Impeach Bush?

[davefoc]

As some of you might have noticed I am not Bush's biggest fan. I think he is almost certainly the worst president of my life and he maybe homing in on worst of all time as far as I am concerned.

In a different system than the US has I think it would have been a good idea to impeach this guy a long time ago. The lies about the strength of evidence for WMD in Iraq would have been enough, but I might go for the crony no-bid contracts for Iraq or the drug company pay offs for the medicare drug bill as other reasonable bases for an impeachment trial.

But in this system, at this time the idea of impeaching Bush looks like a non-starter to me. First, for it to make any sense you'd have to go after Cheney too and that sounds like a real stretch of the constitutional process for impeachment. Secondly if you did this it would look like such a completely partisan play by the Democrats that I can't imagine the Democrats wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole. And lastly, without a really unambiguous smoking gun type piece of evidence (like a tape recording Bush authorizing the release of Plame's name and admitting that he knew she was a covert agent) any kind of impeachment trial would last a very long time and it would end up seriously dividing the country.

But I continue to hear this idea advanced by apparently rational people. Why? Do they really think it is a good idea? Do they just talk about it because it focuses their general discust with Bush? Do they really think there is any chance that it is going to happen?

 

[Dr Adequate]

He must be stopped before he eats more kittens.

 

[Tricky]

He must be stopped before he eats more kittens.

That is one very large kitten. Has he graduated to eating lion cubs?

 

[Tricky]

But seriously, even though I think Bush is possibly the worst president ever, impeaching him would be very stupid. He's already powerless and hurting his party. Leaving him there shows contempt for him and at the same time showing the difference between the way Democrats operate versus Republicans. To impeach him now would only energize GOPhers who are currently hiding in their holes.

Let him twist slowly in the wind. Or speedily, if we have another hurricane.

 

[Darth Rotor]

He must be stopped before he eats more kittens.

[qimg]http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d3/Bushcat.jpg[/qimg]

Why do you think Laura married him?

DR

 

[RandFan]

I give Bush mixed marks as president. I don't think he was the worst president in my lifetime by any stretch of the imagination. To be frank he was not my favorite either. For quality of life I have to give that to Clinton, though I don't know how much he contributed to it.

In any event, I think impeachment would be a dumb move. It will make Dem's look divisive when they have been bemoaning divisiveness. Bush is going on his way out the people don't want another impeachment they want to get on with life. They want solutions. If Pelosi can deliver or at least make it look like the Dems are working for to fix things and the Republicans are do nothing but being road blocks then the Dems stand to make huge gains in the next election.

We will see.

 

[Unabogie]

I think the biggest tragedy of the Bush years is that the right and left are operating, not under different philosophies, but under different facts.

Was Terri Schiavo brain dead, or was she ready to recite the works of Shakespeare, if not for those nasty librul judges?

Did Bush know Iraq didn't have WMD?

Are we torturing people, or merely making terrists uncomfortable?

Just how many people have died in Iraq?

Just who is the insurgency? Are they dead enders or are the "freedom fighters"?

How is the war going? Bush's apologists have said for years it was going great. We're shocked to hear Gates say "we're not winning"

All of these things are open to interpretation precisely because the Republicans refused to do any investigating or oversight. On the Iraq intelligence, Pat Roberts repeatedly delayed "Phase II" of his report on Iraq intel, and to this day we have no definitive account of what the Bush administration knew. Now, to my way of thinking, the fact that Roberts is blocking this release is circumstantial evidence that Roberts already knows what the answer is, but I digress. The point is that we don't have a set of facts to argue about, we have spin based on the absolute secrecy with which we've let the Bush administration operate.

We can't argue the morality of torture because whenever I call my Senator, he denies that we're even committing torture.

Bush says "we don't torture" and that we're only spying on Al Qaida. How can we even discuss the matter if we can't agree on what the matter is?

IMO, the biggest benefit to holding impeachment hearings is that we
can finally stop this stupidity and force the right wing to accept the facts, and make them defend their position on its merits. And if Bush broke the law, he should be removed.

And if the left has been wrong all along and Bush has been a beacon of legality and valor, then how can proving that to the world hurt our country?

 

[UserGoogol]

I just checked Wikipedia, and if, somehow, the new Democratic controlled Congress managed to impeach both the president and the vice president, the next in line would be the Speaker of the House. That is, Nancy Pelosi. Which I'm sure people would react quite interestingly to. (Of course, they'd have to time it right. If Bush or Cheney had a chance to appoint a new vice president, then it would go to whoever that was. Of course, that needs to be approved by the Senate, so maybe not.)

But except for that fun little realization, it seems kind of an empty political gesture (since Bush is gone in a few years anyway) that would probably just cause problems.

 

[RandFan]

IMO, the biggest benefit to holding impeachment hearings is that we can finally stop this stupidity and force the right wing to accept the facts, and make them defend their position on its merits. And if Bush broke the law, he should be removed.

