WingColors

It was discussed with Bill Clinton. Bush will not be impeached...that would be ludicrous...

I just want him out !

I don't even understand why he'd be impeached in the first place.

So what's the point of this?

This is like saying "End of the world: Possible"

OF COURSE IT'S POSSIBLE!

So we have a Republican Senator who's alter ego is "Captain Obvious"?

Terrible comparison RightOn. But I understand what you mean, that's why I said "of course, he adds..." up there. The difference is that a Republican dares say something like this publically. To my knowledge, that's never happened. And that's why this is newsworthy. Not because Bush *could* be impeached, but because government officials are talking about it publically.

Ah yes. Good to see freedom of speech is still in tact, god forbid a public official question authority at any point publically...

Has there been public talk of impeachment from a Republican before now? If there has been, then it's increasing. If it hasn't, then it's the first time.

In either case it's newsworthy.

I used to love when Hagel and Biden would do little press conferences and Laura Ingraham would collective refer to the two as "Bagel".

Hagel gets no love with either die hard party men or conservatives so it makes sense for him to throw red meat to the liberals. All he needs to do now is go down on Cindy Sheehan and and he'll sew up the DNC nomination for sure.

Ozone42
I don't even understand why he'd be impeached in the first place.

Oh, I don't know.. But I think maybe for LYING.

Lying about what? I mean, I don't approve of lying but I think you'd have trouble finding a president in our country's history that hasn't lied.

Is this one of those things where everything is bush's fault despite all the congressmen and senators that voted something through? Or is it more one of those Bush is the source of all information and all decisions that happen in the country?

I don't like Bush, I don't agree with many of his decisions. I don't see that he's done anything impeachable, and has done far less wrong than many presidents.

Lipstol,

If by lying you mean believing intelligence reports from multiple countries including Israel, Britain, and Russia, then yes the President lied.

However, At the federal level the executive can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" and while you can play with the meaning of the words all day long, President Bush has done none of this.

So what exactly has the President done that is Impeachment worthy?

Perhaps he deserves a Censure, but certainly not impeachment!

Why impeach him? Just stick him on his own front lines... Tony can go with him for all I care.

Why impeach Bush?

1. Illegal wiretapping
2. suspending habeas corpus
3. torturing prisoners who have yet to be charged with any crime
4. extraditing prisoners to foreign countries knowing they'll be tortured there
5. funding terrorist Sunni groups; redirecting funds without Congressional approval (think Iran-Contra)
6. knowingly using false information as a pretext for war
7. ...

Pick whichever you like. #7 is for the reason(s) I'm forgetting. All of the above are infinitely more serious threats to national security than marital infidelity.

I thought Clinton's "crime" was lying about it...

Right you are; so get Bush under oath, and just ask about 1-6.

Although there's no need to. If funding Sunni terrorists, suspending Constitutional rights without any Congressional or judicial approval, and permitting the torture of prisoners aren't "high crimes and misdemeanors," I don't know what is.

Maybe Bush knows absolutely nothing about any of this, and doesn't himself deserve impeachment on the above grounds. So he's caught in "Reagan's Dilemma": either he knows about 1-6 and is impeachable, or he really didn't know and is grossly, maybe impeachably incompetent. [Name taken from Reagan's insistence that he knew nothing about Iran-Contra.]

Johan,

I must respectfully disagree. I can not find any reason under which you list to impeach president Bush.

1. While the legality of this is certainly inquestion, it has not been found illegal and even if it were found to be illegal, one must assume that all presidents you do unconstitutional things can be impeached.

2. Abraham Lincoln did this as well, should he not be impeached?

3. While accusations have been made in regard to Gitmo, and I assume this is what you are referencing, there is no proof of this and as such we can not impeach. Even with proof, I find it hard to impeach on moral grounds.

4. So what? It's moral again and not a legal argument. At least make a policy argument in regard to this point.

5.Once again, this is an instance of "the enemies of my enemy are my friend" once again, no grounds for impeachment.

6. As addressed earlier this was widely excepted in the World and even under the Clinton administration. It's not "false pretenses" when you are don't know the truth.

