Impeaching Bush

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Meth

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.

How ya doing, buddy?