-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Should we impeach Bush or is it too late?
- Thread starter Grounded
- Start date
Werbung:
Freethinker
Active Member
Its never too late to enforce the mandate of the constitution.
Justinian
Well-Known Member
Yep
I completely understand why so many people hate him now. The Neocon platform is neither new nor conservative but is tyrannical, irresponsible and inconsiderate. I think the whole platform is foolish and will evaporate over time. What will be left then? Civil war? Maybe.
I completely understand why so many people hate him now. The Neocon platform is neither new nor conservative but is tyrannical, irresponsible and inconsiderate. I think the whole platform is foolish and will evaporate over time. What will be left then? Civil war? Maybe.
MarkVI
Well-Known Member
We can not just impeach, there needs to be investigations and hearings to prove that impeachable offenses have occured.
Otherwise, we are not saying he is innocent until proven guilty, everyone gets the same rights. Unless, of course, you are a detainee at Guantanamo or an "illegal enemy combatant."
Back at Freethinker: yes it is never too late, but politics and interests on both sides get in the way too much.
Justinian: I sure hope civil war is not a result of this disasterous mindset, we've had one of these wonderful wars before and it was cheap (lives lost, etc...) for either side.
Though, I do not see how a civil war could result from this. Care to explain, Justinian?
Otherwise, we are not saying he is innocent until proven guilty, everyone gets the same rights. Unless, of course, you are a detainee at Guantanamo or an "illegal enemy combatant."
Back at Freethinker: yes it is never too late, but politics and interests on both sides get in the way too much.
Justinian: I sure hope civil war is not a result of this disasterous mindset, we've had one of these wonderful wars before and it was cheap (lives lost, etc...) for either side.
Though, I do not see how a civil war could result from this. Care to explain, Justinian?
Think for myself
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 124
To my knowledge Bush has not commited any impeachable offenses. I don't care for him or his policies, but that doesn't mean that we should go impeach him.
marilynj55
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 22
dig deeper - impeachable offenses all over the place
Here's one quote for you to chew on. There are so many impeachable offenses, using forged documents and lying to Congress to get us embroiled in a tragic war, for one.
People far more learned than me who actually know the law agree that Bush has committed impeachable offenses:
"Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush 'the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.'"
Regarding domestic spying authorized by Bush: "The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
"Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."
Here's one quote for you to chew on. There are so many impeachable offenses, using forged documents and lying to Congress to get us embroiled in a tragic war, for one.
People far more learned than me who actually know the law agree that Bush has committed impeachable offenses:
"Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush 'the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.'"
Regarding domestic spying authorized by Bush: "The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
"Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
If you think Bush should be impeached for "domestic spying" then Clinton should've been imprisoned for his far more severe "domestic spying".
That's the one thing that I thought was really shameful about that whole controversy. The Republicans who criticized Clinton for warantless spying were the same ones criticizing Bush, but the Democrats who supported Clinton when he did hopped on the bandwagon to condemn Bush.
That's the one thing that I thought was really shameful about that whole controversy. The Republicans who criticized Clinton for warantless spying were the same ones criticizing Bush, but the Democrats who supported Clinton when he did hopped on the bandwagon to condemn Bush.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
What forged documents? When did he lie? Being wrong doesn't mean he "lied".
And there are plenty of people way smarter than you who know the law that don't agree Bush should be impeached.
This topic is sickening. Political disagreement is not a basis for impeachment. I was against impeaching Clinton, I am against impeaching Bush, and if I were around in 1872, I would've opposed impeaching Johnson.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
Since when do POWs get trials?
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I couldnt vote.
it only had do it or its to late to do it, there was no button to push that said no because its not needed or anything.
besides what good does it to do impeach? clinton was impeached and he still was the president till the end of his term
i dont want them to waste even more money on trials and junk for impeachment when we proved it doesnt do anything good and my proof is look at clinton!
it only had do it or its to late to do it, there was no button to push that said no because its not needed or anything.
besides what good does it to do impeach? clinton was impeached and he still was the president till the end of his term
i dont want them to waste even more money on trials and junk for impeachment when we proved it doesnt do anything good and my proof is look at clinton!
Unless you can impreach someone for being a bad president you can't impreach Bush, he sucks but he hasn't done anything illegal enough to be impeached. If he is impeached it will cause a bad presedent where later presidents will be impeached on even more minor reasons
Two reasons not to impeach Bush:
You'd be hard pressed to find an impeachable offense. Spending the country into debt is not impeachable. Invading a foreign country on faulty intelligence is not impeachable either, especially when he had the consent of Congress.
If you've read my posts, you will know I'm not exactly a fan of the currrent POTUS, but the talk of impeachement is simply partisan hooting.
One more reason not to impeach: It could be successful.
Salute the new president of the United States, Mr. Richard Bruce Cheney. RBC, just what plans do you have now that you've been sworn into office?
Do you think you can win in November?
You'd be hard pressed to find an impeachable offense. Spending the country into debt is not impeachable. Invading a foreign country on faulty intelligence is not impeachable either, especially when he had the consent of Congress.
If you've read my posts, you will know I'm not exactly a fan of the currrent POTUS, but the talk of impeachement is simply partisan hooting.
One more reason not to impeach: It could be successful.
Salute the new president of the United States, Mr. Richard Bruce Cheney. RBC, just what plans do you have now that you've been sworn into office?
Do you think you can win in November?
American First
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 68
I think this conversation is a little late. He will be out of office in January 2009. He was, I cannot use the word elected, due to what happened in Florida but we certainly did not have to put him back in office in 2004. Too little too late.
Rhodri
Well-Known Member
These aren't 'POW's', they are 'Enemy Combatants'. There's a difference, POW's have rights under the Geneva Convention. Enemy Combatants aren't attached to a legitimate government, wear no uniforms can come from many nations and the GC doesn't apply as far as I know.
Werbung:
Similar threads
