I’ve been rattling this around in my head for a while now, and Bush’s reportedly tepid response to the Iraq Commission’s report–and his recent comparing of himself to Harry Truman–has forced me to the conclusion that, yes, he should be impeached.
Now the response one often hears as to why this is a bad idea is that it automatically means: President Cheney.
I disagree.
History shows that impeachment of a president does not automatically mean power devolves onto the vice-president. Impeachment is merely the first of two stages required to remove someone from office. Two presidents have been impeached in our history; in neither instance did the vice-president wind up as commander-in-chief.
I don’t think he needs to be impeached to be removed from office. I think he needs to be impeached to get his attention. Bush has ceased worrying about how his policies are impacting upon our soldiers and their families and the people of Iraq and–let’s face it–the global community, in terms of their own interests and their relationships with us. His major concern appears to be about his legacy and his place in history. If he thinks his place in history will be as the first president to be impeached and removed, that might be the cold dash of water in the face he needs.
Besides, it’s only just: If a president can be impeached over getting a bløw jøb from one person, certainly a president can be impeached over giving a screw job to 250 million people.
To paraphrase “Heroes”–“Impeach the President; Save the World.”
PAD
• 
1Hey, wow, I get to be first this time!!!
I doubt very much impeachment will get Bush’s attention. If anything I think he will go further into his denel about what’s going on around himself. I site former Secretary of Treasure Paul O’Nell’s book, State Of Denel, in which he warms Bush repeatedly about the short comings of his ecomic policies and how they will have serious long term concquenseces for America. I doubt he understands fully what’s going on, just what his friends tell him and they tell him what he wants to hear.
But for those of you who are terrifed of President Cheney, let me point out something John Dean wrote in Worse than Watergate: Cheney has had 3 heartattacks and the wall around his heart is all but gone.
I doubt he could handel the long-term rigors of the oval office and it is far more likely that he will resign if faced with a similar impeachment into wither or not he personally profited from the war. Cheney still has millions tied up in Haliburton and KDR stock in his blind trust plus he is, as far as I know, still reciving a severnce package from Haliburton.
Impeach the President, save the world, may not be far off. If we do this, we will not look weak in the eyes of the world. We will show people that our hearts are with them and that our system still works.
Aw dámņ, I thought *I* was gonna be first. :~(
Anyway, great line about the bløw jøb and the screw job. And yeah, something has to be done, somebody’s gotta stand up to this áššhølë and tell him that he cannot just do whatever the hëll he wants with no consequences.
He does seem to believe that. Take the NSA wiretapping. The program started in 2002. It was uncovered years later. And in all of that time, Bush never once went before a FISA court to ask for authorization beforehand or retroactively. He had plenty of time. He had YEARS. Why didn’t he ask for authorization? For a warrant?
I believe the answer to that is that he simply didn’t want to. He decided that he didn’t need anybody’s permission, that he could just ignore the law and do whatever he wanted to. To me, that is the most disturbing part of it, that the most powerful man in the world thinks he is above the law.
An impeachment would show him that no, he is absolutely NOT above the law, and that if he misbehaves there WILL be consequences. At least, I think it would. If Josh is right and even that failed to get his attention, then there’s no hope at all.
Talk about a pot stirrer. I’m avoiding this one suffice to say you gave me a great belly laugh to start off the day – ‘Impeach the president, save the world.’
Catchy.
Well, Cynthia McKinney in one of the only bright spots of her public career has filed articles of impeachment against Bush. It is predicted to go nowhere at this time. Too bad. I’m disheartened by incoming Speaker Pelosi’s statements that impeachment is off the table. On the one hand you don’t want the threat of impeachment to become a casual thing. On the other hand this war and related actions are not casual misdeeds.
Also, I’m not worried about President Cheney. For one thing we’ve effectively had him for five years already. For another thing I imagine the stuff that would come out in an impeachment hearing for Bush would inspire Cheney to “spend more time with his family.” Hey, he’s got a grandchild on the way!
More intriguing is the question of who Bush would select as his Gerald Ford. Could McCain be counted on for a full pardon?
Now that I think about it, Cheney’s drive to invade Iraq demonstrated after 9-11 was probably ignited by the desire to distance himself from the Arab terrorists he took $73 million from during the 1990s as head of Halliburton.
Answering for that would look good on him during a Bush impeachment.
Doutfull. Nancy Peolosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must’ve seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.
Even trying to impeach Bush is the one thing that will almost certainly increase his popularity and fire up his base.
Those who don’t remember the lessons of history…
Americans weren’t interested that Clinton was covering up a bløwjøb. That doesn’t mean they disapprove of presidential impeachments. Again, Bill Mulligan, you’re weighing a penny of democratic lapses the same as a thousand dollars of republican corruption. The dead mouse in your hand is showing.
