America need a no-confidence vote for issues like this, where it's not certain anything illegal was done, but there is obviously a huge amount of incompetence.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT REMOVED UPON IMPEACHMENT. THE PRESIDENT IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE IF CONVICTED OF THE CRIMES I SPECIFIED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Whatever. Chill.

It's just that it's been blatently stated all over the thread and when you come out saying that, it's like you either actively avoided reading the thread or really just did not pay attention to Government class in high school.

Why not just nail Bush for using the U.S. military for a religious crusade that his god commanded him to go through with? I'm pretty sure it's unconstitutional for the government to endorse a deity.

Blasphemy! The United States was founded upon Judeo-Christrian principals and values!

Impeaching the president this late into his last term is not necessary and would actually divert the country away from the really important matters like solving the issue with the war in Iraq. The democrats would have to try to oust both Bush AND Cheney if they want to get their way and that's not likely to happen.

People say that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Assuming that was true, and he knew beforehand that the intelligence was bad, then why didn't he have WMDs planted there to cover up the lie and silence the opposition at the same time? It just doesn't make sense.


Personally, I think that Bush made a mistake and he just doesn't want to admit it.

Rob wins. A president has be suspected of doing something illegal to be impeached. The entire "he's a bad president so we should impeach him him, lol!" argument is stupid and shows the ignorance of those who even mention it.

I'd say no, but I'm really gonna say whatever.

Uh, well, I didn't read the thread. I only read the first post. And no I don't remember this being taught in school ever. Who the **** cares, it only happens once per century anyway.

It's not my money.

So go on, and Impercourse him all you want.

this is about as stupid an idea as the iraq funding show-down. there aren't enough votes to even make an impeachment possible, just like there wasn't enough votes to override the recent veto.

all of these recent "stand-offs" have done nothing to better the state of our country, nor have they resolved any issues. they only seem to fizzle when something more juicy comes about. what happened to gonzales? he was lost in the wake of the funding "stand-off." what will a possible impeachment attempt do? nothing. it's only a grasp at an ego boost that in the end means nothing.

removing partisan politics aside, a stunt like this is almost certain suicide for any party that initiates something this pointless. do the democrats not remember the backlash against the republicans for the impeachment of clinton?

i doubt the dems are going to be dumb enough to try something this stupid, but who knows..

"You don't think just like I do, so you must be an idiot and probably evil!"

Damn you libs are nuts.

yes, winning a majority for 6 years was quite the backlash indeed.

No one thinks that pulling out will make all of Iraq's problems disappear. However, it will make our problem there disappear.

Hey, that was exactly my point. Thanks for illustrating it!

It WON'T make OUR problems over there disappear. Let's see, formation of a new government that will hate us, probably ally with maybe Iran and such, or at least not be that generous with their natural resources. Like hell it will make our problems over there go away. What, will they just forget we invaded their country, and will be all smiles and giggles toward us? No, don't think so. You think they would mind to harbor anyone that held us in ill will? Maybe fund them or give them shelter. At least Saddam in that regard was secular, and surprise surprise, we had some mutual enemies with him as far as fundamentalist religious groups. We've made our problems worse, and leaving now will only put us in a worse situation in the long term.

That's what I meant that people aren't thinking one step ahead. What do you see developing in the region if we leave? At least if we are there we have some degree of control or at least intelligence in the area.

wait...what?

<JoshH> There are so many things wrong with this post.
<JoshH> Freelancer: a) did not bother to read before posting, b) apparently did not pay attention to basic U.S. civics in school, and c) apparently thinks that impeachments happen once every 100 years.
<Nikumubeki> d) Freelancer

BURN.

Pulling out quickly and letting the world watch Iraq go to hell in a hand basket will do wonders for our standing with foreign nations.

Hey, you know what they say. When in doubt, pull out.

I think that phrase actually goes "If it smells like trout, pull out."

....

. . .Good buy tuna fish sandwich I was about to eat for lunch.

And watching soldiers die who didn't have to just to maintain some kind of "dignity" is immoral.

We never have, nor ever will, legislate morality; so stuff it, admit you're wrong, and quit being stupid and argumentative.

But see that's the thing... Then we will have all kinds of new countries to pointlessly invade so we can kill off more of America's youth for no reason!

I'm wrong because "we don't legislate morality?" Okay... that made no sense.

It makes perfect sense. We're talking about the United States law and related legal court proceedings, not morality. The two are completely seperate and distinguished from the other.

Killing and stealing are illegal...but let's assume those are necessary.

We legislate prostitution and drug use. If that's not legislating morality, I don't know what is.

What do you think prohibition was?

Steven hath been OWNED.

As far as I know, Prohibition was a failed attempt to legislate the production, transport, and sale of dangerous, abused substance that often led to crime, injury, and a contributor to poor health.

But makes us feel oh so good.

Prostitution is illegal for health reasons.

What? STDs spread through voluntary sexual acts. How does involving money in such an act somehow increase the rate of transmission?

Boy, that's funny right there. Mostly because it's not true.

That actually does not make sense in a Presidential system. The idea of having a separately elected executive is to allow the executive to place a check on the Legislature and vice versa. In other words, the separate mandate allows gridlock or divided government (for example, Republican President vs. Democratic Congress).

The vote of no confidence in Parliamentary system is designed to do the opposite. It's supposed to make the government accountable to the parliament, meaning, effectively, an absence of gridlock between the Parliament and the executive.

Of course, I understand that you intend the vote of no confidence to only be used in cases of extreme incompetence. In that case, a qualified majority (maybe 2/3 of both houses) would be more appropriate, but I still think that undermines the idea of separation of powers. It's okay if you have a problem with that, but I think no confidence requires moving away entirely from the Presidential political system.

Saudi Arabia

My problem with an impeachment would be that it'd be entirely politically motivated, just under the guise of "omg he was bad". It would basically be Andrew Johnson #2. I sometimes wish that impeachments were really based on the people, and not by Congress. There's a difference between incompetency and factually doing terrible things. Plenty of Presidents have been incompetent, and there probably wouldn't be enough real substantial evidence for the latter.

People just seem to forget though that there is something other than the President. It's called his administration. A lot can be blamed not on Bush, but on the administration. If I were Pres and had my leading experts come up to me, for their own reasons (I'm talking Rumsfeld and Cheney, still bitter after not getting Saddam in Gulf I) come up to me and say "Hey, *blah blah blah* lets invade Iraq", and that's what all my information is coming from, I'd do it. A lot of what was done and decided was purely on individual motivation totally unrelated to Bush. I'm not saying Dubya gets a pass here. But you gotta take into account that a lot of what he promotes was coming straight form his administration. And in the Iraq War verdict, almost 90% of congress supported that, so rag on all those Democrats too for starting it and not having the foresight to see the results, or even trying to look deeper into the accusations. If Bush was so little-minded to just invade Iraq off the bat, so are all the congressman (regardless of party) and members of the administration for voting to go for it in the first place.