republicans was via the military, since the military governors imposed on the South were the conduit by which the reconstruction plan’s elements were mainly executed.
But Johnson’s ability to thwart (or at least soften) these harsh elements of reconstruction was short-circuited by Staunton as Secretary of War. As a Radical Republican himself, Staunton supported the aims of the congressional reconstruction scheme.
Congress passed the Tenure in Office Act in 1867, over Johnson’s veto. It required that the President’s removal of a cabinet official be ratified by the Senate (the thinking being that since the Senate was require to ‘advise and consent’ to such an officer’s appointment, it should also be required to consent to his removal).
Johnson fired Staunton; the Senate then voted not to confirm the firing, but Johnson refused to reinstate him in violation of the Act. At that point, Congress began impeachment proceedings.
That was a long time ago when the Democrats were very different. And at any rate, he being a Republican was pardoned anyway, just as Obama worked to shield Bush from torture investigations.
I would point out again that even if the Democrats in Congress had unanimously decided they were going to impeach Bush and kick him out of office, they never had the votes to make it happen. During the 110th Congress from 2007-2009 the Democrats held 57 seats in the Senate (55 Democrats + Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman), meaning they’d have had to convince at least 10 Republicans to cross party lines and vote to remove Bush from office.
And that simply wasn’t going to happen.
So you’re saying Bush should have tried to arrest any member of Congress who voted to impeach him? And you think that’s Constitutional?
I think the next time you start invoking the Constitution off the top of your head, you should go back and check afterwards.
Of course you can. The notion that impeachment is simply the way criminal law works for federal officials is a meme the Republicans spread in order to try to make their spite-based efforts to get Clinton for something appear valid and even necessary. Impeachment is strictly a matter of removing someone from office and disqualifying them from future office, and has nothing whatever to do with the legal system.
Congress can impeach for a crime for which the official was actually *acquitted *at trial (Hastings).
Congress can impeach for a matter for which charges were never even filed (Clinton).
Congress can impeach for a matter that isn’t even a crime (A. Johnson).
Or just because they’ve gone mad (not yet, but there are Tea Party ravings about impeaching Obama for some reason they haven’t thought of yet).
The bill of impeachment would have had various articles based on starting a war of aggression (a violation of international law, btw), and basing it on lies.
I think that puts you in a very small minority.
Was anyone ever punished for any of this? Just so future politicians think more than twice before trying any of the shit Bush and company pulled-off.
There were no false pretenses. At the time, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. We know he had used them on his own people, and we did find WMDs after the invasion, but nowhere near the number that everyone thought he had.