I still find it amusing that because Clinton lied under oath about his sex life to save face, people want him impeached. Yet when a president with a peanut sized brain and the mental capacity of a 7 year old, who doesn't lie because he truly believes that the decisions he makes are valid, he gets to stay in office and everyone else gets to suffer. That's democracy for you.

Of course the war crimes that have been committed, other people can take the blame, not Bush. Secret prisons, Abu Ghurab, we blame the "bad apples". Crimes against humanity doesn't seem to apply to the superpower. 650,000+ Iraqis are dead, yet no one likes to report how many people have died on either side. We see the death count for US soldiers, but there are a lot of contractors that work there who have died (remember Fallujah?) but no one is counting those.

Impeachment takes time and money, and I don't think it would be smart for the Democrats to try and impeach Bush. They need to focus their energy on figuring out what to do with Iraq.

The founding fathers' views on what should be impeachable are rather clear on the topic at hand, truth be told.

So the question begs - what meritorious officers were removed that shouldn't have been?

And I advise you to dot your I's and cross your Ts before you come out of your face with something silly.

Can't they 'walk' in and make sure it is an actual sanuctary? I could have swore in WWII sooner or later we began to occupy hostipels and other things so they were USED for those things, not a hiding spot for weapons, insurgents aka neutral grounds for all and all hostilities to be ceased.

I know one should keep your morales high so you do not succumb to the beast and destory everything but we should be able to make sure thier 'mosques(sp?)' and other things are used for what they are intended for? And if any hostilies that come about, as in, rules of engagement, then to cease it.

Thinking back, I think the best place to "get" Bush would be over Guantanamo Bay and his willingness to use torture as an interrogating strategy. Though Bush's administration (thanks to Gonzalez) has classified these men as not qualifying for combatant status, they still may be considered as such under Geneva.

The problem is finding and proving that Bush knowingly or willingly allowed the practice to take place. Since he seems to have an endless supply of fall guys and rationalizations for his bumbling administration, it is unlikely that such evidence would surface.

The entire basis of the impeachment process comes from John Locke's philosophy that an unhappy people have the right and obligation to rise up and throw off their leaders should the leaders no longer have the faith of the people. Our very Constitution is built upon such philosophies.

Unfortunately, our leaders have protected themselves with partisanship and really tangling the process. Specific quotas stand between a confidence-less president and a change of head-of-state. As we've seen though, sometimes those quotas can be all that matters.

Bill Clinton's impeachment process was most definitely a perversion of the concept and philosophy of Democracy. The people had faith in the head-of-state, but the partisanship of the political world came first and foremost. I would dare say the alternate is true at the moment -- a head-of-state has lost the confidence of his people, but there is nothing that can be done due to bureaucracy and partisanship.

In the end, even if we had proof that Bush acted in a manner that conflicts him with the presidency, there's nothing that could be done as long as just enough people remain in Congress to assure Bush's safety. I do not think we will ever see the day when Bush is held accountable for his multiple errors while in office.

Thankfully, he's a man that has always wanted to simply be in the history books. He has gotten his wish, but he might not be portrayed as a hero like Kennedy, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Wilson. He might just see the treatment given to Taft, Carter, and Pierce -- either mocked, disliked, or hated.

To be impeached, wouldn't the president usually have to have done something illegal (as in lying while under oath), and, last I heard, the Geneva Convention's rules don't overrule the laws of the US.

Well, the whole illegal thing is kind of up to Congress. If Bush were to jaywalk, he might not be impeached. If he, say, drives drunk and kills a family -- they may draw up articles of impeachment.

The reason I mention the Geneva Conventions is, again, the fact that it is up to Congress as to what is impeachment-worthy. I could definitely imagine Congress impeaching a President who has been indicted for war crimes.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the Geneva Conventions overrule US law, so I apologize there. I meant to say, though, that a Congress could possibly use the Geneva Conventions as a reason.

If Bush is vulnerable on any area, I believe it would be there. A violation of the Geneva Conventions could give Congress the best reason; a reason better than "He tricked us".

"Other high crimes and misdemeanors" is intentionally vague and legal scholars have long debated exactly what is and isn't impeachable. Bottom line: Whatever the hell Congress wants.

Couldn't you argue that for anything? Or maybe, "whatever the hell Congress' most influential want?"

That is, in a way, how it runs anyway. Republican Congressmen felt that Clinton's lie (about having sex with Monica in an investigation unrelated to this) was an abuse of power that deserved rebuking.

Republicans then, under Bush, did not feel he did anything wrong.

I would say that the modern Congress works just in that way. It is whatever the majority wants and can sustain in votes.

I can't understand how this is even a debate. The guy lied about Iraq. He failed to prevent the disaster of Katrina. He failed to do anything after Katrina. He lied about September 11. Best case Bush is incompetent. Worst case he's a lunatic running the asylum. Surely there must be a clause for removing presidents from power with so much failure on their resume.

What he should really be impeached for is his failure to prevent the bee holocaust:

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2449968.ece

Dunno what has me laughing more -- the fact that I'm not the only one who read about the "Bee Holocaust" or JackyBoy's post ='D

I wasn't intending to be funny. Maybe I just have it all wrong and the things I mentioned in my previous post were just dreams I had. On a Side note I'm not very fond of honey myself. But hopefully those bees can sort themselves out.