And if the left has been wrong all along and Bush has been a beacon of legality and valor, then how can proving that to the world hurt our country?

Sure, that's what will happen. Sorry if I'm cynical but I have no reason to accept this. First I don't accept that everything is the simple dichotomy that you suggest. There really isn't good guys vs bad guys. That's the kool-aid the politicians give us. I don't think anyone thinks that Bush is a beacon of legality and valor. The only presidents that might have been were Ford and Carter and Ford blew it by pardoning Nixon. Thing is that the Democrats are not innocent either and when politicians start throwing mud everyone gets dirty. Remember how the Republicans set out to get Clinton and Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned?

If you think this is going to be a simple and straight forward process that is going to get the truth then I think that you are living in a fantasy land.

 

[joe1347]

Sorry, I don't have the quote. But I remember reading that when Harry Reid was asked about impeaching Bush and he indicated that it was a non-starter for one simple reason. Namely, Dick Cheney.

That said. Bush (or Cheney) still isn't homefree yet. I suspect that the Democrats will pounce if Bush (or Cheney) refuses to release information (i.e, some form of obstruction of justice).

I guess the Big question is what will the Democrats do about Iraq after the first of the year - as in will the Democrats demand accountability from Bush for starting the war and could this lead to the 'obstruction of justice' scenario or whatever Congress calls it? Alternatively, will the Democrats just flat out attempt to cut off funding for the Iraq Fiasco and then demand the troops to be withdrawn immediately which will force a vicious confrontation with Bush?

 

[Unabogie]

Sure, that's what will happen. Sorry if I'm cynical but I have no reason to accept this. First I don't accept that everything is the simple dichotomy that you suggest. There really isn't good guys vs bad guys. That's the kool-aid the politicians give us. I don't think anyone thinks that Bush is a beacon of legality and valor. The only presidents that might have been were Ford and Carter and Ford blew it by pardoning Nixon. Thing is that the Democrats are not innocent either and when politicians start throwing mud everyone gets dirty. Remember how the Republicans set out to get Clinton and Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned?

If you think this is going to be a simple and straight forward process that is going to get the truth then I think that you are living in a fantasy land.

Ah, but we did find the truth.

We found out that indeed, Clinton lied to the grand jury about Monica. We found out what he said, what he was asked, and what the law says.

We also found out that Newt was a hypocrite.

We all argue over whether it was right to impeach Clinton over Monica, but none of use are unclear over what the facts are.

Which is my whole point.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, but we did find the truth.

Did we? I find that a bit presumptuous.

We found out that indeed, Clinton lied to the grand jury about Monica. We found out what he said, what he was asked, and what the law says.

We also found out that Newt was a hypocrite.

We all argue over whether it was right to impeach Clinton over Monica, but none of use are unclear over what the facts are.

I don't think that is true at all. There are many facts that we don't know. We found out that Bill squirted on Monica's blue dress, BFD. However money was diverted from a failed savings and loan into Clinton's re-election campaign, only 4 people could have known about it and after all the money spent and all the time wasted we don't know what Clinton knew even though he was the only one who directly benefited from the money. Where were the travel records?

Sorry but no.

ETA: Do you honestly believe we would have gotten the truth if Monica had taken her soiled dress to the cleaners? I don't.

 

[AmateurScientist]

For quality of life I have to give that to Clinton, though I don't know how much he contributed to it.

Ha ha. It's funny, but I would have to go with Clinton for quality of life too. He gets absolutely no credit, however. Clinton did not create or contribute to the long economic boom our country experienced during her tenure in office (and frankly, I don't think any president deserves credit or blame for economic circumstances during their term of office -- economic conditions are far too complicated and dependent on war too many variables, plus, conditions often tend to lag years behind policy changes). Thus, it's not Clinton who allowed me the prosperity to be able to buy my house -- it was me, and the fortuitous circumstances that led to my doing well at the time. Also, Clinton didn't get me laid all those times -- I did. So yeah, good times back then, but not because Bill was Prez.

AS

 

[RandFan]

Ha ha. It's funny, but I would have to go with Clinton for quality of life too. He gets absolutely no credit, however. Clinton did not create or contribute to the long economic boom our country experienced during her tenure in office (and frankly, I don't think any president deserves credit or blame for economic circumstances during their term of office -- economic conditions are far too complicated and dependent on war too many variables, plus, conditions often tend to lag years behind policy changes). Thus, it's not Clinton who allowed me the prosperity to be able to buy my house -- it was me, and the fortuitous circumstances that led to my doing well at the time. Also, Clinton didn't get me laid all those times -- I did. So yeah, good times back then, but not because Bill was Prez.

AS

"Her"?

 

[Gurdur]

.....In any event, I think impeachment would be a dumb move. It will make Dem's look divisive when they have been bemoaning divisiveness.

Frankly, if the practical choice is between being "divisive" --- something the Congress Republicans and Bush have gloried overtly in up till the last Congressional elections --- and being the patsies of the lame-duck Bush admin still trying to manipulate others into allowing its already-failed agenda, then the Dems would be far better off being divisive.

