Impeachment bills against Prez Bush

what about the international war crimes charges? there won't be any justice until those are properly served (which will be never... i realize that).

Why would we impeach them? We voted for the fools. It's the fault of an idiot nation.

zonnks wrote:

Why would we impeach them? We voted for the fools.

guess again, hobo

Fun stuff wrote:

New Mexico Impeachment bill

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/55753.html

Vermont Impeachment Movement

http://www.vtimpeach.com/frontPage.do

Washington State Senator Eric Oemig Introduces Impeachment bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6iKWlit3D4

US Rep. Cynthia McKinney today became the first US Congresswoman to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, as well as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/news.php/2006/12/09/impeachment_bill_introduced

Are there any bills advocating Bush's retroactive abortion?

What ? We love Bush. China's #1 stooge is Bush. China's #2 stooge is Phil Knight. To Please China is BLISS

I love China and George Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awww, seems the liberals are worked up on something again. Any moron can introduce this stuff. It's just partisan posturing, nothing more. Bush isn't going anywhere.

These are political stunts so politicians can say "Look at me, I tried to impeach Bush."

The founding fathers would have quite a laugh over this. The Constitution does not allow for the President of the United States being impeached for being incompetent, immoral, idiotic, downright stupid, duplicitous, a drunk, a moron, etc... He has to commit a "high crime or misdemeanor".

Taking the country to war on questionable, yet legitimately debatable, pretense does not make the grade. Sorry. Even if he believed the intelligence was faulty, and there's no proof he did, it would not be a "high crime..." If that type of duplicity was all that was required for impeachment, every president in history would be impeachable.

zonnks wrote:

Why would we impeach them? We voted for the fools. It's the fault of an idiot nation.

You all may not know this because America seemed to spend the 20th century completely setting this ideal aside, but the people have the power. So if our government isn't doing what we'd like, we the people have the duty to retract the power we've alloted to the government.

Unfortunately, an uninterested, easily manipulated public (Thank you again Baby Boomers -- one more feather for your hats) seems pretty willing allow the government to hold the cards and just allow up to be "free" when it is convenient to them. What's the saying? Nothing is yours that you won't fight for? Well, especially given our divided state, I'd say this country won't fight for about anything (and I'm not talking about the "War on Terror").

The public is long overdo for a cleansing of the government. A sort of, Federal Final Solution, if you will.

You obviously do not understand the Constitution of the United States. The power of impeachment as vested in the Congress is not there so the people can remove the president because they hate him. Please educate yourself before posting ignorant crap here.

Most Americans did not vote for Bush and the results in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) the outcome of the elections is in doubt. This time that classic bumper sticker takes in true meaning:

"Don't vlame me, I voted for Gore/Kerry.

A group of Social Studies teachers saw this coming in 1999. He would fool enough people to win and then destroy the nation.

Wrong wrong wrong. We're a Republic. The people do not the have power to remove the President just b/c they don't like him. Democracy sucks. We're a Republic.

If one takes what I got this one wrote not from a Constitutional perspective but from a Jeffersonian one, then he is right. We have the power as a nation of millions to take back the power that a few have usurped in their own best interests. However, it would be ugly and would get worse before it got better.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Awww, seems the liberals are worked up on something again. Any moron can introduce this stuff. It's just partisan posturing, nothing more. Bush isn't going anywhere.

Next thing you know, those lib'rals might do something completely off the wall like file articles of impeachment over a b*******.

Reluctant Philosopher wrote:

The founding fathers would have quite a laugh over this. The Constitution does not allow for the President of the United States being impeached for being incompetent, immoral, idiotic, downright stupid, duplicitous, a drunk, a moron, etc... He has to commit a "high crime or misdemeanor".

Taking the country to war on questionable, yet legitimately debatable, pretense does not make the grade. Sorry. Even if he believed the intelligence was faulty, and there's no proof he did, it would not be a "high crime..." If that type of duplicity was all that was required for impeachment, every president in history would be impeachable.

riiiighhhhhtttttt......... so clinton commited high crimes and misdemeanors, but bush hasn't? are you f-ing serious? bush is responsible for invading a country, killing half a million innocent citizens, including women and children. he's responsible for breaking the geneva conventions, not to mention numerous u.n. conventions regarding "just war." he has, let's face it, LIED on so many occasions it's gone from hilarious back to serious back to hilarious again. your argument that he thought the intelligence was good initially doesn't fly. when all the premises for going to war are proven to be false, and then you change the fundamental reason you are engaged in the war, midstream, you need to get the political smackdown. big time. if clinton's actions were deemed impeachable (and i'll state for the record that i'm no fan of clinton), bush's actions are, at the very least, imprisonable. i'm not sure if imprisonable is actually a word, but whatevs.

You can't impeach a President over a war like Iraq. U.N. conventions are crap, the U.S. Constitution is all that matters. It's pretty much impossible to impeach (and remove) a President. Bush has done nothing that could get him impeached at this point that we know of. Hate him all you want (and I didn't vote for him either time myself) but he isn't the worst PResident ever and he isn't a war criminal and he isn't going anywhere until January of 2009. Sorry, live with it.

First of all, who said anything about the Clinton impeachment? That was dubious at best, in my opinion. While a strong case can be made that Clinton perjured himself, in my opinion this perjury was not a high crime or misdemeanor in the context the framers intended. But that is a hotly debated topic among constitutional scholars.

On your second point, I'm not going to get into a political debate with you. If you want to discuss this more seriously and dispassionately, please cite the exact U.S. law or laws that Bush has broken, with some evidence beyond your perception, and how articles of impeachment could be defended. If you can't do that you're wasting my time.

A couple of points to guide you:

Just War is a theory, not a law.

There is a difference between being wrong and lying. And there is a difference between being stupid and lying. And, there is no U.S. law against lying. Perjury is against the law. Lying is not.

Bush is clearly a disaster, one of our five worst presidents ever. But an impeachment this far into his tenure as president is a ridiculous idea. These things take over a year, which brings us pretty clsoe to the end of his time in the White house. Plus everyone while be absorbed by the next campaign. Plus...if you removed him from office, you'd get Cheney, which is the last thing in the world this country needs. Just learn from monumental mistakes and elect someone decent next time.

The outing of covert operative Valarie Plame certainly rises to high crime status.

Both GW and the VP has been implicated.

Intentionally lying to congress about WMD in Iraq may not directly constitute perjury. But in the context of war crimes committed, there is most likely a case for prosecution. Unless you believe that the US prez. is held to such a low standard there is no expectation of acting with the nations best interest, or even honesty at all.

Then of course we have 911, that is if if anybody really cared enough to have a legitimate investigation...