Wouldn't the country be better off if we just impeach Bush?

Question

How much punishment should the country have to endure?

Scott McClellan

Polly - The Clinton years were like a wonderful fairy tale compared to the Bush nightmare of debt and war.

Answer 1

Only if we impeach Cheney first.

Answer 2

First, you have to actually commit a crime before impeachment is viable.

Second, Most of the country is in great shape. I know I am.

Third, by the time investigations were over for evidence to support impeachment, the next President will be in office so there is no point.

Answer 3

We should impeach bush, but then we would all be considered terrorists and be executed....even though we have the right to overthrow a government we don't see fit for OUR country.

Just think Clinton was impeached because of a ********....
bush is killing thousands of peoples children, husbands, and fathers over Oil....

Answer 4

I don't think there's really that much to debate. If Bush & Cheney are suspected of breaking the law, don't we have an obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings? We don't get to decide whether or not it is politically expedient to take someone to trial if they are suspected of murder, so why would impeachment be any different?

And yeah, this country would be better off if we impeach him. It is not healthy for democracy to let Bush get away with subverting our civil liberties.

Answer 5

Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of U.S. criminal laws at the highest levels of our government. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But the worst were the revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of FISA--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws.

As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law and violates the law repeatedly commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ALSO A CRIME, that endangers our constitutional system of government.

The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.

To mention just a few for those here who say "there are no grounds":

Warrantless wiretaps: On December 17 President Bush acknowledged that he repeatedly authorized wiretaps, without obtaining a warrant, of American citizens engaged in international calls. On the face of it, these warrantless wiretaps violate FISA, which requires court approval for national security wiretaps and sets up a special procedure for obtaining it. Violation of the law is a felony.

The failure to take care: Upon assuming the presidency, Bush took an oath of office in which he swore to take care that the laws would be faithfully executed. President Bush has been guilty of such gross incompetence or reckless indifference to his obligation to execute the laws faithfully as to call into question whether he takes his oath seriously or is capable of doing so.

The most egregious example is the conduct of the war in Iraq. Unconscionably and unaccountably, the Administration failed to provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately armored vehicles. A recent Pentagon study disclosed that proper bulletproof vests would have saved hundreds of lives. Why wasn't the commencement of hostilities postponed until the troops were properly outfitted? There are numerous suggestions that the timing was prompted by political, not military, concerns.

Subverting our democracy: A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war.

Torture and other abuses of power: President Bush recently proclaimed, "We do not torture." In view of the revelations of the CIA's secret jails and practice of rendition, not to mention the Abu Ghraib scandal, the statement borders on the absurd. It has been well documented that abuse (including torture) of detainees by US personnel in connection with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been systemic and widespread. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996 it is a crime for any US national to order or engage in the murder, torture or inhuman treatment of a detainee. (When a detainee death results, the act imposes the death penalty.) In addition, anyone in the chain of command who condones the abuse rather than stopping it could also be in violation of the act. The act simply implements the Geneva Conventions, which are the law of the land.

The evidence now suggests that the President himself may have authorized detainee abuse. In January 2002, after the Afghanistan war had begun, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush in writing that U.S. mistreatment of detainees might be criminally prosecutable under the War Crimes Act. Yet Bush established Guantanamo.

Answer 6

You obviously have some ignorant notion that impeachment involves removal from office. Well, it doesn't, and there's no way that the Senate would muster the 2/3 majority necessary to accomplish such. That's how Clinton escaped being removed from office after having been impeached.

Oh, and he hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment, or the democratic-led House of Representatives would have lit his *** up by now, simply to appear as if they were accomplishing something.

Answer 7

No, the country would have to be in anarchy for that to happen. There are no legal grounds for impeachment. If there were the Dems would have started proceedings long ago.

Answer 8

Good question,Here's another, lets just turn back the hands of time and erase 9/11,then we wouldn't have an enemy to fight against.
Look,,in one short year we will have another president.Why not just wait and see what they do about the people that want to kill you and your kids and your grand kids.Who knows ,maybe they will be able to convince the radical Muslims that we don't want to follow the teachings of Islam.You think?

Answer 9

As much as I believe that Bush is a total disaster for this country, it is important that we follow the law, rather than emotions and desire for vindication. To impeach Bush he has to be convicted of high crimes. Stupidity, ignorance and incompetence are, unfortunately, do not qualify as high crimes. While the guy is certainly evil, a conviction would require proof, which would be hard to come by given the secrecy of this administration.

Answer 10

You dems had the votes to start impeachment hearings on Cheney why did hag pelosie shelf it.

Answer 11

"How much punishment should the country have to endure?"

Well, the way I see it, I've already endured Bill and Hillary for 8 years. And you want her for another 8? The first 8 were enough...