Well I thought I'd pass this along. The results make me happy - everyone should vote!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

I'd rather see censure than impeachment. The latter is a miserable precedent for government as a whole.

but yeah.. interesting, if non-scientific, poll.

yep. understatement. unfortunately.

Well the Republicans already set the bar low. Censure would have been appropriate for Clinton, many people urged it, but the Republican controlled congress thumbed its nose at such a suggestion.

Bush's actions seem to meet the "high crimes & misdemeanors" requirement for impeachment.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman

I should also go back to the library and get the name of a book I read earlier in the summer. Apparently Tip O'Neill was asked to start impeachment hearings during Iran/Contra. He declined, siting that it'd be divisive in an already polarized country. Further polarizing left and right -- the practical outcome of any new impeachment hearings - is bad for the country. Probably moreso than anyone'd suspect.

Beyond that impeachment as a political tool of congress is just wrong. Edmund Ross in profiles in courage for this one.

and yes. Censure was correct for Clinton as well. The bar is low, and needs to be raised.

Yeah, censure him. Because God knows what Bush has done isn't nearly as bad as what Nixon did (he wasn't impeached because he resigned prior to, as he should have - but they still agreed by far to impeach him.)

Give me a break. Stop comparing this to Clinton, everyone knows that that was an idiotic impeachment, but Dems do not use impeachments like that.

If you understood what an impeachment was, as used against treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, you would understand that if he isn't fully impeached that's the House and the Senate not doing their job.

Treason: He has removed many of the acts put in place by Clinton, and by Congress early on after 9/11 to find Osama. Thereby helping the enemy. He has undermined the Geneva conventions when a majority of US troops want him to follow them so that when they're caught and possibly tortured in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Geneva conventions can be used against their captors. So he's allowing the other party to not abide by the Geneva conventions. He claimed that Saddam had WMDs when he knew and his cabinet knew that Saddam did not, in order to bring us to war.

Number 1 for treason, compliance or contribution to the 9/11 attacks. If you don't believe me you haven't looked into it well enough, as I have for been researching it for 4 years.

Bribery: No-bid contracts are an effect of bribery. The money between a few corporations and the President's cabinet is constantly moving around for different favors and bribes. Not to mention that Bush Sr. (under Reagan)'s "via Saudi Arabia" bribery has moved into this administration. We are bribing many countries, mostly in the middle east, to have certain stances on certain issues for a price. In the 80's that price was Stingers, and other weapons. An other effect of bribery is corporations being allowed to write legislation that would help their corporation. For instance no drugs from Canada, a lot of that was written by pharmaseudical companies. That's either bribery with the White House or with specific House members or committees.

High crimes: The war in Iraq, and the lying to get us there. 9/11.

Misdemeanors: are below the Bush administration.

Nixon's VP also resigned, as Cheney will be forced to, if not the entire cabinet. What to do afterwards? Either Congress takes over temporarily for the exective, which is technically unconstitutional, or immediately start the election process and remove veto power from the executive until a new cabinet is put in place.

American's are incredibly stupid if they don't realize that many, many other countries have done things like this.

Unless you want to comply with more death in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hopefully not soon Iran or Syria. Oil price gouging being allowed. Electric cars, ethanol and bio-diesel being stifled. Etc. I could go on for ages.

no, he should not be impeached, i admit he is definitely not the best president and i do not like him. but it is too extreme for him to be impeached.

i think basically, this is a very bitter time for politics so people start screaming about impeachment before they know the facts. not talking about the post above me, they know wat they are talking about, but some of the kids at my school who don't know what they are talking about.

Honestly, and I'm going to sound like a bitch here, I don't think you know enough about what he's done then. If you did, you would without a doubt want him impeached. This has nothing to do with "democrats getting republicans back for Clinton" - this is that Bush at LEAST needs to be impeached.

Looking at the situation objectively ... they talked about impeaching Clinton, I don't remember what all happened with that, but come on, all the dude did was get blown. Who cares?

THIS guy (Bush) is responsible for thousands of deaths, rapes and atrocities. I think that shit's a lot worse than getting sucked off by some girl.