Bush is going on his way out the people don't want another impeachment they want to get on with life.

The Republicans went to ridiculous lengths to crucify Clinton; payback might well be justified.

They want solutions. If Pelosi can deliver or at least make it look like the Dems are working for to fix things

It's not up to the Dems in Congress to fix things --- most agenda is set by the White House. The Dems can only try stopping things from being made worse.
Iraq and the tax rates are the two crucial issues: the Bush blowout of the deficit and the Bush military failures

then the Dems stand to make huge gains in the next election.

Kind of sounds nice but is not real, is it? Rove's exact strategy for winning votes was by being openly divisive. Maybe the Dems should follow suit --- especially if playing nice would only mean they are being used as patsies
by a failed GOP, yes?

Naaaaaaaaw, on reflection, I would advise the Dems to be divisive as hell. They might get somewhere then. After all, they did so well in the last Congressional elections precisely because they at last had the guts to get up and be divisive themselves.

As for impeachment; I can't quite see how a formal impeachment would succeed, but OTOH I can't see that morally Bush doesn't deserve it. So moving to impeach Bush is not something I would do personally, but if the Dems do do it, I wouldn't blame them too much.

 

[latent aaaack]

There should be consequences that fit the offense of portraying as a known fact that Iraq had WMDs when it wasn't so. The president should be allowed to stake his credibility and the lives of countless people on the existence of a claimed threat, but that means if the claim is proven false then everything you put on the line is forfeited. This administration has not owned up to that, while thousands of young servicemen and civilians have been forced to with their lives and there needs to be a way that can happen besides just impeaching the president which wouldn't accomplish much.

 

[RandFan]

Frankly, if the practical choice is between being "divisive" --- something the Congress Republicans and Bush have gloried overtly in up till the last Congressional elections --- and being the patsies of the lame-duck Bush admin still trying to manipulate others into allowing its already-failed agenda, then the Dems would be far better off being divisive.

Why?

The Republicans went to ridiculous lengths to crucify Clinton; payback might well be justified.

I don't know of any Republicans who feel like it did THEM any good. But hey...

It's not up to the Dems in Congress to fix things --- most agenda is set by the White House. The Dems can only try stopping things from being made worse.

No, not quite. 1994 is a great example of what the Dems could do. The change in dynamics could be quite productive.

Kind of sounds nice but is not real, is it?

Yes, it is.

Rove's exact strategy for winning votes was by being openly divisive.

And in the end what did it get them? If the Dems want short term gains then the Republicans are a great model. Go for it.

Naaaaaaaaw, on reflection, I would advise the Dems to be divisive as hell. They might get somewhere then.

If ego and payback are what is desired, sure.

 

[joe1347]

Ha ha. It's funny, but I would have to go with Clinton for quality of life too. He gets absolutely no credit, however. Clinton did not create or contribute to the long economic boom our country experienced during her tenure in office (and frankly, I don't think any president deserves credit or blame for economic circumstances during their term of office -- economic conditions are far too complicated and dependent on war too many variables, plus, conditions often tend to lag years behind policy changes). Thus, it's not Clinton who allowed me the prosperity to be able to buy my house -- it was me, and the fortuitous circumstances that led to my doing well at the time. Also, Clinton didn't get me laid all those times -- I did. So yeah, good times back then, but not because Bill was Prez.

AS

I disagree. Clinton did contribute to the economic boom principally because he did so little (yet talked so much) over the course of 8 years. Thanks to Bush - I'm becoming more of a believer in the Federal Government not being able to do much good - but certainly able to do lots of harm (to the economy).

Or more simply, a divided Federal Government that is paralyzed and does next to nothing may be the best Government. You know - that Checks and Balances thing.

 

[bob_kark]

I think impeachment is going about it the wrong way. Has anyone just asked him if they could take his place? I think once someone sat down with him and explained Operation Permanent Recess to him, he'd come around.

You know he's tired of this whole Iraq thing. He's bored with the economy and even North Korea. He hasn't even mentioned Afghanistan in a few months. I mean, he took a trip to Vietnam to develop trade relations?! Is this a man who enjoys his job? Really?

Why impeach him when he just wants to clear brush at the ranch? I say it's time to offer him early retirement, a nice severance package, and backstage passes to the Alabama concert. I don't see how he could resist.

 

[Gurdur]

I don't know of any Republicans who feel like it did THEM any good. But hey....

You're avoiding two points of mine:
that an attempt at non-divisiveness would only play into the hands of the Reps
and also that Congress is not able to set the agenda when Bush has very deliberately set out to make an imperial presidency; they can only react for most of the time, not act.

I would say that the Dems need a lot more divisiveness; to stop the Rep/Bush agendas, and to make clear exactly what they themselves are offering instead.

If you want to call that ego, whatever. Sounds like mere empty rhetoric to me.