Doesn't that sound peachy?

Let's start out with some statistics. Polls around the country are showing President Bush's approval rating at ~28% in the past few days.

There was a day this past week where Democrats tried to organize to call congresspeople that they want Bush impeached.

Several neo-conservatives in the South Dakota region have reported sightings of licenses plates on cars reading "MPEACHW" and such, and wants them recalled.

South Dakota changed their mind and won't recall them.

Now, 39% of Americans are reported supporting Bush's impeachment.

Link

This is just the start of the next wave of political discussions for the coming year! I would be interesting in hearing your voice in matters, such as for this thread:

Should Bush be impeached?

He's not the best president ever, but he shouldn't be impeached. Just let him be.

Yes, just let him be. After all, he still has a few more months to show us just how bad him being president can be.

Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury getting a BJ from an intern, which the grand jury had no right to be asking about in the first place.

It seems to me known gross misleading statements leading our country to war, obfuscation of the federal bureaucracy, the politically motivated firing of people supposed to be protected from their political choices, gross mismanagement of the war, and gross mismanagement of his office are AT LEAST precedent for impeachment proceedings.

Yeah, he should absolutely be impeached.

Next poll...how many people actually know what impeached means?

oooh! ooh! pick me! I know!

Neocons SUPPORT Bush. Conservatives don't.

What you said is all well and good, fishstickz, but can you PROVE it? The Constitution states that this is what the president can be charged:
[quote=Section 4 of the Constitution]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[/quote]
It will require 2/3rd of the Senate to impeach the president. Yes, the Democrats have a majority (51-49), but not enough to impeach successfully.
[quote=Section 1 of the Constitution]The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.[/quote]
Moral of the post: Waste of time, effort, resources, and probably $$$ for impeachment.

I don't understand your first argument. Perhaps you misread?

JG: the Neocons saw the liscence plates and wanted them to be recalled - they were against them.

But in general, I can agree with you there. I just wish there was something we could do.

It's probably too late, but he could still screw things up.

You guys do realize impeach is just a fancy word for put on trial right?

It's just going to be a huge waste of money. MY money. The TAX PAYERS MONEY.

Oh. I fail at reading comprehension :saddowns:

Actually I fail at reading/seeing period as I never even saw that part.

Edit: More civics lessons!

Because the president is impeached that does NOT mean removal from office right then and there. Clinton wasn't ousted upon his impeachment. The Senate cannot even remove the president
[quote=Section 1 of the Constitution]Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.[/quote]
Side note: The reason why I'm doing this is because to stave off the **** BUSH!!1 people who think impeachment will bring jail time for W immediately.

No, it requires a simple majority to impeach the president. It requires 2/3 to convict him.

Yeah, the war, started on false pretenses, totally isn't.

Yup. President Andrew Johnson was an example of this. He was impeached but not convicted.

So wasting more money accomplishing NOTHING is better?

Get the fat out of your head.

If he got impeached, who would get the office? Cheney?

He'd probably go and shoot beer bottles on the White House lawn with Larry the Cable Guy.

Because staying there will create a stable government that will create science departments that will make machines capable of turning human feces into rose petals!

IMPEACHED DOESN'T MEAN TAKEN OUT OF OFFICE.

PAY ATTENTION IN ****ING SCHOOL.

It'd be an entirely political move to mar the legacy of the Bush presidency.

Oh yeah, and pulling out of Iraq is going to ****ing FIX everything.

By pulling out we allow the Iraqi people to choose a government on their terms, instead of having one forced upon them by outside invaders.

It would be much more efficient to impeach Cheney and have him executed for high treason.

Seriously, this isn't going to happen.


Everything Bush did is technically legal. The thing is, by striking down Congress' first funding bill as unconstitutional (it is), Bush has set a precident by which the War Powers Resolution could also be declared unconstitutional (it is) and impeach Bush that way.

The problem is the fact that the senate would never get the 2/3rds majority to convict. They'd never even get the 1/2 majority needed to impeach. Impeachments are tough to pull off and considering how hostile and irresponsible this republican party is they could easily stonewall any sort of investigation or trial for years to come.

Thats going to go REAL WELL.

yes I'm positive they will join hands and build a fair democracy with equal representation for all if only those white devils would get out of the way.

:downs:

Who says they will? It's not our choice to make.

i think it was implied that the impeachment resulted in conviction.

read between the lines. you cant be that dense.

No where in this thread was that implied.

it was implied right there.

Oooh. That would be good.

Why would you be under the impression that it's a good thing if the "Iraqis" make a brutal sectarian dictatorship that butchers the other two thirds of the country?

Because that's what the majority of Iraqis want.


Are you sure you don't want to rethink your opinion about this matter?

But that would just get the Resolution abolished, right, unless he tried to keep it in effect despite a direct order?

Bush has done some dumb things with the law, but the damage has been done, and he hasn't done exactly "criminal" activity. This would be a perfect situation for a motion of no confidence, but we can't do that in the US government, and impeachment is not meant to fill that gap.



I think, majority is probably an over-estimate. 15-20% would be more than enough to cause the problems were having now.

Only because he doesn't know what impeachment is.

Thus why I told him he needs to pay attention in school.

No no no no no no no. No Iraq War. Pleeeeeeaaasse?

I like how most people ignore this. They think that pulling out will make all the problems just disappear.

I fear we are going to pull out prematurely because most people can't see two feet ahead of them to acknowledge the consequences of that action. It's scary to see many politicians pandering to this point of view to gain the votes of many short-sighted people. Even some of the presidential candidates want the stupid simple solution and will pull out at a moments notice.

The real solution to the problem isn't an easy one and involves us spending a few more hard years there and sinking for time and money into Iraq. However we invaded that country, took one of the only relatively stable secular governments in the region, so it's our problem because we created it. We have a responsibility to the people in Iraq, if not our own interests. Whatever government they create will be sure to not have us on the friendliest of terms if we just straight up and leave.

are you sure he doesnt know? impeachment was DEFINED a few posts above his. Unless you know for a fact he cant read, has no reading comprehension or retention skills, it would be a fair assumption that he does.

It wouldn't really matter. If it came down to it and, say, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and finally ruled that 'police actions' are unconstitutional, Bush's use of military force in Iraq prior to congress' approval would be illegal.

At the same time, though, Bush and his cronies muddied the waters by manufacturing evidence to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Under the constitution the president has the authority to respond to military threats. The trial would be about proving malicious intent behind manufacturing the evidence, but you can't even have a trial without sufficient cause to arraign the president for criminal activities.

It would be a lot easier to impeach Cheney because the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton paid dividends to his stock portfolio. But even bringing up Cheney on war crimes would be a tough one to stick, since Cheney's Halliburton shares have been held in trust for a charity prior to when he held office.

And then there's the fact that the Republicans shred evidence and Cheney would probably shoot someone who spoke out against him. That wasn't a hunting joke, he's pure evil.

It's a lot more than you think.

I bring this up in every thread, but a very good and recent historical example of this kind of problem is the former Yugoslavia. Tito and Hussein were both harsh dictators who forced a group of three intolerant ethnic groups to cooperate through fear.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Iraqis will choose between the following three choices: Saddam 2.0, Milosevic 2.0, and Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia 2.0.

There are four reasons Bosnia 2.0 isn't an option, and those four reasons are as follows: Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Turkey.

I'm more than sure he, like many boneheads, doesn't read the threads he posts in.

If we impeach W., doesn't that mean Cheney is in charge? That sounds worse that just riding out the rest of the year with Bush... at least this way we can continue to pretend that Cheney isn't really the one in charge anyway.