Bush Impeached? Give me reasons...

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm to the point now where I think that it's useless to argue either way. The people who believe that he should be impeached have proof that, in their belief, shows that he should. The people that believe he shouldn't be impeached have proof that, in their belief, shows that he shouldn't. I think that those who are adamantly convinced of either aren't going to be swayed. There's a difference between debate and just shouting at each other.

Whether or not it's impeachable, though, I does make me a tad uncomfortable that my own government might be keeping an ear on me for my position on the way. It makes me even more uncomfortable that the president might have okayed them to do this.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I agree with Feathers that neither side is likely to be swayed, but the interesting question to consider is what effect the impeachment talk is going to have on 'fence-sitters'. Will they vote for Democrats who are likely to press for proceedings or will they vote for Republicans to quash such talk?

 

[kevmicsmi]

1. President George W. Bush, and people working directly for him, including the Vice President and Secretary of State, deliberately, materially and substantially overstated Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons capabilities to Congress and to the American people on numerous occasions. Lying to Congress constitutes a high crime per Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, is an impeachable offense.

How exactly do you know they deliberately lied? Congress had the same intelligence the president had.

2. President George W. Bush, and people working directly for him, directed government employees to withhold information from Congress regarding the cost of numerous U.S. government programs, including a Medicare prescription drug plan. The information given by the Bush administration to Congress substantially understated the costs and potential future costs of the program. Knowingly providing outdated and inaccurate information to Congress, especially when more accurate information exists, constitutes a high crime and, therefore, is an impeachable offense

I am no fan of the medicare spending program, of course the Democrats argued it did not do enough. But having a wrong opinion on projected costs of a program is commonplace...get in the real world.

President George W. Bush, and people working directly for him, illegally spied on American citizens. Since shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has authorized hundreds and perhaps thousands of wiretaps on American citizens without obtaining a court order. This is in direct violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Not only is violating the civil rights of American Citizens a high crime and an impeachable offense, violation of the FISA law is a federal crime which carries penalties, including jail time.

Thats why congress refuses to cut or even try to cut spending for the program, because it is illegal right? For every scholar that says it is illegal, Ill show you one that says it is legal.

4. Appointed incompetent persons to high office on the basis of past friendships instead of qualification. Bush's appointment of Michael Brown, who was unqualified for his post as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians and significant damage to public and private property within the country. Some of his cronies have gone on to become war profiteers. Appointing incompetent cronies to critical public service positions constitutes, at least, a high "misdemeanor" per Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and, therefore, is an impeachable offense

This is complete nonsense. IF YOU PAID ATTENTION TO THE NEWS, YOU WOULD REALIZE MICHAEL BROWN DID HIS JOB WELL!b Just like any administration, someone has to take the blame for mishaps. THE PROBLEM IS THE FEDERAL GOVT IS EXTREMELY INNEFFICIENT. REMEMBER WAKO? WERE YOU CLAMMORING FOR CLINTONS IMPEACHMENT THEN? REMEMBER THE BAY OF PIGS? IM SURE LOOKING BACK, YOU THINK JFK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED, RIGHT?

5. The Bush Administration has failed to protect the homeland on numerous occasions. As a soldier during the Vietnam War, Bush failed to finish military commitment to National Guard. In spite of receiving explicit warnings about Al Queda's desire to attack America, the Bush Administration failed to protect the country on Sept.11, 2004. Since then, the Bush Administration has failed to properly protect the country, including a failure to secure U.S. borders, and a failure to protect chemical plants, nuclear facilities and ports. Their utter failure to protect the homeland and implement specific recommendations made the the "9-11 Commission" caused the bipartisan commission to give Bush and Congress an F grade. Bush's failed Iraq policy has also made America less safe. Endangering the lives of American Citizens and the property of the American Government, or its citizens, constitutes a high crime and, therefore, is an impeachable offense.

Are you serious? THE BORDER HASNT BEEN SECURED EVER! BY YOUR STUPID LOGIC, IF BUSH WORE WHITE AFTER LABOR DAY THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A HIGH FASHION CRIME AND HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

The evidence and reasons have been presented and are there. But all you seem to be doing is making excuses for Bush's incompetence and doing this

If you would impeach
Bush for this stuff, Jimmy Carter should have been hung:banghead3

 

[Mister_T]

so we can see what ******* reasoning you have for such an idiotic claim.