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign promise to “open the books” proved effective against Gray Davis in the California recall-election. There’s no reason to believe a similar campaign wouldn’t prove effective in building support for a Bush-impeachment.
My two thoughts.
One, the congress should not set out to imppeach but rather aggressively investigate what this President has done. (Something the Republican led Congress refused to do.) If or when these investigations show that the President has made impeachable acts, then let the fact lead to impeachment. The American people in polls show support for impeachment if Bush broke the law.
Two. I am amazed by the hypocrasy of the Republicans who impeached Clinton. Many, such as Lindsay Graham of N.C., shouted that it was not about politcs but the law. Yet they willfully turn a blind eye to everything this President has done. So much so, that they changed the law after he broke it to cover his illegal acts.
Unfortunately, because the only two impeachments in history have not resulted in removal, I tend to doubt Bush will take such a thing seriously. Rather, from everything we’ve seen from this gang from the 2000 GOP primaries onward says to me they will react like cornered rabid raccoons, clawing and tearing and bringing down the entire house around them rather than backing down.
I have to agree with the people who think that impeachment would fail to get Bush on track. He would just ignore it. His only hope for leaving any kind of positive legacy is to stay the course and so he will.
Mike, your neediness in wanting me to respond to you is telling. And sad. I pretty much said everything I needed to say to you in earlier threads. Nothing you have done in your previous troll attacks on the poor folks at livejournal or in you actions here have given me any hope that you will ever be worth wasting time on.
Nice to see you’re switched from lame Of Mice and Men analogies to lame Flowers for Algernon ones. At this rate you’ll have zipped through the average 11th grade reading list by 2012.
The reason Speaker Pelosi has “taken impeachment off the table” (a startlingly overreaching statement–one of the duties of the house is to keep the possibility of impeachment open. It’s part of the checks and balances.) is because she knows it would be the only thing they would accomplish and she probably has quite a few things she’d like to get done ahead of a (probably doomed) attempt to impeach him.
But we will see. If there really is a big groundswell of public support for impeachment I have no doubt that a number of congressmen will suddenly be all for it. I’d rate that liklihood as a bit higher than the draft coming back. Which is to say, higher than zero.
Bush wouldn’t take impeachment as a wake-up call, he’d take it as a personal attack. It would have the same effect as poking an angry dog with a stick.
Probably a silly question, but I’m not up on the US legal/political system, so…
What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?
Didn’t Bill Clinton commit perjury and that was the reason for his impeachment?
I’m sure plenty of Presidents have gotten bløw jøbš.
I not a Bush fan, but I wouldn’t hold President Clinton up as a great president or leader by any stretch of the imagination.
“Bush wouldn’t take impeachment as a wake-up call, he’d take it as a personal attack. It would have the same effect as poking an angry dog with a stick.”
No, it would be like poking a dry-drunk, emotionally stunted, intellectually-challenged, narrow-minded, delusional spoiled fratboy with a dose of reality, and what do you think someone like that will do?
As we saw in his reaction to the latest report on the war in Iraq, he goes deeper into denial and delusion. Bush is the most classic case of a dry-drunk personality disorder I’ve ever seen. Unfortunately, this textbook case happens to be president of the most powerful country in the world.
How can so many Americans still support this administration, how can so many Americans not be terrified watching this man — who truly has mental and emotional problems and should be in treatment — sink deeper into his own little world?
I guess too many of us come from families where we play along and cover up the addict’s behavior, and deny there is a problem. It’s like we’re a 350-million member dysfunctional family, with some in the family realizing how bad things have gotten. The few who realized the truth about Bush from the beginning, even when he was governor of Texas, like Molly Ivins, were (for the first few years of this administration) like the family member who first tries to alert the rest that something is wrong, that daddy is a drunk, and something has to be done. The family becomes outraged, how dare you say that about daddy; the first protestors became ostracized, labeled trouble-makers. They are accused of being disloyal to the family, traitors, for trying to make everyone see the reality of the situation.
But by now, as more family members begin to see how bad things are getting, they no longer are so willing to participate in the denials and cover-ups and rationalizations, and lies.
Consider the Impeachment process as a much-needed INTERVENTION, by the family America, to get Bush the help he needs, and save the country. Of course, the leadership of the Democratic Party is still playing the role of “mommy” — the co-dependent and enabling wife who still can’t quite get the courage up to face the facts and start the process of the Intervention because “she’s” too far into the denial herself, and is afraid to upset too many apple-carts.
McKinney is a hero — she’s trying to get the co-dependent and enabling Congress to wake the hëll up.
While, in theory, I agree with your statements I’m not sure what it would accomplish. All it would do is get the GOP all worked up and pretty much kill the already slim chance that maybe, just maybe we could actually get the two sides to be civil towards one another.
Attempting, or succeeding, in impeaching Bush would be the political equivalent of the invasion of Baghdad. Yes, Bush is a terrible person and probably deserves it, but all the end result would lead to is instability and chaos.
