Impeaching Bush

I myself don't want to impeach Bush, but I want to talk about it: I don't think it will ever happen, but if it did it would sincerely help America's image in the international landscape.

Why is the American political framework for against impeachments? 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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well, he'd have to be tried for a specific instance where he broke the law. Impeachment is just to make sure that the president is held accountable to the other two governmental bodies-- not to his approval rating.

And since he was interviewed privately by a congressional board in the wake of the lack of WMDs, and they found he acted in good faith on his information, I don't think there's much he could be found guilty on.

People like to throw around the phrase "War Crimes," but I'm not sure specifically what they're referring to when they say it in reference to Bush.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by gukarma

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

That is odd, I'm pretty sure they taught us about that in high school. Didn't they require that you take an American Gov class (or two)?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am an immigrant, I moved to America halfway through high school.

Additional Spam:
Skexis:

Good point. My posting this thread was a response to an NPR interview I heard today, which talked about why American are unwilling to choose impeachment as a course of action. Even if Bush broke no laws (of which I am not sure), he's taken the country into a direction that is unsatisfactory to most Americans. Being it that it is impossible to discipline him, and that he is most likely going to keep working against what Americans want, it is understandable to want to impeach him.

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

The impeachment process can take quite a long time, can be expensive with investigations and can cause the government to be stagnant. Consider Bill Clinton and the Lewinksy scandal. I've seen figures up towards $40 million in investigation costs by Ken Starr.

If Americans viewed Bush as a major blight on the international community and considered that high priority, then he wouldn't have been re-elected.

If Americans want an impeachment, it better really be worth it. It costs a lot of time, money, and effort and at the same time it really can look bad on those who are making claims and leading investigations.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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. Unfortunately, Bush will probably not because there is no evidence that he intentionally lied to the American public. He simply shouldn't be impeached. I think he's a horrible president. I'll be looking forward to the day when he leaves office. But the fact of the matter is, he was elected by the people to a second term in office. Not every president is going to be great, but the public needs to stick out the rest of his presedency, because to shuffle presidents now would cause a great deal of chaos. the government isn't ready for the transition, and to force such a transition on the infrastructure would do a great deal of harm in and of itself. What needs to happen is that he should finish his term and everyone should be thankful there is a two term limit.

Most amazing jew boots

That's flawed reasoning if ever there was any. What is it about Bush being forced to resign that makes a transition any better than an immediate one? The policy shifts and restructuring are monumental irregardless of when it takes place.

To be honest, I really don't think an impeachment could hurt, but it would sort of require making the president accountable for war crimes.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Just out of curiosity, would his pseudo false premise of war in Iraq be akin to "a crime?"

I was under the impression that a nation should not actually go to war unless you have, you know, not only a real reason, but a pretty good one.

I wish I knew which document it is from - I apologize that I am no where near as proficient at you PP people with the documentations - it may not even be in a document. Maybe it's more of an abstract, moral issue. But regardless, I'm just curious. Don't slam me.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The only thing I have to say in regards to this is impeaching him now is pointless. The damage has been done and his term is almost up anyway. So throwing him out will accomplish nothing.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

War Crimes fall back on laws of war, which are mostly arbitrary and vary from country to country, but a rule of thumb is the Geneva convention.

In order to convict Bush of something like that, you'd have to find a specific point where he specifically ordered troops to fire upon civilians, or that he signed off on an offensive that targeted noncombatants.

Here is where the distinction of collateral damage comes in, though, and you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of someone who deliberately ordered a massacre. My Lai is the last incident that I'm aware of among US forces.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that Taliban and insurgent forces use civilian shields, and refuse to follow many of the laws of war, such as wearing a visible uniform.

[Edit]: Again, because Bush declared war based on Iraq breaking UN standards and he also was found to have acted in good faith on the classified intel he received, it would be very hard to pinpoint something that you could take him to trial for.

Most amazing jew boots

Life's a bitch, but we can't impeach presidents we don't like. If you don't like that, donate or volunteer for the presidential candidates you do like.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Skexis: Where, exactly, does it say that America decides the consequences of violating a UN resolution? If the UN wanted to go to war the UN could have gone to war. Bush deciding to invade Iraq for such a reason is like me shooting a man because he commited murder - it's not my responsibility, nor within my rights, to do so.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I didn't say it was a wholly legitimate reason, just that he cited it as part of the declaration of war.