I applaud your clever wit. Placing the emphasis on "Katrina" in that sentence was ingenious. The headline would have been worth buying a newspaper. "BUSH SAVES NEW ORLEANS STOPS A FUCKING HURRICANE WITH HIS BARE HANDS!" You have to admit it's much more interesting than, "Bush spends a few bucks to repair the damaged levies."

Which always begs the question: What statement did George W. Bush make that he knew was untrue about Iraq before he made it? Furthermore, when did he say this statement when it was a criminal act to do so?

Last time I checked, the power to manipulate the weather belongs to the X-Man Storm, not George W. Bush.

This statement suggests that there was no federal involvement on the Gulf Coast at all, which is at very best you simply not knowing what you're talking about.

What is this alleged lie? Keep in mind that a lie is a statment that is known to be untrue at the time it is given, so you must also show that Bush knew whatever he said was untrue.

Well as a Canadian I don't think it's my task to find such a way. It's why I was asking, there must be (is there?) a way to impeach a president with the way he has handled the above mentioned events? I have a difficult time reconcilling that a president can be impeached for lying about his sex life while this guy can get away with such a level of incompetence.

1. Where are they the weapons of mass destruction?

2. Jokes just aren’t funny the second time around.

3. If my statement did suggest there was no Federal involvement then I think that's an accurate statement to make especially when you have a Mrs. Bush going on television to tell the nation something to the affect it was the best thing that could have happened to those poor stupid niggers anyway. She couldn't even pronounce "Katrina". Inaction is the crime here and there's no dispute that inaction took place.

4. On 11 September 2001, every level of government failed. The intelligence agencies failed. NORAD failed. The FAA failed. If we are to believe Bush’s Commission Report, Newton’s established laws of physics failed. It’s the most incompetent day in American history. What part of 9/11 wasn't a lie?

Even as a Canadian, don't you think you have some level of responsibility to at least read the first page of the thread, where the the question you asked had already been discussed, before replying to it? At the very least, reading my first post, wherein I cite the section of the Constitution that states just what a president can be impeached for?

Being wrong about something doesn't mean someone lied about it unless that someone knew beforehand that what they were saying wasn't true. Nobody has yet established that Bush knew that the weapons he said were in Iraq weren't there when he said it.

And you would be wrong, as there was lots of federal involvement. That involvement has been heavily criticized, along with the involvement of the state and local governments, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

You've established so much of what failed, but haven't seen fit to tell us what was a lie.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I suggest you read up on a country's constitution & laws before arguing on these grounds. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about sleeping with a woman. He was impeached for lying under oath.

In regard to your responses to NP's questions...:

1) You're dodging the point. Bush said there'd be WMD in Iraq because Tenet, the head of CIA (at that time) said that finding them in Iraq would be a "slam dunk". If the head of the CIA gives you that sort of definitive answer, then you would HAVE to believe it. He was acting on the best intelligence he had on-hand. Anyone who throws the "Bush is a liar" card over this clearly isn't very well learned on current events.

4) ... I'm not even going to TRY to follow what the fuck you're talking about. You can't stop every single god damn attack made against the US before it happens -- it's naive. Especially if it's something unexpected and as pre-emptive as 9/11.

You're forgetting about things like Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of JFK etc...

Depending on who you ask, the assassination of JFK was an astonishing success. :)

The repeated failure of the CIA to assassinate Castro is pretty lollin.

Also, we were aware that something was planned for Pearl Harbor. We just desperately needed an excuse to get into WWII.

And all we had to do was sacrifice the lives of thousands of servicemen. Good job FDR. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...icon_salut.gif

I'm not going to read the entire Constitution to make my point stick. My argument is that as a Canadian I can only criticize American policies, like you can ours. But Americans have the power to change your laws. I'm not asking a difficult question here. It could have be answered with yes or no. The answer is apparently no. If nothing else, I can at the very least criticize that. The only shred of evidence Bush has ever provided as I see, with the events I mentioned, is his incompetence and inability to act. I have an opinion that something is fundamentally wrong with the way Bush has handled these things and he should be made to seriously answer these issues instead of brushing them aside and quoting the Bible.

Do you truly believe in your heart of heart that the failures of 9/11 are acceptable? Do you truly believe nothing could have been done to help prevent the Katrina disaster? Do you truly believe Bush did everything possible to provide the necessary relief as quickly as possible in the aftermath? I don't believe these things and I don't see much evidence to sway me otherwise. In my dissatisfaction I was merely posing a question for which the answer has now evidently been established. Which is more criminal? Clinton lying about that handjob from his personal secretary or Bush proving his unfitness to run the damn country. [/rhetorical]

Well that is hardly my fault. I think I am articulating myself well enough that my opinions should be clear. Something so trivial is obviously implied when I simply say "Clinton lied". Yes I realize he lied under oath. We needn't waste our time with such well established facts. Suppose I agree that a country as advanced as the U.S. can't possibly thwart every terrorist attack. This does nothing to explain the "failures" which occurred on 9/11.

I was tempted to add, “…next to Pearl Harbor” on that sentence but it would have taken some of the impact away.

Not relevant, not relevant, yes.

The Presidency is not a dictatorship, and the President cannot be blamed for a "failure to act" when departments and local governments fail. Bush can be blamed for appointing incompetents, but there's nothing he could really do in response to those crises without overstepping his bounds as President.