Well then why don’t you simply not respond when I correct you? That would make things easier on both of us, wouldn’t it?
Considering it was your troll-flood that prompted Peter to shut down a thread, you simply are in no position to condemn me for a troll. For the shut-down thread, I was down to posting 3 times in 3 days, responding to posts directed at me. I hadn’t even posted for almost 24 hours when that thread was closed.
As for livejournal, the only livejournalers I post to are 2 anonymous ones who I correspond with outside of comments. There is one typepad weblog that might fit what you’re describing, but she linked to my site for as long as I updated it. Her husband certainly had no problem linking to me.
However Peter feels about my presence here, nothing I’ve done has been close to prompting a writer who raises money for the CBLDF to shut down a comments thread. You are obviously of a severe caliber among trolls. Any criticism of trolling against me goes at least double for you.
Is the book not titled Of Mice and Men?
Dude, my paperback copy is 107 pages long. Don’t hold me to the 11th grade reading list when you haven’t even finished it yourself.
Bush was authorized to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
The only evidence Iraq was a threat to the US was speculation not supported by evidence from the intelligence agency of any government, and Saddam Hussein had consented to inspections of his non-existent weapons program prior to the US invasion.
Bill Mulligan, worry not about the slings and arrows of those with bitter personal agendas. This is the first blog in which I’ve EVER been willing to discuss politics, and that’s in large part thanks to you. You and I disagree on quite a few issues, but I can’t help but want to engage you in discussion because you are intelligent, well-informed, and polite.
I’ll be back later with an impeachment-related post. But I felt compelled to stick up for my good friend, Mr. Bill “Squirrel Commander” Mulligan. 🙂
Oh, and one other thing: trolls are only as pernicious as we allow them to be. I’ve learned through bitter experience that there is only ONE way to respond to them: not at all. Don’t even acknowledge ’em, unless it is the only way to correct an egregious factual error. Even then, just correct the error without acknowledging the troll, and move on. 🙂
Peter David: certainly a president can be impeached over giving a screw job to 250 million people.
Luigi Novi: Aren’t we like, 300 million now? (Just asking.)
Y’know, on the one hand, I can’t see how anything Clinton did constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” more than anything W. has. And yet, I wonder if having a Democrat and Republican President impeached back-to-back will start a slippery slope down which impeachment will become a regular occurence by every President’s opponent party. Not something I’d like to contemplate, but when you consider that Clinton’s impeachment was an act of total partisan bûllšhìŧ, I can’t help but wonder, even if impeaching Bush would be totally legit.
Josh Pritchett: Cheney has had 3 heartattacks…
Luigi Novi: Four.
Bill Mulligan: Even trying to impeach Bush is the one thing that will almost certainly increase his popularity and fire up his base.
Luigi Novi: I doubt that. Are you implying that impeachment in and of itself has this effect? Did that happen to Johnson? I think it happened with Clinton is because the American people liked Clinton’s job performance, liked how things were going well for the country during his tenure, and saw the impeachment for the partisan witch hunt that it was, not because impeachment necessarily imbues any ol’ President with popularity. I think central to this is whether the public thinks the President in question deserves it. The public didn’t think Clinton did. I don’t think they’ll have the same reaction with Bush, his hardcore apologists notwithstanding.
brian h: Didn’t Bill Clinton commit perjury and that was the reason for his impeachment?
Luigi Novi: Depends on who you listen to. According to former L.A. prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, perjury, in addition to being the most underprosecuted crime, requires that the lie be on a matter relevant to the proceedings. It is for this reason, for example, that he opined that Mark Fuhrman was not guilty of perjury for testifying that he had not used the “N-word” in the ten years prior to his testimony. Bugliosi pointed out that neither the Paula Jones nor Monica Lewinsky matters were relevant to the Whitewater matter, which was the matter Kenneth Star was assigned to investigate at Independent Counsel. Bugliosi also pointed out that the Independent Counsel law was only for actions the President allegedly committed during his presidency, and that since the Whitewater deal (in which Clinton committed no crime, but was himself a victim of James McDougal’s scheme, incidentally) occurred years before Clinton became President, even that was not an appropriate matter for an IC.
Rivka: It’s like we’re a 350-million member dysfunctional family…
Luigi Novi: 350?
You’ve admitted to the troll-flood I referred to. You are also in no position to cry troll on anyone.
Pitiful.
I don’t think doing so would do anything positive. It wouldn’t cause Bush to change. And I think the best thing the Dems can do is spend that time showing all the mistakes made and the corruption that was turned into a way of life by this administration.
That would do more good than wasting the time on impeachment.
Oh, one other thing… to the poster that thinks that impeachment would make Bush more popular and fire up his base, you are missing out on a few things. Clinton was popular before impeachment and nobody cared about what he was impeached for. Everybody saw it clearly as what it was…. a political attack that abused our system. And the more they attacked and failed to get a solid hit, the more the people loved him. And still do.
