Isn't it finally time to impeach George W. Bush?

Question

Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment stated, in part, that Nixon "has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas."

Isn't this what Bush has been doing with the Plame investigation, the U.S. Attorney firings, the NSA wiretapping, the Abu Ghraib torturing, etc.?

Haven't we finally had enough? Are we really going to let Bush and Cheney walk on all this? No personal attacks, please; I am just looking at the public record. Just state your opinion on the facts.

msi_cord: Because the damage this president and vice-president are doing to the Executive Branch, that's why they should be impeached now. Their political descendants will see that anyone elected to the presidency can get away with near murder and further weaken our already weakened democracy.

"Not sure what makes you think there was anything done at all by Bush regarding Plame, Abu Ghraib, the NSA wiretapping or even the US attorney firings - there has been no testimony or evidence that he's done anything wrong at all in any of these cases."

Because the White House is stonewalling! You don't have to see a rotting corpse behind a wall to smell it and know that it is there. Once the Legislative Branch is finally able to produce the hidden documents, we will see a scandal that will make Watergate look like a parking ticket.

Now Bush has commuted 'Scooter' Libby's sentence so that this indicted felon will not serve any jail time.

What else does Bush have to do before the country finally awakens from its deep slumber and we can start to think about having a democracy again?

Answer 1

Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority vote, and unfortunately Congress is still too evenly split for that. However, there has been talk of charging him with contempt of court for refusing to comply with the subpoena. I think that would be thoroughly appropriate, and his efforts to weasel out of that charge would once again demonstrate that he thinks he's above the law. Just keep putting those nails in the coffin, George.

Answer 2

Since the articles of impeachment were only drafted, but never voted on, it doesn't mean they would have been upheld.

Of course, by your logic, both Clintons would have need to have been found in violation of the law. They failed to deliver many, many documents and info requested by subpeona. Such as Hillary's Rose Law firm records. Such as official White House e-mail (as opposed to GOP internal e-mail). Etc.

Not sure what makes you think there was anything done at all by Bush regarding Plame, Abu Ghraib, the NSA wiretapping or even the US attorney firings - there has been no testimony or evidence that he's done anything wrong at all in any of these cases.

There is no public record indicating any wrongdoing, so where are your facts?

Answer 3

If that is the route you choose to take. Personally, I see no point in wasting the time, money, and effort necessary to impeach a President who will be out of office is less than a year and a half and is quickly loosing support within his own party. President Bush is a lame duck, there is no need to remove him because he has little political power.

Since the Clinton impeachment has been brought up in a few answers, let us examine it. President Clinton was impeached after being indicted by a grand jury for the felony crime of perjury (lying under oath to a court of law). President Bush has yet to be indicted for any crime. Also, the political consequences of the unsuccessful impeachment of President Clinton were fairly large in the next election. Republicans lost control of the Senate, lost a lot of seats in the House, and nearly lost the Presidency to a not so popular Vice President. I don't think it is in the Democratic party's best interest to impeach Bush. If they leave him alone, they are the clear favorites to win the White House in 2008. Why screw that up?

Answer 4

Well, once they investigate WJ Clinton further and he goes to jail we can look into beginning impeachment proceedings for George W Bush. Now that means we have to open more CIA files. Full disclosure during the Clinton administration. He fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office. It is under Executive Orders u can search engine. Wiretapping and? investigations of suspected criminals and terrorists? When we know now what is real as b4 we were in the dark. In Europe the CIA/FBI had already taken aggressive actions against suspected terrorists. Those places we hear so little about?
In my opinion this is all about an extra ordinary election with a past President and his spouse running for the 44th President.
Nepotism I thought we were rid of during Kennedy days. SO, your headlines are more extreme. Politics as usual if you follow the trends. 2007 it is a new ball game out there.

I feel strongly that these are not facts yet public speculation. Propaganda for the return of Democratic control by two very dominate individuals. If the Good Senator from New York cared about the fact that she accepted donations for re-election only to devote her time to run for President ? And she sleeps well at night? Why can I believe she will perform better at another job?

Judge Holloway Johnson is one to look up and stay onto. She derailed Kenneth Starr. Reports came out she over looked criminal sentences for financiers on the Clinton payroll. So if she gets a better job in '09, like Pelosi and the rest of the debts do not cry to those of us who said we told you so. Thank you very much.

**be still my heart butterbar u pulled up Rose Law Firm
documents were found in the First Ladies quarters.. imagine that .. and where are they now? Sandy Berger? Or Vince Foster, well he committed suicide and a bullet to the back of the head? Fact. Clinton witnesses are very flexible.

Answer 5

Given that Cheney would be tossed as well, keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi stands next in line. That's most likely the reason for her "Not on my watch!" comment.

Even then, I'd vote for impeachment. It just doesn't get much worse than it is now.

FYI, I was as life-long Republican until shortly after Bush was elected. I've switched to Independent and during the last general election voted the first straight party ticket I've ever voted in 36 years of voting. Hint: It was NOT a Repbulican ticket!

Answer 6

I don't understand why Clinton almost got impeached over an adulterous affair (even though we are supposed to keep church and state seperate anyway) yet Bush is able to do illegal spying on our very own citizens and there isn't a mention of the word impeachement!

The Republicans (evil do'ers) were ALL over Clinton- but now....all they are doing is supporting their war monger.

Answer 7

Finally? I thought it was time four years ago.

To the "Cheney will be President" people... Cheney can be impeached and brought up on charges just as easily as Bush. That is not a problem. If Bush is guilty, Cheney is guilty.

Answer 8

Well that sounds all well and good. . . if you want President Cheaney in the white house.

Answer 9

you want Cheney to be President ?

Answer 10

Watergate was a scam to get him into office. This is completely different. I spit on hippies like you.