And that's only part of what's wrong with Bush and his administration...

no, because i have different beliefs. if i claimed to be a democrat then i would not be uninformed but i am not.

i promise though, that i am not an extreme religous conservative. i don't even believe in god.


when it comes to politics, i don't take sides, because i personally feel that all politicians are low and i agree with some liberal points AND some republican points.

and clinton should not have been impeached. so what if he had sex?

didn't he do her with a cigar or something? or was my dad just trying to be funny.

Bush and his cabinet are fuckholes on a cosmic scale.

That said, Clinton signed NAFTA, increased funding to Israel when he was supposedly putting pressure on them to make peace, and bombed the Sudan. He also demolished welfare and installed "don't ask, don't tell". He can eat a bag of shit if you ask me. That said, I don't think the President is the problem; it's the international cartel of businesses.

Personally, I think it's a much more intelligent perspective to just realize that our government and military have been planning and carrying out terrorist underminings of different populations around the world for decades upon decades, and realize that the entire thing needs overhauling. Corporate welfare should be decimated, human rights violations should be punished, and we should wean ourselves off our oil addiction immediately.

See, I roll my eyes when I see things like this, because you didn't give any reason or information to back up that statement like you did with everything else you said. Sorry, my school didn't have the 9/11 major, and why would you do all that research and then not share an iota of it while typing out all that other information?

As far as impeachment or censure, I'd almost rather not talk about it. Yes, people in other countries have overthrown leaders, but that's a situation where the whole country hated the leader. The simple fact is, most people in middle america still love bush. Most love him because "he's our president, and we should support him" or they still live in 9/11 fear of being un patriotic. It's that blind fallowing of him that will keep him from ever being impeached or censured.

Well the people who were for the impeachment of Clinton would argue (dishonestly, in my opinion) that it wasn't about a blow job but was in fact because he lied about it under oath. But Bush should be impeached by those standards too. He hasn't told the truth about anything and usually when he gives testimony about anything important, it's behind closed doors with no transcripts available to anyone. I have no doubt that he deserves not only to be impeached, but his ass should be sitting in prison for war crimes.

I have heard many people say that it wouldn't be good for the country to go through an impeachment so we should just censure him, but to me that's like saying Ted Bundy should've gotten community service. I actually think impeaching him might have positive consequences that people against this course of action are not considering. For one thing, I think it would show the world that we won't tolerate leaders who encourage violations of human rights or manipulate the world into war on false pretenses.

__________________

I'll take a try at explaining why impeachment is bad for the country.

Basically, it is a disruption of the balance of powers. Read Edmund Ross' chapter in 'Profiles in Courage". On the president is impeached, the continual threat congress could make against any president tilts the balance of power permanantly out of the presidency. Its a bad thing for the republic in the long run.

Like it or not, lying to the american public is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor. Nor is it impeachable. We don't live in a parliamentary no-confidence style system. Hmmm. I'll put a caveat here-- how the supreme court and guantanimo turn out might be about the most likely impeachable thing in play. Ignoring the supreme court is impeachable and ought to be, in my opinion.

I think the ted bundy analogy doesnt hold water. Murder is murder. Arguably the president has done anything other chief executives have done before him. Altho on a fairly unprecedented scale. He's just got a bad agenda and a miserable sense of judgement. Likewise, Nixon used power of office to prolongue his stay. Clearly an issue that cut across party lines.

* sigh * gotta run to the kids..

Absolutely.

I definetly think he should be impeached, but I doubt it will ever happen. He got us into a war on false pretenses, he has ignored the Geneva conventions (and therefore putting our own soldiers in danger), domestic spying... not to mention outright lying. I guess you can't punish him for that one since he has never lied under oath.

I assume your dad was trying to be funny, I guess. You are right, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that - however at the same time I hope that he is impeached because he needs to be. Aside from my disliking him, it's important for this country for him to be properly dealt with.

Well actually, he isn't loved - his approval rating is a little over 30% (which is not most people) and so it's things like this that make me roll my eyes. At least Eon had knowledge of what the hell she was talking about.

That's all I'm saying... Good post.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If lying to the American public isn't grounds for impeachment then how was it okay to impeach Clinton? He was impeached for lying to the American public (and under oath - which is the same situation for Bush) about having "sexual relations with that woman".

what exactly would the charges be?
what type of evidence is there to bring about charges?

if one claims Bush should be "put in prison for war crimes" as one suggested, I would surmise they would have to reflect back upon history and choose the same fate for: FDR, Truman, LBJ.....etc.