Impeaching in this case would do little, and it would be akin to shooting a dead dog.
Goddammit, Luigi, your first remark about impeachment was the very point I was going to make! And you said it better than I would have!
I take back everything nice I’ve ever said about you.
Oiy, I try to stay out of politics around here cuz it can get messy, but what they hey; coffee hasn’t sunk in enough to knock sense into me.
On the one hand, I tend to agree that impeachment wouldn’t do the attention catching necessary (and would probably take longer than he has left in office). But on the other, he actually said earlier this week that people – including himself – didn’t read the reports going through the White House! He admitted to not reading the documents he was given to read on Iraq, and ananda knows what else! This is a major failing as a president. I mean, no, I doubt you have to read everything, but there’s got to be some system of “someone’ll tell you about it, you read the cliff notes prepared from someone, this one should be read…”
*shakes head*
I honestly don’t know what will get the attention of this administration – and frankly, I’m not certain getting its attention would be a good idea.
um…I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?…not for having a bløw jøb.
He lied so that the prosecution could not establish a pattern of behavior…
What is sad is that most of the time whatever democrats accuse of Bush of doing, they have already done or are still doing.
Conservatives and liberals use the same words, but might as well be speaking completely different languages.
One man’s barbarian is the other man’s scholar. They call it “A woman’s right to choose”, I call it “killing a baby behind closed doors with no one to stand and fight for the unseen and unheard child.”
God help us.
“Probably a silly question, but I’m not up on the US legal/political system, so…
What exactly could Bush be impeached FOR?”
Yes, I’d like an answer to this question too.
It would go a long way to confirming the illegality of torture and the requirement of habeas corpus, where this administration continues to shelter torture and the suspension of habeas corpus. How do you feel about the government reserving the privilege to lock you up as a terrorist on their word alone?
He authorized an invasion he wasn’t legally authorized to start.
It depends on what you definition of “threat” is.
He decided that he didn’t need anybody’s permission, that he could just ignore the law and do whatever he wanted to
He has all along & still does. Just look at his 750 & counting “signing statements” where he declares that the law he’s signing into effect doesn’t apply to him. Even when the law specifically states “The President shall …”
—–
Nancy Peolosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must’ve seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.
Not the same thing. Clinton had a high approval rating before the impeachment bûllšhìŧ, his bj didn’t hurt anyone or cost the taxpayers anything. Also, virtually noone supported the impeachment.
With Bush, he has lied about nearly everything since taking office, he has caused thousand of U.S. lives in Iraq & Afghanistan, & cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Also, the call for impeaching both bush & cheney has been steadily growing for months.
I recall reading that JFK seriously believed he would have been impeached if he had not quickly and decisively handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, that’s how high the stakes are. The Commander-in-Chief is like the captain of a ship. If you make decisions that are life-threatening, then Congress must take the appropriate steps.
When Clinton was impeached,the refrain from the Right was that if he had been an average joe, he’d have been flat-out fired without all the dramatics. True or not, it’s even more the case with Bush — would you really think the CEO of publically owned company — one that’s beholden to its stock holders — would be allowed to keep making misstep after misstep if it were costing the shareholders a fortune?
There just seems to be no real accountability for the mistakes Bush has made — there was no legitimate reason to go to Iraq and even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually thought there were WMDs there, again I go to the CEO analogy: If the CEO really thought there was oil in some swampland and bankrupted the company searching for it, he would still be canned.
Instead, Bush gets two full terms and a few bruises that don’t even effect him. If we can’t get some real changes in Iraq, then I don’t give a dámņ about raising the minimum wage. That’s a nice to have but ending this disaster is a must have.
Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The U.S. Constitution is remarkably silent on just what the phrase “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” comprises. As I understand it, this was deliberate. Impeachment was meant to be a political process, and thus one that could be influenced by public opinion.
So, really, we could impeach President Bush for all sorts of things. Just because we CAN do something, however, doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
I believed, and continue to believe, that the evidence suggesting Iraq’s WMD program was thriving and that Saddam Hussein was engaged with Al Qaeda was too thin to act upon. It is grossly inaccurate, however, to state that there was no evidence that Iraq was a threat. The evidence was thin, and existed alongside evidence that suggested Iraq may not have been a threat. Neither side was able to make a conclusive case.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush chose to focus on the evidence that supported his views and ignore that which undercut them. Was he guilty of outright lying, or of allowing his thinking to be clouded by a sincere but overzealous agenda? I don’t know.
I do know this: while I agree that President Bush may have committed the greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history by invading Iraq, I don’t believe we should impeach him for it. To do so would, I believe, leave future presidents open to impeachment over any unpopular decision. I’d hate to see us cripple the ability of future presidents to lead in our zeal to nail the current one.
