Hell yes.

87% ^_^

I HATE the asshole. But do not want him impeached. You all do remember who the v.p. is right? I DO NOT want Dickhead to become prez. That is my only reason for not wanting Bush impeached. Censure him.

__________________
Sorry, I've lost my tolerance for the arrogance of the ignorant.

Pssst, unlike Clinton who has Monica… Bush has a secret Black Girl as his intern….Bush may not publicly admit but he loves Black girls. Please don’t tell his wife because she will get very angry and who knows what she will do to him…

Hell, Cheney should go straight to jail. He outed Valerie Plame, he also doesn't support the Geneva Conventions, and he lied about the war just as much as Bush did.

If Bush and Cheney are gone, who's next in the line of succession? Is it Condi Rice?

speaker of the house. dennis hastert.

Clinton was impleached for lying under oath. Not lying to the american public. Call a cynic, but I'd believe most if not all presidents lie to the american public. That the sitting president does it more often than most, and on a horrific scale doesn't make lying to the public impeachable. Likewise, use of signing statements on an unprecidented scale probably isn't impeachable either; its gone on too long.

I'm not a lawyer but do realize the law is largely about precidents. What happens now effects future generations and how the law is interpretted. Lowering the impeachment bar to some impossibly low standard is bad for the nation. I know its galling. I know the president acts foolish (and as an aside, remember, his good-ole boy bit is an act, he's got an ivy league MBA, hardly the stuff of a redneck), but in the end.. there simply isn't a high crime or misdemeanor with sufficient evidence to impeach.

Hmmm. Put it like this. Impeach him now. In 10 or 20 years there'll be someone in office more liberal, more sane, more reasonable. The far right nitwits could view his behaviour as soft.. bad for the nation etc. Would you then wish to see them start impeachment on some trumped up charge? Probably not.

I said this before though, I think the situation at Guantanamo might be as close to impeachable an offense as he is committing. Failure to grant right and ignoring the supreme court is tantamount to contempt. At the point he is in contempt for guantanamo rights, I'd agree impeachment is a good action.

After Cheney its Speaker Of The House Dennis Hastert and after him its president pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens. Condoleezza would be next in line.

Hastert is no upgrade over Bush or Cheney.

i do wish that bush would stop aiming for all these countries because it makes me scared some country is gonna build some huge bomb and decide to take out the dominant country

Well, professor Paul Green from Roosevelt University here in Chicago, has said a few times on the radio that Bush would be facing impeachment if the Republicans didn't control congress. He seems to think lying about Iraq is impeachment worthy.


Unless the Dems controlled congress that's very likely. If Bush were impeached, the Republicans would look for pay back.

That depends on how suicidal that country is. If said country did such a thing or harbored a terrorist groups that did, they would have to face the full wrath of our nuclear arsenal.

I'd like to think the Dems are only a few mos away from controlling congress. I dislike the president and believe him to be among the worst, ever. I'm not defending the president,just opining that impeaching him is tantamount to some form of republican (in the democracy, not part sense) oligarchy.

Tip O'Neill had it right. Impeachments are bad for the nation.

From your keyboard to Buddha's monitor.

One can only hope the Dems will take back congress. Its been 12 years since the "Republican revolution" and its been 12 hellish years.

Agreed.

Cheney wouldn't be president either. Do you really think that anyone involved in these impeachment hearings would allow that to happen? They will absolutely tie Cheney, Rove and the rest of them into the fraud commited by Bush. We would completely get rid of the entire group - there wouldn't be a concern about Cheney being president.

Tip O'Neill died in 1994, when things were better in this country and the impeachment hearings were over whether or not a man who lied under oath about getting a blowjob should be impeached. Somehow I don't think his statement THEN about impeachment would apply now in 2006 to everything Bush has done.

excellent point, just what I was thinking.

I read a history of Congress earlier in the summer. Mostly a very dry read. Apparently nearly every Democrat in Washington wanted Reagan impeached for IranContra. Serious lies and apparently enough evidence to get it done. The man held to some good principles. Impeachments are divisive. Impeachments weaken the government. Impeachments shouldn't be tools to express displeasure. Censure is a far better tool in this case. Sad, but true in my opinion.

Ok, but at the same time, by not impeaching this man and everyone else behind him who has been in on this since the beginning - we're allowing future assholes to feel they can get away with it too. Republicans like to make this seem like it's the "Democrats getting back at the Republicans for impeaching Clinton" and that's not it at all. Impeachment is needed at this point in time in this country, regardless of what it could do to this country... in my opinion.

Censure.

The idea of censure is to say, "hey look... you are wrong. Clearly wrong. You can't be removed from office for this.. but are seriously wrong. Change your course of action."

I support censuring the president over a range of issues. This is a historically bad presidency with respect to the overall direction of the country, national policy, and the actions of the president. Policy and direction shouldn't be censured. Sorry, but steal a few elections and that is how it goes. Actions tho-- censurable. he deserves it.

Ask your Congressional rep if he/she supports censure in the upcoming election.

The man has been being told he's wrong since the beginning of all of this. He's been told to change his act and he's been asked for years now to provide a course of action and a timeline for this war. Has he changed? Has he produced anything? No, not at all. All he's done is outwardly expressed his irritation with people opposing his ideas (that he doesn't explain) and then goes on to do something else that's even more screwed up then what he did before.

So somehow... with this pattern I'm seeing forming here... I doubt that censuring would do anything. If he had been censured in 2002, then maybe something would have changed. He would have seen his re-election coming up (which h