BY YOUR STUPID LOGIC

When you learn how to have a civilized debate without personally attacking people's opinions, then I might actually take you seriously and acknowledge your posts. Grow up.

 

[kevmicsmi]

When you learn how to have a civilized debate without personally attacking people's opinions, then I might actually take you seriously and acknowledge your posts. Grow up.

funny you dont mention the ******* claim made to get such a response. In the interest of full disclosure, I believe you called Bush Hitlers protege? I bet a scientific poll on the street would reveal a vast majority of people in America feel this statement is closer to ******* than it is to brilliant.

Again with STUPID LOGIC, the comment you made showed stupid logic...what do you want me to say? You want Bush impeached for failing to properly protect the country. Isnt that why FDR was impeached, Pearl Harbor?Give me a break man, If you dont respond, fine its not like you can logically defend you claims, and it probably embarrases people who agree with you to see such arguments put forward. BTW Bush did protect the US on 9-11-2004, I think you are referring to 9-11-2001.

 

[Mister_T]

funny you dont mention the ******* claim made to get such a response. In the interest of full disclosure, I believe you called Bush Hitlers protege? I bet a scientific poll on the street would reveal a vast majority of people in America feel this statement is closer to ******* than it is to brilliant.

Again with STUPID LOGIC, the comment you made showed stupid logic...what do you want me to say? You want Bush impeached for failing to properly protect the country. Isnt that why FDR was impeached, Pearl Harbor?Give me a break man, If you dont respond, fine its not like you can logically defend you claims, and it probably embarrases people who agree with you to see such arguments put forward. BTW Bush did protect the US on 9-11-2004, I think you are referring to 9-11-2001.

Look Sparky, If you disagree about my statement that I made, there are nicer ways of telling me. And if you went back and read the thread, you would see that I confessed that my statement was a tad extreme. If you want to sit here and continue to attack my logic knock yourself out. But I'm not going to debate with some jerk-off who can't control his emotions.

I'll be happy to defend my arguments against someone else.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Look Sparky, If you disagree about my statement that I made, there are nicer ways of telling me. And if you went back and read the thread, you would see that I confessed that my statement was a tad extreme. If you want to sit here and continue to attack my logic knock yourself out. But I'm not going to debate with some jerk-off who can't control his emotions.

I'll be happy to defend my arguments against someone else.

next time you say something outrageous, Ill mail you a sticker and tell you ...nice try

 

[Mister_T]

next time you say something outrageous, Ill mail you a sticker and tell you ...nice try

That's great. But just send one, instead of a continueous flow of them.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I think that Bush is completely impeachable in the minds of those who believe in restrictions over the power of the executive branch, checks and balances, etc. To those who prefer dictatorship-- of course, nothing is an impeachable offense, because any action is within the right of a dictator.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

+++MOD POST+++

Please keep this debate civil. 'Shouting' at one another is not helpful, and crossing over into personal attacks is a violation of forum rules.

+++/ End Mod Post+++

 

[standing_alone]

I was going to avoid this thread because I knew that tempers would flare, but here's my opinion on the matter. I'm one of those people who used to think Bush should be impeached (I still do, but my feelings aren't so strong on the subject anymore). Would I love to see Bush impeached? Sure. But what's it really going to accomplish? We'll still be at war with Iraq, among other things. It's not just Bush that's the problem, in my opinion, but also the administration. There's two years left with Bush. I know two years is a long time, but I think it's best to just deal with it and not waste time and resources on impeaching Bush. In two years we'll have a different president. I don't know, that's just my opinion - and it's probably subject to change.

 

[Druidus]

I was going to avoid this thread because I knew that tempers would flare, but here's my opinion on the matter. I'm one of those people who used to think Bush should be impeached (I still do, but my feelings aren't so strong on the subject anymore). Would I love to see Bush impeached? Sure. But what's it really going to accomplish? We'll still be at war with Iraq, among other things. It's not just Bush that's the problem, in my opinion, but also the administration. There's two years left with Bush. I know two years is a long time, but I think it's best to just deal with it and not waste time and resources on impeaching Bush. In two years we'll have a different president. I don't know, that's just my opinion - and it's probably subject to change.

Personally, I'd feel a lot more satisfied if future generations looked back on this presidency in shame. That is virtually guaranteed with an impeachment.

