Will impeachment of GWB become serious consideration?

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

I personally believe that if the Dems feel they have solid grounds for impeachment, they ought to soberly pursue the matter, draft clear articles of impeachment with detailed arguments and supporting evidence available online, pass articles of impeachment in the House, then move to a Senate trial. Then the American people can decide whether they agree with the Dems or the GOP, and vote accordingly in 2008.

Bush isn’t running in '08.

Not only is standing up publicly for what you believe to be true generally the right thing to do, but in practical terms, it’s not like the Dems are going to be able to get a raft of legislation through Congress this term, so the practical objection most often raised last winter, that impeachment would interfere with the Dems’ legislative agenda, seems to be void.

Oh, so when you said let the the American people decide, you meant that they would decide against the Democrats since they have proven unable to govern. Now I get it.

[marshmallow]

@Mr. Moto

Might give you a better perspective on this particular subject.

Indeed. It’s not like Bush is breaking new ground; much worse was done in the past, what with the out and out spying and attempted sabotoge of anti-war groups, quakers, the civil rights movement, labor, and other leftist/“dangerous” groups, across several administrations and from both sides of the aisle. If such information came out at the time I would hope the public would demand impeachment immediately. But as present knowledge shows, not so much.

[zamboniracer]

Pelosi is at fault for taking impeachment off the table. What did that accomplish? Nothing.

Ironically, it was Tricky Dick Nixon who said that, " A good politician never says what he will never do." Nixon was right about that little tidbit, just as Pelosi was wrong to take impeachment off the table.

[Ravenman]

@marshmallow

Gerald Ford put it simply when he stated: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” … However, if a person thinks Bush can not be impeached in principle, then I would be frightened to see what a president would have to do to warrant impeachment in their view. Perhaps if he ate a baby on live television it would be possible to broach the subject.

It’s funny you mention Gerald Ford and “impeachment in principle” in the same post. You might want to look and see what Ford actually said about impeachment.

When he talked about impeachable offenses being whatever Congress thinks they are, he was speaking about Federal judges who are allowed to keep tenure so long as they serve with “good behavior.” Ford goes on to say:

… a higher standard is expected of Federal judges than of any other “civil officers” of the United States. The President and Vice President … can be thrown out of office by the voters at least every four years. To remove them in midterm … would indeed require crimes of the magnitude of treason and bribery."

So it seems that Gerald Ford completely disagrees with the idea of impeachment for principles.

The fact is that the American people got the President they deserved. Of the list of offenses that Bob Lib Dem listed, all but the attorney scandal was well-known at the time of the 2004 election, and we (generic we, not we as in me and most of you) still decided to let him be President again. Shame on us.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Bush isn’t running in '08.

I was thinking of Congress, which is the body that handles impeachment.

[XT]

@Ravenman

The fact is that the American people got the President they deserved. Of the list of offenses that Bob Lib Dem listed, all but the attorney scandal was well-known at the time of the 2004 election, and we (generic we, not we as in me and most of you) still decided to let him be President again. Shame on us.

Exactly.

-XT

[marshmallow]

@Ravenman

It’s funny you mention Gerald Ford and “impeachment in principle” in the same post. You might want to look and see what Ford actually said about impeachment.

That is interesting and I didn’t know about that, thank you. However, it doesn’t change the idea, even if I have taken it out of context. If Congress wanted to impeach Bush because he smirks a lot or they think he has a bad haircut or whatever they could.

[XT]

@marshmallow

That is interesting and I didn’t know about that, thank you. However, it doesn’t change the idea, even if I have taken it out of context. If Congress wanted to impeach Bush because he smirks a lot or they think he has a bad haircut or whatever they could.

Certainly…if they were willing to pay the political price of such an action. In addition you’d either need to have a buy in from the opposing party or you’d need an overwhelming majority in order to make this a political reality.

In this case I don’t think the Dem’s are willing to pay the political price…and they don’t have any way to get enough Pub’s to buy in. Nor do they have an overwhelming majority. So…this (perpetual, eternal seeming) question of impeaching Bush is just some mental porn for the faithful.

-XT

[Ravenman]

@marshmallow

That is interesting and I didn’t know about that, thank you. However, it doesn’t change the idea, even if I have taken it out of context. If Congress wanted to impeach Bush because he smirks a lot or they think he has a bad haircut or whatever they could.

I suppose one could say that Congress is as free to disregard a plain reading of the Constitution as President Bush is. Therefore, if the President can argue that “commander in chief” gives him unlimited authority to use our military for any purpose he wants, one could argue that Congress can read “high crimes and misdemeanors” to mean anything it wants.

That doesn’t make it right.

[Cervaise]

@John Mace

Bush isn’t running in '08.

Clinton wasn’t running in 2000, which didn’t stop GWB from running, successfully, against the legacy of his administration.

[Mr.Moto]

That was made easier by the fact that Clinton’s vice president was the candidate, and thus could be linked directly with the administration itself.

Whoever it is next time, it won’t be an administration figure. They all have their own little political fiefdoms that don’t involve the current White House.