Truth be told, that was one of my initial reasons for supporting the war, because it seemed to me that Saddam, in breaking the 17 resolutions, wanted to continue as he had been, massing an army and equipping himself with weapons to supplement that army. That is to say, "Saddam had a guilty face."

And lest we forget that we're talking about war crimes, you can certainly try to say that Bush declared war unnecessarily, but it won't be a question of whether he followed UN protocol or not. In other words, it's not really a point of contention for the U.N., and I doubt that any Americans would want to charge him for upholding the resolutions.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

Skexis: Where, exactly, does it say that America decides the consequences of violating a UN resolution? If the UN wanted to go to war the UN could have gone to war. Bush deciding to invade Iraq for such a reason is like me shooting a man because he commited murder - it's not my responsibility, nor within my rights, to do so.

America can decide the consequences of violating a UN resolution because it's a soverign state and can do whatever it wants. The US is also the primary financial backer of the UN. So it has a tendency to call it's own shots within the organization.

Originally Posted by Skexis

...just that he cited it as part of the declaration of war.

when was there ever a "declaration of war?" I don't think the US has had an official declaration of war since the 40s. Everything else has been a "military conflict" or "occupation."

Many people love to blame the president for things that he's actually not responsible for ie the economy. Congress has been passing the buck and skipping out of their responsibilities by delegating more power to the president. The president said, "hey, I'm the commander in chief, and I wanna go to war in Iraq. Since I'm in charge of the troops, I'm sending them out. If you guys don't agree, you've got a set amount of time to say so and bring them back." But, they never did. So should the responsibility here fall on the shoulders of a single person? Congress is just as much to blame for the mess of the Iraq War as Bush is because they had the opportunity (and still do) to do something about it.

Most amazing jew boots

Clinton was impeached not for adultery..but bc of lying about it to a court of law. Bush on the other hand, was given a "blank check" by Congress after 9/11. The democrats are now scrambling to find funds for THEIR programs..which is tough to do when the military asks for billions more. Hence, why they are screaming about the extended stay in Iraq/Afghanistan. If the soldiers return home..more federal funding for the Dems (unless you raise taxes exponentially..which of course isnt going to happen)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Windsong, that's likely a tertiary issue to most congressional incumbents. Now, as for the Democratic presidential candidates, well, all 3 DO support nationalized healthcare.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Skexis: Where, exactly, does it say that America decides the consequences of violating a UN resolution? If the UN wanted to go to war the UN could have gone to war. Bush deciding to invade Iraq for such a reason is like me shooting a man because he commited murder - it's not my responsibility, nor within my rights, to do so.

Except that the resolution that ended the Persian Gulf War gave any UN member country the authority to enforce the resolution on Saddam.

Besides, I didn't hear you and your ilk complaining when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Iraq.

How ya doing, buddy?

But they tried to assassinate President Bush, you see. It couldn't just be written off as a Wag the Dog scenario like Bosnia.

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

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

This whole 9/11 war on terror is bull. Somehow Osama Bin Laden magically transformed into Iraq. You know who's fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan? The same Taliban who attacked the USA? Canada. Why? That war costs money. Iraq is clearly about oil. Saying that, it is also speculation, and therefore has no grounds to Impeach. If substantial documents claiming this are released and recognized then and only then could impeachment occur.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Even if documents were revealed that showed this - what crime was committed?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Paper Crane

Iraq is clearly about oil.

If it was just about oil, then why didn't we steal it from Venezuela first, under the guise of removing a tyrant. They have just as much oil and seizing it would've been twice as easy. Also, gas prices have done nothing but go up since we've been in Iraq. If the goal was to take their oil, you'd think we would've already set up shop over there.

I was talking to a buddy lastnight who fought in Bagdad. He said that things are a mess, but that the US troops have their hands tied over there as far as what they're allowed to do. He said there are times when they can literally watch an insurgent place an IED, but "legally" they aren't allowed to stop him. Insurgents can basically claim sanctuary and run into Mosques where the US troops aren't allowed. He said that he thinks that Iraq really could grow and prosper eventually, but they won't get anywhere as long as they remain powerless to actually deal with the insurgency.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't think it can be simplified down to that it's just about oil, but if our goal was oil, Iraq was the prime target. Venezuela already sells us oil, Iraq was moving away from that.

Gas prices went up because of uncertainty in the oil and worldwide markets, not because of a lack of oil.

Jam it back in, in the dark.