Should the dems impeach [Pres. Bush if they get a majority?]

Great Debates
41

The Democrats would be foolish to impeach Bush. It would accomplish nothing except to make them look petty and vindictive; rally public support back to Bush; tie up the government for months; and either end up “exonerating” Bush or inaugurating Cheney.

The smart move is to regain control of Congress and start doing some oversight. Launch some big public hearings on issues like national security and the conduct of the war and civil liberties. Start subpeoning administration officials and make them testify under oath about their job performance. The Democrats and the nation will benefit from starting to drain the pus out of the festering boils this administration has created. But maintain the high road; let others mention impeachment but forego the temptation. The Democrats will end up looking like the responsible party that puts the well-being of the nation above partisan politics.

42

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Clinton was, in fact, impeached. He was later acquitted by the Senate, but note that impeachment and removal are two different things.
[/QUOTE]

“Impeachment” has nothing whatsovever do do with being “found guilty” of a crime.

43

[QUOTE=tagos]
…Then I have to put on a Dylan or a Springsteen album or read some Twain to remind myself of the silent, ineffectual great America.
[/QUOTE]

We are ineffectual only because we permit it, the tools are all there. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

44

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
“Impeachment” has nothing whatsovever do do with being “found guilty” of a crime.
[/QUOTE]

From Wiki

"The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached.”

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. …

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote “Guilty” on one or more of the charges, *the defendant is acquitted * and no punishment is imposed." (italics mine)

If one does beleive that the Impeachment process is similar to a criminal proceeding then the Impeachment part held by Congress is = a Grand Jury Indictment, and the Senate is the Jury. In which case, one could argue WJC was “indicted” or “accused”, but was then aquitted. In any case Clinton was not found guilty of anything.

45

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
The sins of Euros or others in the past are no excuse for our imperialist bullying of the 21st century (and beyond). All the things you say are valid points, but they really have nothing to do with the fact that our behavior and abuse of power has been embarassing.
[/QUOTE]

Just getting some perspective on the rest of the world looking down their nose at us, and trying to get some context. I never said the things we have done under GW Bush have all been sweetness and light…but they have hardly made a ripple compared to past actions by those nations purportedly all up in arms by our recent actions.

You kind of have to read what I wrote in the context of what I was replying too.

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
I was similarly unaware of how much of the rest of the world viewed us until I started travelling extensively in Central America. Sit with a man whose entire family disappeared one night during the revolution in El Salvador. They can tell you about the “benevolent” Americans.
[/QUOTE]

I’m quite familiar with how folks in the rest of the world, particularly in Central and South America, feel about the US. In Central and South America with some justification too, IMHO. Again, I’m not saying we are all goodness and light…just trying to get some perspective here. As a point of reference, compare how the folks in Central and South America feel about the US and how the natives in some of the European colonies felt about their masters…particularly, ask sometime how those folks in Central and South America feel about, oh, say Spain…or how the folks in India felt about the Brits, or the Vietnamese about the French…or how the Chinese/Koreans felt about the Japanese, etc etc. Perspective, ehe?

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
A friend of mine was a missionary in Chile. Check into Pinochet and how we supported him, and how he treated his people.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, but I’m not unaware of what we did in Chile.

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
Sure, not to invoke Godwin again, but we are no Hitler (yet). But just because we do not hold the dubious distinction of being 1st on the evil hit parade does not erase our culpability.
[/QUOTE]

Never said it did. But not only are we not number 1 on the evil hit parade (well, Der probably has a different opinion there), but we aren’t even in the running. Reagan and Bush II don’t even make the top 50…unless one is going to use a different timeframe for comparison.

I know that ranting about Bush (and Reagan, and Republicans in general) is necessary to some…I’m just trying to ground things in reality a bit and give some perspective to America and its actions. We ain’t saints…but we are far from the worst, when put in perspective of world powers. In fact, I can’t think of a single past world superpower who was ANY better wrt its actions. Can you?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
We are murderous bullies, like it or not.
[/QUOTE]

You got a mouse in your pocket or something? Really, no need for you to make such an incriminating declaration here Der…its not a surprise given your usual level of venom.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
First, in places like Europe, that’s in the past, what America is doing is happening now - and if you bring up the past, we virtually wiped out a continent. Second, most of those people were not elected - twice; their people did not embrace their evil, like America has embraced Bush’s evil. As for the people who are being hypocritical - however evil they are, that makes America no better.
[/QUOTE]

So, basically you just want to rant about America, instead of try and judge it in the context of past, and by comparing it to like powers? “You jay walking bastard! What a horrible crime!” “But…but…it was nothing like that guy that murdered 15 people last week!” “Ha! That was in the past…doesn’t matter! Today, YOU are the one who walked across the street when there was no crosswalk! Beast! Cad! Paltroon!”

