Will impeachment of GWB become serious consideration?

Bush isn’t running in '08.

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. :smiley:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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. :stuck_out_tongue:


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :wink:

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

Hmmm…is Cheney impeachable?

That dog might hunt.

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.


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).