As well, it shows future presidents that they can't get away with whatever they want.

We need to leave the medieval era and realize that our leaders aren't the heroes some of us make them out to be. No matter how much good someone does, breaking the law still deserves punishment.

 

[standing_alone]

Personally, I'd feel a lot more satisfied if future generations looked back on this presidency in shame. That is virtually guaranteed with an impeachment.

As well, it shows future presidents that they can't get away with whatever they want.

We need to leave the medieval era and realize that our leaders aren't the heroes some of us make them out to be. No matter how much good someone does, breaking the law still deserves punishment.

I agree that breaking the law deserves punishment and I would love to see Bush impeached, but outside of shaming him, what's going to be accomplished?

 

[Druidus]

I agree that breaking the law deserves punishment and I would love to see Bush impeached, but outside of shaming him, what's going to be accomplished?

Perhaps a more progressive nation? Look what happened in Canada, when the liberals were shamed. We swang immediately towards a more conservative state (sadly).

Beyond that, more law-abiding presidents (hopefully)?

What you are suggesting, Standing, is to not impeach Bush because of serious crimes he committed merely because it would take some effort. What you are suggesting, applied on a large scale, would lead to letting murder suspects get away, merely because it'd take some effort to catch them. It's a folly.

Yes, the effort could be better spent, theoretically. But we can't allow presidents and others in the same level get away with crime merely because it'd take time and effort to punish them. There must be flexibility in the law, but when certain laws are broken by certain people (heads of state and their peers), the harshest punishments must be applied. These people must not be allowed to think that they can do as they wish without fear, even if it's only to a certain extent. Such allowances would be some of the first steps in sliding towards a totalitarian or fascist state.

 

[standing_alone]

Perhaps a more progressive nation?

Prehaps.

Beyond that, more law-abiding presidents (hopefully)?

I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

What you are suggesting, Standing, is to not impeach Bush because of serious crimes he committed merely because it would take some effort. What you are suggesting, applied on a large scale, would lead to letting murder suspects get away, merely because it'd take some effort to catch them. It's a folly.

No, that's not what I suggested. I'm open to the idea of impeachment, like I stated here:

I'm one of those people who used to think Bush should be impeached (I still do, but my feelings aren't so strong on the subject anymore). Would I love to see Bush impeached? Sure.

I just fail to see how getting rid of Bush (one man in this administration) is going to change anything. It's not like all of a sudden the Iraq War is going to end or all the corruption in the government is going to stop. I think the Democrats, instead of impeaching Bush (which they won't do anyway), should spend their time getting a backbone and a plan together. I don't know. I'm indifferent to the idea of impeachment. I mean, as time goes on, it seems like it's not going to make much of a difference.

 

[Druidus]

In the long-term, the jailing of one murderer won't make much of a difference either. But that doesn't mean the murderer shouldn't be jailed.

I agree that the Democrats should focus on getting an organized plan going. But an impeachment should also be high on the list.

Ethical inactivity is just as bad as ethical corruption.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I think that Bush is completely impeachable in the minds of those who believe in restrictions over the power of the executive branch, checks and balances, etc. To those who prefer dictatorship-- of course, nothing is an impeachable offense, because any action is within the right of a dictator.

Give me reasons why you think Bush is a dicator.

 

[standing_alone]

In the long-term, the jailing of one murderer won't make much of a difference either. But that doesn't mean the murderer shouldn't be jailed.

I agree that the Democrats should focus on getting an organized plan going. But an impeachment should also be high on the list.

Ethical inactivity is just as bad as ethical corruption.

Very true. I'll continue to think about my position on this issue. I shall sit back and watch the arguments unfold.

 

[Ody]

Like it or not, the national debt has no effect on anyone's personal finances. Our country and our economy is stronger than ever regardless of it.

First, i would like some proof of these statistics.

 

[Yerda]

If you add up his inaction with Saddam, Bin Laden, Bosnia, and Rwanda, what you get is millions slaughtered because of a president that sat on his hands.

A small point, it seems obvious now (although admittedly much less clear then) that the massacres occured following and as a result of international intervention in Kosovo. The mass graves, the "approaching genocide", the "coming holocaust" were all lies perpetuated by the Western media - some of which is now rightfully ashamed of it's conduct.