As for depopulating the continent, I’d say that the Euro’s had as much to do with that as the Americans (well, the bugs the Euro’s brought over)…though granted we did our share. I make no excuse…it was wrong of us to do that, even though the vast majority of native peoples that died died from diseases the EUROPEANS brought over here. On the scales of injustice though, I’m thinking that what the Europeans did kind of outweighs this monsterous act by the US in our own colored past. You could bring up what we did in the P.I., in Central and South America, in the ME…and put on a reality based scale its not going to budge the hefty weight of world powers like the English, French, Germans, etc…and even new comers like the Japanese and their brief but violent splash on history.

Again, I’m not excusing America’s actions…I’m just trying to put them in context and compare them to OTHER world powers. To compare Apples to Apples, ken? Instead of not trying to compare them to anything at all (and just blasting them for their evil and murderous ways, blah blah blah), or compare them to nations who are decidedly not world powers. As you seem to like to do.

-XT

46

The context is that America is my country. The context is that France is not.

47

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We ain’t saints…but we are far from the worst, when put in perspective of world powers. In fact, I can’t think of a single past world superpower who was ANY better wrt its actions. Can you?
[/quote]
So what ? It doesn’t matter if every past power was composed of child molesting radioactive cannibals; the evils of others makes us no less evil.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You got a mouse in your pocket or something?
[/quote]
:dubious: Mouse ?

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So, basically you just want to rant about America, instead of try and judge it in the context of past, and by comparing it to like powers?
[/quote]
The past is dead. Given how much evil has been committed by how many people, if we judge each other by our past then we should nuke humanity out of existence. I doubt that anyone lacks at least one vile ancestor.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Again, I’m not excusing America’s actions…I’m just trying to put them in context and compare them to OTHER world powers.
[/QUOTE]
The context is, they were evil then; we are evil now. And to echo what elucidator says, I am an American, and the evils commited in my name anger me more than those committed in the dead past in someone elses.

48

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The context is, they were evil then; we are evil now. And to echo what elucidator says, I am an American, and the evils commited in my name anger me more than those committed in the dead past in someone elses.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t this really getting into a BIG hijack? But after all, even if the USA is evil now, it’s just because we are now powerful enough to be a bully. I can’t think of any powerful nation that didn’t abuse it’s power.

However, you don’t need world-class power to be evil- the various genocidal killings down in Africa are worse by far to anything the USA has done- it’s just a matter of size and perspective.

And, finally- where does the past start and the present begin? The invasion of Iraq was in the past, was it not? Or is your line of “past vs present” drawn where America has done it’s worst?

What evil was done in the last minute in your name?

49

[QUOTE=elucidator]
The context is that America is my country. The context is that France is not.
[/QUOTE]

Ah…I see. Well, the rest of The World™ DOES seem to think that American’s are self centered and lack perspective. Bit of a tunnel vision problem, ehe?

-XT

50

Can we get back to Impeachment? :rolleyes:

51

[QUOTE=Frank]
It’s possible, nay - likely, the Democrats will gain the simple majority needed to impeach, but we’ll never get the 67 needed to convict. I don’t think it would be politically smart, either. President Cheney, anyone?
[/quote]
Simulpeachment!!

52

Yes, they’d both have to get it, or neither. But a process that would result in the Presidency changing parties would not be politically credible or tenable. There would have to be an orchestrated process of Cheney resigning first, getting replaced by the new Gerald Ford (the old one is in poor health or he’d do), then Bush walking the plank, then the new pre-agreed Republican caretaker president to take us to November 2008. But even that is unlikely.

53

Can Cheney be impeached?

54

Yes, and so can any federal officer. Including Rumsfeld, for that matter.

55

I suppose the Dems could impeach Bush, if the they don’t want the Presidency for another 8 years.

56

It’s not as if impeaching Clinton helped the Republicans, you know. That’d be one more reason the Dems shouldn’t try it on Bush. Besides, if they did it, they would immediately be depicted as a group of liberals who are more interested in getting revenge on Bush than in doing anything for the country. And in fact, Nancy Pelosi has already said they would not impeach Bush. She must know that some Republicans are saying that that’d be the first thing Democrats would do if they get control of the House, and she’s right to say it’d never be on the table.

57

We could restart the special prosecutor and make him defend himself for the next 2 years.