I’m not really interested in turning this into a Bush-bashing thread, we seem to have enough of those…not that I want it to stop!
But I’m interested in getting some clarity on a few issues. Mind you, I’m just some guy who has other things to do than to focus 100% on politics and world affairs so my facts might not be quite in order. Sure, it’s important stuff in the larger picture, but from MY dawn till MY dusk, I got matters that I have to attend to that I can directly affect (kids, work, etc.)
So don’t flame me for this but:
Why is there no meaningful attempt to remove GW Bush from the presidency? Feel free to add reasons of your own, but I seem to be under the impresion that:
Alienating the UN by an essentially unilateral decision to invade & occupy another country
Under the premise of disarming said country of weapons that Hey! aren’t there! (either because they weren’t or even worse–because we lost track of them) and then to continue to
Suck us into an open-ended urban combat war that we can’t afford and then
Granting HUGE contracts to HUGE corporations owned by HUGE members of his own administration
should at least raise SOME eyebrows? Isn’t this kind of stuff a little more detremental to the welfare of the nation than, say, getting a hummer and then lying about it in order to avoid further personal embarassment? Don’t these actions serve to HARM our ability to coexist with any degree of credibility with the governments of other nations? And (one more thing) don’t they also affect our own national security by further inciting different agencies that already hate our guts?
What gives? Are we REALLY that afraid of this administration that we won’t even investigate it?
Get rid of Bush and you’ll make Cheney the President. What good does that do? He’s at least as much of the problem as Bush.
So impeach them both. Next up is the Speaker of the House. But that won’t necessarily be Hastert, even if you find him acceptable. The House can elect anyone, not necessarily even a member, as Speaker at any time. So you don’t know who he’d be, just that DeLay would be in charge of picking him. What good does that do?
And, by the time the process reaches a head, we’ll be pretty close to Election Day anyway, when a more traditional means of firing an insubordinate and incompetent employee becomes available to us.
Now, leaving the figurehead Bush in power and impeaching Cheney alone might be something to consider.
Impeachment, and then conviction of impeachment, is hard, and ideally, it’s for a president who has broken a law (committed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’). With a Republican House and Senate, neither of which, as a whole, seem to really dislike the President (although they have both been acting really independent of the administration lately), and absent any big public outcry for his removal, impeachment really isn’t a possibility.
Impeachment? Ha, bring on the guillotines! I say we rename L’Enfant Plaza as Place de la Revolution, arrest all of Congress, the cabinet, and Bush and Cheney and let the revolution begin with the sweet kiss of a sharp blade.
There’s also this problem that Congress is in Republican hands. First step is you’d need the House Judiciary Committee to vote for impeaching Bush. Given that Step 1 won’t happen, it ends right there.
I think if the Dems held an unofficial ‘shadow impeachment’ process, it would be a good thing; it would make it clear just how far past the point of sanity the Administration’s lies have gone. What I have in mind would be a convening of, first, the Dems on the House Judiciary Committee to present evidence and debate the matter, followed by the Dems in the House and the Senate standing in for their respective bodies.
Ideally? Impeachment is an indictment, nothing more, nothing less. It is the beginning of a process by which the president can be removed, but it is NOT the same as a recall, which (thank the nine billion little gods) is not provided for in the Consitution.
Because the Republicans love him and they’re not likely to drag down one of their golden boys. And because the Democrats would need to put forth a sustained effort over a number of years, like the Republicans did with Clinton, and they don’t have the balls to even say “No!” to him right now.
Impeachment is a big deal. If Reagan wasn’t impeached over Iran-Contra, no way is Bush going to be impeached over lying us into Iraq, even if Republicans didn’t control both houses of Congress.
(The fact that the Republicans impeached Clinton is just a sign of how desperate they were to smear him, not a sign that impeachment is going to become standard operating procedure anytime a president does something wrong. I hope.)
Are you sure? Without anything else but a feeling, I think the GOP would rather have a bad Republican president, than a Democrat in office.
Taking GWB out, while in office, or by getting rid of him in the primaries would be an enormous tactical mistake. The voting public in most ‘Western’ countries are suspicious of politicians as it is, arguably more so in the US, where barely a majority of the elegible voters actually bother to vote. Showing public discontent with the Administration would only increase the voter’s contempt for the politicians.
In a way, the best thing the GOP could hope for, IMO, is that a democrat beats GWB next year and is left to clean up the mess in Iraq, not manage to get a grip on Bin Laden, and further increasing the deficit. Then they can come back strong in 2008.
A tempting notion, Gobear. A bit too radical for my tastes. Commendable, but can we really trust the Girondists?
First and foremost, were it even possible, it would take too long. And if it can’t be done by election, it can’t be done by other means. Nor should it. If after all this shit, the people still want to elect him, then thats how it should stand. I’ll go behind a tree and puke my guts out, but the rules are the rules.
Secondly, it would be horrendously divisive. The bitterness and rancor of such a political movement is about as welcome to the body politic as smallpox. Things are likely to get kinda ugly. The Pubbies showed in the midterms that they were perectly comfortable with slurs on opponents patriotism. Imagine the lengths they’d go to prevent an impeachment!
If you so much as whispered the word “impeachment” in the House Tom DeLay’s hair would catch fire and his head would explode.
And I understand why Yellowcake should be removed through the process of “non-reinstallation”. But (and I guess this is a self-hijack–dear God, is nothing safe!?) at what point should the American people rise up and slay him as we assert the Iraqi’s should have done to their previous leader? Does such talk make sense only AFTER he manages to toss down term limits? Or do we need to wait until the rest of the world starts acting “preemptively” against us? I mean poor management of a nation is excusable if based on incompetence, but THIS guy…
Can you impeach a president for being a poor leader? I always thought it was because the president committed a crime. You know “high crimes and misdemeanors”
You may feel that he is ‘criminally’ irresponsible and a terrible president, but you’d have to show an actual crime before you can impeach.
You all have a problem because there will be more republicans to deal with after the 2004 elections. This country is leaning towards a more conservative agenda, deal with it…
I’m with Cheesesteaket alia; I’ve no love for the man, his administration or his policies, but I’ve yet to see anything that could be considered concrete grounds for impeachment. I’d settle for a 2004 electoral defeat (although I hesitate to say it without knowing who his successor would be).
OK, heres another example. I keep pointing this out to you people, but you just don’t get it. The gravest crisis facing our country is CD! Cognitive Dissonance!
When your CD volunteer comes calling, give, and give generously.
I despise Bush’s administration. If there was an attempt to impeach him based on widespread distate for his policies I would be the first to take to the streets against it. The attempt to impeach Clinton, based almost solely on Conservative distaste for his administration, was wrong. An attempt from the other side of the aisle would be just as wrong.
The California recall makes me wish would take a collective deep breath and wonder if we want to be Italy or Israel with the threat of votes of no confidence hanging over every administration. I personally think not, but that is what we would be heading towards.