I understand you maybe upset with the President and his policies, a perfectly reasonable position, however, you seem to forget that America uses a system of government based on precedent, and for many of these things there is no precedent for impeachment. This makes it so these offenses, which you give no justification for being impeachable offense, are not impeachable.

Jonah,

You realize nearly all the points you've made are actions of our government, meaning several to dozens, perhaps even hundreds of people making decisions instead of just one?

I'd honestly be for throwing out the bulk of our government, but it seems like your aggression is misdirected.

For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. There is more than significant evidence that they knew these were false pretenses and many people are certain a good legal case could be made. He has more impeachable offenses than any president prior to him.

As to if he is impeachable I have no idea really from a procedural point of view, the process would be tedious and you know Americans, if it takes too long and they have to work too hard at it they are not likely to do it.

The best thing for him to do would be to resign and take the duck hunter with him.

cooper, could you qualify these impeachable offenses?

I think if anyone could have made a case that we invaded iraq on false pretenses, it'd already be in the works, or done with. The fact that several other countries had similar or the same intelligence we did, however bad it may have been, seems to be a pretty solid defense. I'm not claiming to know what the reality was, but it's not like invading iraq has gained the US, or Bush specifically anything other than a more tarnished image.

I really don't have a problem with people taking offense at the things you and others have mentioned. I do to! The thing is, there were a lot more people making these decisions and giving sanction to them than good ole G Dubya. Even if he was the mastermind his opponents tend to paint him as (Isn't that hilarious? Mastermind?!) impeaching him would do little to help. Obviously he's not a mastermind, so do you intend it to be more symbolic, or just an excersize in futility?

Cooper,

First, I think you mean quail hunter, but I degress.

Cooper, you say you don't understand the procedural process, but yet you say it's impeachable. How is the war an impeachable offense. Congress authorized the war and thus he is authorized to go to war. The only issue would be the false pretenses, and this however, is a lie. False Pretenses assumes that Bush tried to mislead the American people, and this I believe he did not. Bush along with the American and UK intelligence community believed they had weapons and so this certainly isn't false pretenses, although, maybe inaccurate pretenses.

OZONE42/tmht:

I explained it already there is evidence that he knew the information was fabricated/fake, there is enough evidence of this for some time congress didn't know it was fabricated but at the least Bush and Cheney did....he can be impeached for that...by procedural I really meant the whole process length, time it would take, cost etc.

Not to mention a million others which I could qualify if I wasn't finishing up two very large mid-term papers.

I come here for fun, like a cigarette break...

sorry.

There are many substantive pieces of information in academic and non academic papers all over the web if you investigate.

It was fabricated information and the whole world knows it.

I guess I meant quail and you I assume meant digress?

I hope you put more effort into backing up your opinions in your midterms.

Cooper,

The best of luck to you during Mid-terms, I have one today in regard to European Government and Politics.

Powell's refusal and hesitance to present to the UN is hardly an admission of guilt.

To be perfectly honest, the radical left are the only one's who believe Bush lied. That is not to say that just the radical left is unhappy with his performance, as Hegel has come out and suggested it publicly.

Now that the dems control the office, they think they're all neat and powerful. I'm sorry but Bush has done nothing worthy of Impeachment. This is a serious accusation, and Hagel needed to do WAY more research before runnin his mouth about such topics...

this is why he should be impeached

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/impeachment.html

one must assume that all presidents you do unconstitutional things can be impeached.

I'd pretty much say that the definition of impeachment would be to oust a president who does something unconstitutional. That's his friggin' job for chrissakes, to be the best damn American there is.

Bush should be impeached for lying, straight up. Or for moving into the White House when he wasn't the man elected by the people.

At least Clinton's sex scandal didn't kill anyone.

Being a Canadian, from what I see from here, I'd like to say that whether we like to hear it or not, the USA is definitely stuck with George W. Bush for at least another year. In fact, it might look good to think about impeaching George W. Bush, the USA's current president. However, if the impeachment happened, the USA's own problems won't vanish, because Dick Cheney, who happens to be the Vice-president, will replace Bush. As far as I know, many Americans seem to have a contempt for Cheney.