Bush showed, and continues to show, stubbornness, arrogance, and outright incompetence on issues of foreign policy. The U.S. has already held him accountable for this, however, by giving Congress back to the Democrats. If Bush continues on his stubborn course, the voters will likely give the presidency back to the Dems as well. I believe that’s the best method for holding our government accountable: by voting. Impeachment should be reserved for remarkable circumstances. Nixon’s involvement in Watergate qualified.
Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2006 01:00 PM
um…I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?…not for having a bløw jøb.
Technically, yes, that is true. The impeachment stemmed from a civil suit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones, who alleged that Clinton sexually harrassed her. Clinton was asked about an affair with Monica Lewinsky during depositions for that case.
The problem? Well, for one thing, the suit was of dubious legal merits. It was funded by ultra-conservative hatchet-people like Ann Coulter, who were more interested in getting Clinton than in Paula Jones or the merits of her case. Second, the judge in the Paula Jones suit decided that questions about an affair with Lewinsky were not relevant to that suit. After Clinton was impeached, she did find him in contempt of court. But one has to ask oneself: should we have embroiled the nation in costly and distracting impeachment hearings to punish Clinton for lying during a deposition, even though the matter about which he lied was deemed immaterial to the case, and even though the case itself was clearly politically motivated? Personally, I believe we should not. It was an abuse of the impeachment process.
Impeachment is like a pair of sharp scissors. You can do a lot of things with those scissors. Some of them are perfectly logical and productive. Others are stupid and harmful. My thought? Even though you can do a lot of things with scissors, you probably SHOULDN’t do ALL of them.
Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2006 01:00 PM
What is sad is that most of the time whatever democrats accuse of Bush of doing, they have already done or are still doing.
Conservatives and liberals use the same words, but might as well be speaking completely different languages.
One man’s barbarian is the other man’s scholar. They call it “A woman’s right to choose”, I call it “killing a baby behind closed doors with no one to stand and fight for the unseen and unheard child.”
God help us.
Chris, I appreciate your passion, but you are greatly oversimplifying things by portraying this as a battle between the Good Conservatives and the Evil Liberals. In life, things are rarely so clear-cut. I have been a staunch liberal all of my life, but as I become older I am able to integrate conservative beliefs into my life — without compromising certain liberal principles. Bill Mulligan is a conservative — his street creds in that area are unimpeachable — yet he holds certain view that could be called “liberal.”
Also, what constitutes “conservatism” or “liberalism”? Those are big tents, Chris. Not all conservatives agree about everything. Nor do all liberals.
And I believe you are doing your beliefs about abortion a disservice by injecting them into a discussion where, really, they are not relevant. This is a discussion about Bush, his foreign policy decisions, and whether he should be impeached for any of those decisions.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2006 01:30 PM
Also, virtually noone supported the impeachment.
Untrue. Many Democrats in Congress were angry at the President, and quite a few were prepared to support impeachment. But then the GOP overplayed its hand, and ironically helped the Democratic leadership circle the wagons in defense of Clinton.
Bill Myers wrote:
“Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The U.S. Constitution is remarkably silent on just what the phrase “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” comprises. As I understand it, this was deliberate. Impeachment was meant to be a political process, and thus one that could be influenced by public opinion.”
I’m not a constitutional scholar. But it seems to me that the section quotes says that a president should be impeached for commiting certain crimes, not all crimes, but two very specific crimes — bribery and treason — and other ‘high’ crimes. The vague language here seems to me to suggest that the congress here has discretion whether a crime is high enough to merit impeachment, and when not.
So the question is, did Bush commit a high crime or misdemeanor?
It also seems to me illadviced to use impeachment if no crime was committed. Your system does not have an option of a toppling an elected president with a vote on no confidence. This seems to create stability. Would you really want to change it to a system in which a president can be impeached, not for commiting a crime, but for making bad decisions? This would be a major change in your system.
However, aside from waiting for elections, there are other democratic methods to pressure the government. If there were massive demonstrations and campaigns calling to the president to resign, or at least pay attention to the Iraq report, that would be quite significant. Obviously, in your system, Bush can ignore it, but it would be very difficult for him and even more so for the members of his party who are hoping to be elected in the future. Such a campaign could also maybe serve as the necessary wake up call bush needs without the constitutional problems (unless of course a crime was committed).
The Presidential Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
During his tenure in office, George W. Bush has participated in passing, and then strongly defended, several pieces of legislation (most notably certain sections of the “Patriot” Act) that clearly violated sections of the US Constitution, particularly Amendments IV-VI.
For those not up on the relevant sections:
IV. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” violated here in Seattle, resulting the the closing-down of a neighborhood market that happened to be in the same building as a wire-transfer service that was suspected of possibly laundering funds for certain unnamed terrorist groups);
V. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger…” (Jose Padilla was not in actual service, nor has he ever been indicted anywhere by anything even vaguely resembling a grand jury – a star chamber, maybe);
VI. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” (And the Bush Administration actually went to court to try to claim their “right” to completely and utterly ignore this entire amendment if the President alone thinks someone might be hiding something.)
