Impeaching Bush

Originally Posted by gukarma

If people show themselves to be less then adequate leaders (a 32% approval rating is abysmal), why aren't they replaced? There's a system for it, after all.

Note: I don't know very much about the American system for impeaching presidents.

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4

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.

Being a less than adequate leader with a 32% approval rating doesn't quite fall under those charges.

On the other hand, using the language was used when the Constitution was written, "misdemeanors" could be used as a catch-all, akin to "conduct unbecoming". This meaning, however, has fallen out during the past two centuries, and President Clinton's impeachment provides precident for that change.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devil Cupcake

Clinton was not impeached for "conduct unbecoming" The President was formally impeached for perjury. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the former president said under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. That's why he got impeached.

Which supports my point. Since "misdemeanor" meant in 1998 something other than what it did in 1787, voting out an article of impeachment for something like conduct unbecoming the President of the United States (misdemeaning himself) would have been near impossible. On the other hand, if it had meant the same thing as it did in 1787, it would have been the easist charge to sustain.

Similarly, charges of conduct unbecoming could be easily sustained against Bush and especially Cheney if the old definition of misdemeanor still applied.

But it doesn't.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

President Clinton ordered the destruction of Iraqi intelligence headquarters in response to the assassination attempt. That was in 1993. Operation Desert Fox, however, took place five and a half years later and had nothing to do with the assassination attempt. Nor did the other assorted strikes on Iraq that took place throughout Clinton's time in office.

Also, several people detected a Wag the Dog vibe from Desert Fox, coming as it did mere days before the House voted on Clinton's impeachment.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Surely there must be a clause for removing presidents from power with so much failure on their resume.

Let me know when you find it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

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.

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?

Quote:

Where are they the weapons of mass destruction?

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.

Quote:

If my statement did suggest there was no Federal involvement then I think that's an accurate statement to make

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.

Quote:

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?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Presidents are allowed to clear out house at the beginning of their terms.

Presidents are allowed to "clear out house" whenever they want, since executive branch appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. The Senate gets to approve or refuse the people he chooses to replace them, but he's allowed to fire them at any time.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

If one of these failed it could be counted as incompetence. That all of these failed in tandem suggests not incompetence but implicit and indirect involvement.

There are serious problems with this conclusion.

Your first post attacked Bush for being incompetent. For an administration that is supposedly so incompetent and has failed so repeatedly, something like 9/11 would seem to be outside of the range of their capacity to pull off. Yet it would seem that they managed to pull it off perfectly. Where did the competence go since then?

There is an even bigger problem, though. For the government to have pulled it all off, as you are suggesting, it would have required the services of a great many people, none of whom have said anything. This is especially interesting considering the straits the administration now finds itself; if someone wanted to drag Bush down, this would be the perfect opportunity.

But nothing.

If the administration was still practically invincible, this would be one thing. But they aren't.

Oh, and another thing.

Quote:

There was essentially not a single recognizeable piece of debris recovered. The only piece I recall is a single small turbine recovered from the Pentagon which is dubious at best not to mention suspicious. No wings. No fuselage. No engines. Nothing.

Handy video the credibility of which you'll no doubt attack says otherwise.

As does Popular Mechanics:

Quote:

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Given the amount of things you've been wrong about, going by the standard you use for President Bush, you're a liar.

FELIPE NO