Certainly there is an intersection because of party and ideology, which will make it likely hard for these candidates to distance themselves from Bush very much. But Gore wasn’t able to distance himself from Clinton to any significant degree.

[John_Mace]

@Cervaise

Clinton wasn’t running in 2000, which didn’t stop GWB from running, successfully, against the legacy of his administration.

But I was responding to **RTF **and his reference to the 2008 election and letting the American people decide. I thought he meant the presidential election, not the Congressional elections.

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

Approval ratings, strong or weak, are not a valid reason for impeachment.

Let’s not forget that Carter’s lowest approval rating was of a par with Bush’s, and Truman’s was even lower. Would either of these men have deserved impeachment?

No, but Bush surely qualifies as any nonpartisan-thinking person would agree. For instance:

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

***…George W. Bush has, of course, flagrantly violated his oath of office, which requires him “to protect and defend the constitution,” and the opposition party has been remarkably reluctant to hold him to account. Among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that, under other political circumstances, would surely constitute the Constitutional grounds for impeachment are these: the President and his top officials pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to put together a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s nuclear weapons that both the administration and the Agency knew to be patently dishonest. They then used this false NIE to justify an American war of aggression. After launching an invasion of Iraq, the administration unilaterally reinterpreted international and domestic law to permit the torture of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, at Guant·namo Bay, Cuba, and at other secret locations around the world.

Nothing in the Constitution, least of all the commander-in-chief clause, allows the president to commit felonies. Nonetheless, within days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush had signed a secret executive order authorizing a new policy of “extraordinary rendition,” in which the CIA is allowed to kidnap terrorist suspects anywhere on Earth and transfer them to prisons in countries like Egypt, Syria, or Uzbekistan, where torture is a normal practice, or to secret CIA prisons outside the United States where Agency operatives themselves do the torturing.

On the home front, despite the post-9/11 congressional authorization of new surveillance powers to the administration, its officials chose to ignore these and, on its own initiative, undertook extensive spying on American citizens without obtaining the necessary judicial warrants and without reporting to Congress on this program. These actions are prima-facie violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (and subsequent revisions) and of Amendment IV of the Constitution.

These alone constitute more than adequate grounds for impeachment, while hardly scratching the surface…***

I’ll say.

[Mr.Moto]

@RedFury

No, but Bush surely qualifies as any nonpartisan-thinking person would agree.

You never took any Dale Carnegie classes, did you?

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

You never took any Dale Carnegie classes, did you?

Nothing beats honesty – much less a Carnegie class. And you’re quite wrong in your mockery, sir, for as much as it might come as a surprise to you, I am a Spanish Socialist through and through, thus neither of your two Parties appeals to me. With the obvious disclaimer that I consider – for the most part – the Democrats the more forward-thinking of the two…while still lagging quite a bit vis-a-vis the quasi social democracies of most EU nations, especially as practiced in the Scandinavian countries.

To me, having seen and lived all that I’ve seen and lived, it’s as close to a practical solution to what ails most nations (classism, elitism, call it what you want…but an increasing gap it has become) as there is out there.

I certainly don’t support out and out corporate capitalism/globalization/greed, so, on that account alone I think I would be a hard fit into the Democratic Party.

There’s some “Dale Carnegie” a là RedFury for you.

[Mr.Moto]

Well, that’s all very well and fine. Personally the only Spanish Reds I’ve found appetizing have been Tempranillos and Garnachas

And they were very appetizing indeed.

[elucidator]

Bought a tamale from a street vendor in Hermosillo once. I am much less adventuresome, in my maturity.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Hmmm…is Cheney impeachable?

That dog might hunt.

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

Well, that’s all very well and fine. Personally the only Spanish Reds I’ve found appetizing have been Tempranillos and Garnachas

And they were very appetizing indeed.

Ah! A fine wine connoisseur no less. Might I recommend a vintage PX? Dessert wine from the gods – and this coming from a rare wine drinker.

In other matters, have you noticed how carefully you’ve avoided even getting near the content of the article I cited? Because I have.

Salud!

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

No, but Bush surely qualifies as any nonpartisan-thinking person would agree. For instance:

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

I’ll say.

I won’t disagree with you on the general principle-- it should be relatively easy to draw up articles of impeachment for Bush that would easily pass the sniff test of constitutional muster, and might pass in the House. Keep in mind that you almost certainly couldn’t get a conviction in the Senate, though.

I would, however, point out one error in the quoted passage of your link, and that is in regards to the NIE. Most Congresscritters never read the NIE, relying instead on the declassified cliff notes. AFAICT, neither Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, McCain or Brownback (recent and former Senators running for president) read the full version. At least one Senator who did (Bob Graham, former D-FL) says that it helped him decide to vote “no” on the AUMF, since he did not see that the report supported the claim made by the administration that Iraq posed a threat to the US.

It wasn’t that the NIE was a lie-- it was that very few Senators took the time to read it.

So, although I dispute your cite on that one issue, I agree with the others (at least those you listed in your quote).