Enough “High Crimes and Misdemeanours” for ya?
Untrue. Many Democrats in Congress were angry at the President, and quite a few were prepared to support impeachment. But then the GOP overplayed its hand, and ironically helped the Democratic leadership circle the wagons in defense of Clinton.
Actually, I was referring to the public, not Congress.
—–
um…I thought Clinton was impeached for lying under oath?…not for having a bløw jøb.
Originally, it was for lying. The words “under oath” were almost never used, if ever, until bush starting lying his ášš off about everything. When people started asking why shouldn’t bush be impeached for lying when Clinton was, bush supporters started adding the “under oath” part.
Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 10, 2006 02:52 PM
Enough “High Crimes and Misdemeanours” for ya?
Not really. Bush wouldn’t be the first President to assert that certain constitutional protections can be suspended during wartime.
Bush is clearly acting in accordance with what he believes to be his powers as a wartime president. If one believes he is wrong — as I most certainly do — the appropriate remedy is to challenge his decisions in court. To use impeachment as a remedy would not only be an abuse of that process, but would invite further abuses.
It’s bad enough that Congressional Republicans abused the impeachment process in their zeal to unseat President Clinton. Going after Bush with another bogus impeachment would begin an ugly trend with dangerous implications for future presidents’ ability to govern.
I think edhopper had it right. The Congress has until now done a piss-poor job of providing oversight. Let the Congress investigate anything that warrants investigation. If — and only if — they turn up something worth pursuing should we consider impeachment.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2006 03:02 PM
Actually, I was referring to the public, not Congress.
I stand corrected.
FYI, here is a pro-impeachemnt group’s take on impeachable offenses.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/points_general.html
Yes it’s partison, but it does show there is cause for impeachemnt is Congress so decides.
While I agree that Bush should never have been voted into the Oval Office to begin with, it is a major undertaking from wanting the guy removed from office to actually accomplishing it.
For what it’s worth, take comfort in the fact that he is a lame duck who cannot run again, unless his cronies in Congress manage to rewrite the Constitution before the Presidential Primaries.
For another take on this subject, has anybody seen today’s (December 10th) installment of Doonesbury? 😉
The President has only one Constitutionally mandated public statement. The State of the Union. He doesn’t have to speak before Congress, but he does have to deliver it to them. It’s hard not to accept that he knowingly lied in the 2002 SOTU when he talked about Saddam and the WMD, especially the Niger uranium.
If Clinton could be impeached for lying in a civil suit, Bush could easily be impeached for violating his Constitional duty and lying in the SOTU.
For another take on this subject, has anybody seen today’s (December 10th) installment of Doonesbury? 😉
Yes. It was brutal. 😉
Sorry in advance for the long post folks but its a deep topic.
edhopper stated: “the congress should not set out to impeach but rather aggressively investigate what this President has done… If or when these investigations show that the President has made impeachable acts, then let the fact lead to impeachment. “
I concur with Mr Hopper on this one. I think Pelosi’s goal is to get a legistative agenda off the ground while simultaneously providing agressive oversight of the administration. If this oversight yields a SPECIFIC (dates and times) impeachable offense the so be it. But top priority for the new Congress is to GOVERN.
Jonathan (the other one) wrote “Enough “High Crimes and Misdemeanours” for ya?” and Bill Myers responded “Not really. Bush wouldn’t be the first President to assert that certain constitutional protections can be suspended during wartime.”
I concur with Bill. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus during the Civil War. That makes wiretapping look like a walk in the park.
Ben W stated: “Attempting, or succeeding, in impeaching Bush would be the political equivalent of the invasion of Baghdad. Yes, Bush is a terrible person and probably deserves it, but all the end result would lead to is instability and chaos.”
Much as I’d love to disagree with Ben and agree with Peter David I can not. Worse than the offenses that Bush has done is the mess he has left for this Congress and future Presidents. An impeachment in the middle of that mess is the textbook definition of chaos. We need to start that clean up now not absorb all of Congress’ energy on impeachment proceedings. If in sweeping up we find an impeachable offense then it becomes part of the clean up schedule–but it should not be first and formost.
Bill Myers stated: “I’ll be back later with an impeachment-related post. But I felt compelled to stick up for my good friend, Mr. Bill “Squirrel Commander” Mulligan”
What the hëll is all this “Squirrel Commander” jazz nd how do I get in on the action??
—Captain Naraht
Here’s some more on impeachable offences
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/17048/677
———-
As for what would happen if bush was impeached, I think it might be the end of the government as we know it. Think about this:
The president has the power to determine who is an enemy combatant, has the power to have that person “detained” without charges, trial or a lawyer, and now also has the power to activate the military & national guard in the U.S. in any national emergency or crises.
