posted
Impeaching Bush does not seem to have grounds for support. Cheney, however, has much more egregious and provable (just by what's known to the public) offenses that could be impeachable. Rice as well, for things she said while NSA.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have to say that the Bush administration has done a number of things that, at a minimum, violate the limits of executive power laid out in the Constitution - on matters that have endanged both fundamental individual rights and our national security. So, I think Congress would have firm ground on which to argue for impeachment, in theory.
However, I also don't see it as being pragmatic. For one thing, Bush's term is almost over. For another thing, it would split the country. Overall, it would cause a lot of trouble and simply serves no benefit.
At the same time, at least now history will record that there was a move to impeach the President, which is worth something if only as a footnote in history books.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Impeaching Bush over the warrantless wiretapping definitely has grounds for support. Likewise, if they can show that he acted on the signing statements where he basically said, "I don't have to listen to you." There's also a case for many of the uses he has made of executive priviledge going far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.
Ultimately, while I think that the President should be convicted in an impeachment trial, I don't think that it is going to happen. However, in the unlikely event that the Democrats actually push this and handle it skillfully, they could strike a strong blow towards reducing the abuses of power by the executive branch and potentially have a strong effect on the November elections.
I kind of doubt that there's going to be any where near enough support to move this forward at all though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I feel any one of the reasons outlined in Kucinich's motion is more worthy of impeachment then what was used against Clinton. *shrug*
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: Never mind-- I'm starting to sound like I support a position I don't actually support just to argue.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then the question is whether the post-9/11 powers granted via the PATRIOT act and other resolutions take precedent over 1978's FISA.
Not really. In the very unlikely event of an impeachment, it is whether the members of congress believe that it doesn't (keep in ming that even some of the people who crafted the PATRIOT act said that the administration's interpretation is contrary to their intent) and that this is serious enough to convict him.
Unfortunately, I believe that this is now and in the forseeable future going to be determined by neither of these, but rather by political expediency.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I believe that Bush's legal stance is largely flismy justifications followed up with "Oh yeah. What are you going to do to stop me?", which is one of the main reasons why I support impeachment.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I really, really would like to see President Bush et al held accountable for what they have done, I do think that the real result of an impeachment at this late date would be to shove both sides further apart in partisan wrangling.
I think that would only make the job of the next president and congress more difficult and, depending on who that is, I would like them to be able to work.
On the other hand, it would send a powerful message to the next president and, depending on who that is, it might be worth it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to see the impeachment proceed if for no other reason then it would show that Congress was trying to exercise some check on Bush, even if it is too late.
I feel like our checks and balances in government failed while Bush was president. I would like to see some of that asserted.
Plus, I think they have grounds to start the process.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think, given the actual power that Congress would yield in an impeachment hearing, that you'd have people coming forward and documents that would (edit: potentially show more laws being violated or at the very least establish some pretty troublesome but not necessarily illegal behavior from the Bush administration.)
When they're not going to have an easy pardon, I think the people like Scooter Libby who were instructed to obstruct justice/out and out break the law are going to be a lot more willing to exchange their testimony for a deal.
With real, enforcable subpoenas, I think Congress would get access to documents that are going to chart out some pretty despicable behavior from the Bush administration, which may or may not being illegal.
posted
I'd love to see politicians held accountable for what they've done. Especially here in San Jose where they've wasted billions upon billions of dollars on the most wasteful and worthless light-rail system in the country. God I wish all of those people behind that debacle could be thrown into prison.
Unfortunately, holding politicians legally accountable for their actions would lead to nothing but political prosecutions. Every week there would be someone else pressing charges against politicians for SOMETHING they did or didn't do and they'd spend all their time worrying about that instead of doing their jobs of governme..... wait... what was my point again?
Yeah! Let's get Political Malpractice going full swing! Let's prosecute them all and throw them all into jail!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
But this will be DOA. Like the articles brought against Cheney, this will likely never make it onto the floor for debate, and the Judicial Committee will keep it bogged down. It'll never reach the floor.
I don't necessarily want to see him convicted because I don't like him, but I would like to see this go somewhere if for no other reason than for Congress to reassert its own authority and put the President in his place.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to see something come of this. At the very least, this needs to be discussed, and I'm somewhat baffled that it is getting almost no mainstream discussion. Heck, I couldn't even find it mentioned on either the cnn.com front page or the US page. The only mention was a little blurb on the politics page.
Whether or not you think that Bush actually deserves to get impeached, these are some very serious allegations that deserve to be looked into and discussed. I find it somewhat puzzling and worrying that this is being constantly brushed aside with almost no mention and immediately buried.
I hate to bring the Clinton impeachment into this too much, but come on, what he did was at worst personal crime, while Bush is accused of running rampant over the political system and abusing his office. To my mind, this is a far more serious matter, and deserves at least as much consideration.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several reasons why this isn't getting the attention you might like. A small one is that Kucinich isn't a heavy hitter. If Democrats really wanted this to go somewhere, it'd start with John Conyers probably, or someone of equal heft in the party. He's quirky, and not particularly influential, and I think a lot of people don't want to be associated with him.
The bigger reason is this is an election year, and it will be seen by many as election year politics. If it was against an incumbent president it might be different, but Congressional democrats feel that this would serve to harm their chances in the Fall, and see little point in doing so when Bush will be out of office in seven months.
It's politics through and through, just like the Clinton witch hunt was, it's just leading to a different result. And to be fair, the worst of what Clinton did was lie under oath. I don't think he lied about anything particularly important, but he did.
Scott McClellan will be testifying within the coming weeks before the House on the role the Administration played in forcing him to downplay certain aspects of the war to the public. I suspect there'll be a lot of good headlines from that. Democrats have to tread a careful line, as many of them had access to some of that information on the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committee (I would guess). It may be that some could get tagged for not doing something about it, but I still think it's a net loss for Republicans publicity wise. Mostly they'll come off as the guys supporting Bush's antics and Democrats will look like whistleblowers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technical question: Can Bush be impeached in this term for actions committed in his previous term?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. He can in theory be impeached for any reason, actually, provided Congress votes to impeach him.
It won't happen, though. Too many Congresspeople live in closely-contested districts, and the impeachment vote would be seen as a partisan act.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness, I don't think it makes them look like crybabies. After all, I know at least some of the people who voted for Democrats in the last election did so to increase the likelihood of impeachment hearings under a Democratic majority. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what a substantial portion of the Democratic base would like to see happen.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