Remember also:
* You don’t change presidents during wartime
* Critisism of the president hurts the troops
* Not supporting the president, questioning his actions, etc, helps the enemy
So, when Congress moves to impeach, bush declares Congress (most, if not all) to be enemy combatants & orders them arrested. When large demonstrations are held against this, bush declares a national crisis & mobilizes the troops.
Naturally, there would be a split in the country that could very well become a civil war.
I know that this is an extreme, and hopefully unlikely, happening, but everything is in place for this chain of events to occur.
I am ashamed to admit that the squirrel thing was something I used to mock a troll in another thread. I portrayed him as being afraid of squirrels, and convinced that they were after him.
Unfortunately, I went berserk with the whole “poke the troll with a stick shtick” and lost any moral authority I may have had. Peter had to shut down the thread. Was it all my fault? No. But the fact that I was even partially to blame is mortifying.
So — I did a little “jiu jitsu” with the squirrel thing and turned the joke on myself! I’ve been carrying it from thread to thread and it’s now just harmless fun.
GODDAM CHITTERING ROTTEN-ÃSS MILITANT NEO-NAZI AL QAEDA SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN’T FOOL ME, I KNOW YOU ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
While, in theory, I agree with your statements I’m not sure what it would accomplish. All it would do is get the GOP all worked up and pretty much kill the already slim chance that maybe, just maybe we could actually get the two sides to be civil towards one another.
Yep. You got it. Luckily, I think most of the people in congress agree with you, Ben.
Mike- Well then why don’t you simply not respond when I correct you? That would make things easier on both of us, wouldn’t it?
Because I don’t respect you. Most of what passes for your “corrections” are just faulty logic and/or childish attacks. Responding to them accomplishes what?
Considering it was your troll-flood that prompted Peter to shut down a thread, you simply are in no position to condemn me for a troll.
Nevertheless, I think you are a troll. As you’ve seen, I’ve had no trouble ignoring you and after this post I will go right back to doing it, despite your neediness.
Peter is free to speak for himself and can doubtlessly do so with more wit and coherence than you are capable of.
Any criticism of trolling against me goes at least double for you.
Yes, yes, you’re rubber and I’m glue. Well said, good sir, well said!
Is the book not titled Of Mice and Men?
Sorry, gave you credit not deserved. For the record though, Flowers for Algernon is brilliant. Might want to give it a try.
Bill Mulligan, worry not about the slings and arrows of those with bitter personal agendas.
Worry? Pish posh! At the end of the day I am me and you are we and he is he, Paul is the Walrus and Mike Leung is Mike Leung. So…do I even need to say it?
Don’t even acknowledge ’em, unless it is the only way to correct an egregious factual error. Even then, just correct the error without acknowledging the troll, and move on. 🙂
You are wise, oh Bill. Obviously wiser than I! But after this I really will do just that.
Are you implying that impeachment in and of itself has this effect?
Hey, good to see you again, Luigi!
No, but if Bush is being impeached for the reason given–a wakeup call–it’s going to be seen, quite correctly, as simple partisan politics.
If anyone thinks he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then it doesn’t matter what his reaction to it is.
Nancy Pelosi may not be the sharpest politician but even she must’ve seen how badly impeachment worked out for Newt Gingridge.
Not the same thing.
Well, ok, then why do YOU think she has “taken it off the table”?
Chris- this isn’t the place for an abortion argument. Wait for a thread on the subject or for it to show up. Frankly, it’s pretty unlikely that any argument anyone makes on that particular subject will change many minds and trying to force it into the discussion will most likely turn off the very people you may be trying to sway.
Bill Mulligan is a conservative — his street creds in that area are unimpeachable — yet he holds certain view that could be called “liberal.”
You’d think but I just took one of those dopey internet “tests” that’s supposed to show what your political party is.
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=6916
Distressingly, here’s how I did:
Anarchism-100%
Democrat- 50%
Republican- 42%
Socialist- 42%
Communist, Green, fascism- 25%
nazi- 0%
Wtf? I mean, WTF??? What am I supposed to do with this info? Join the Anarchy party? Dress up like Jack Abramoff and carry a spy vs spy type bomb that looks like a bowling ball with a lit fuse? The Anarchy party, yeah, THERE’S a bunch of movers and shakers! Christ…
Bill, do me a favor and take that test and tell me how you did. I smell bûllšhìŧ here.
Jonathon–if the patriot act has not been declared unconstitutional it will be hard to make that argument stick. Furthermore, I’m not certain you can claim that a president can be impeached for signing a law that has been passed by congress, even if that law is later overturned. Hasn’t every president had some laws later declared unconstitutional? If that’s all it took to make them criminals we would not have any need for term limits. (We’d also have a lot more vetoes).
I seriously suggest that some of the folks talking impeachment are setting themselves up for what will be a political disaster. However I doubt the Democrats will be foolish enough to go along with it.
We’re taking this up at the next meeting of the anarchy party.
(One final note—instead of impeaching Bush over the Patriot Act why aren’t they trying to, you know, rescind the Act??? As far as I know it’s still the law of the land. Isn’t this kind of bass ackward?)
Originally, it was for lying. The words “under oath” were almost never used, if ever, until bush starting lying his ášš off about everything. When people started asking why shouldn’t bush be impeached for lying when Clinton was, bush supporters started adding the “under oath” part.
I’m not sure that’s true. The impeachment was on grounds of “perjury to a grand jury”. Isn’t that by definition under oath?
I have 3 sqirrels and two pecan trees. The sqirrels have managed to steal every single nut, storing them supposedly for “the winter”.
Folks, DO THE MATH! If you’ve ever had a pecan tree you know that the amount of nuts produced is measured by the hefty bag full. These furry bášŧárdš have each been storing a decades worth of nuts every year for the 5 years I’ve lived here. They have enough food to survive the nuclear winter of an asteroid strike by now. WHAT DO THEY KNOW?
Wake up and smell the coffee, people.
Really late to the party, but I’ve been busy.
I think that impeachment of Bush is a bad idea right now. All that impeachment will get done is the R’s that sat the last election out will come back in force in the next one, the moderates will sit the next one out or vote R and the D’s will be left scratching their heads and wondering how they got voted out of power so fast. I don’t believe that any one other then the far left are really all hot and heavy over the idea of Bush getting impeached. Most people would rather not have the country dragged through that again, and likely on a grander scale then when Clinton was impeached, and most would drop whatever support they might have given the left.
People keep talking about the last election as though it were a huge mandate on Iraq or impeachment and a huge blow to Bush. Well, I have to throw the B.S. flag on the Left just as I did two years ago and six years ago on the right. The victory was won by the skin of the Left’s teeth just as it was by the Right in ’04 and ’06. It is no more a real mandate for the left the the right’s last victories were for their actions.
The Left can play the next few years smart or they can do dumb crap and flush away their chances. Impeachment would be dumb. What happens if he is impeached but not removed? Bush would likely just put his head further up his own butt and maybe act out of spite towards the D’s until he leaves office rather then allowing himself to be leveraged into making a few better moves and choices. Remove him and you get Cheney. I think, heart issues or no, that he would do everything he could to hang on to that office until ’08. That could be much worse then Bush.
Plus, the D’s risk their support be doing that rather then working to fix problems. Yeah, I know that several of you will say that this IS fixing the problem. Again, I think that only the far left really feels that way. Those in the center may see impeachment as the D’s living down to much of the mud thrown against them over this issue and others this last year. If they do, the D’s can kiss their chances in the next election good-bye.
They would be better served doing whatever else they can and by being seen as working towards fixing problems and not damaging the nation or dragging it through that kind of thing again. Will this maybe extend the time that we are in Iraq? Yeah. Will it take longer to fix other problems? Yeah. But you may find that going the slower route, as hellish as that may seem for so many reasons, may allow for more and greater fixes down the road. After all, you can’t do anything if you’ve been voted back out of office after wasting an entire year on the dog and pony show of impeachment.
Well, ok, then why do YOU think she has “taken it off the table”?
I wish I knew. In my opinion, it’s either the usual Democratic lack of balls to stand up to the Republicans, or because she knows if she supports impeachment the Republicans will turn it around & make it about her. As in she’s doing it so she can become president without being elected.
IIRC, she said it’s off the table “for now”. She may be waiting for enough other representatives to make an issue of it before she supports it.
Or she may just be another politician who doesn’t want to upset the status quo.
You’re the one responding to my posts. You tell me.
No, Bill won’t be responding to my posts anymore. And this time he really means it.
I’m not a bestselling author underneath this phantom’s mask? Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother.
Thank you for admitting your credentials as a troll exceed my own.
I wish I knew. In my opinion, it’s either the usual Democratic lack of balls to stand up to the Republicans, or because she knows if she supports impeachment the Republicans will turn it around & make it about her.
There’s also the fact that for a Democrat to win the presidency in 2008 they will likely have to move toward the center. While impeaching (or trying to impeach) Bush will thrill the base I think it will not help the eventual candidate (ie Hillary, I still believe).
In fact, if there IS an attempt to get impeachment going I expect the various Democratic senators who are planning to run to try to put the kibosh on it–it would make them look like they were putting the country ahead of politics. Hëll, that may even be their true feelings.
It was just pointed out to me that my on-the-fly proof reading sucks. The above post’s line was meant to be…
“The victory was won by the skin of the Left’s teeth just as it was by the Right in ’00 and ’04.”
Most of you likely got that anyway, but just to make sure…