Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Should Bush be impeached?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11868		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:38 am ]
Post subject:  Should Bush be impeached?
I'm surprised this topic hasn't been started yet. So I'm starting it.

My opinion: Not only has Bush done this whole Iraq thing, but the impression I get is that he doesn't have much respect for the Constitution of the United States. Everything from his "signing statements" to the Federal Marriage Amendment (whether or not you're for gay marriage, it doesn't belong in the Constitution) to his apparent endorsement of restriction of freedoms to this recent Scooter scandal are telling me that this President just doesn't give the Constitution its proper respect. That's not very Presidential. I don't really know if we should convict him of a crime, but I'd like to at least get him out of office.

What do you guys think?

- Kef
Author:  lahimatoa [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Cindy Sheehan sure thinks so.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Meh, it's not even worth the hassle this late in his last term, and it probably wouldn't work anyway.

But yeah, he should. Should've been a while ago.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Bush has made mistakes: what president hasn't?

Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his authority at times: so did Clinton, and just about every president we've had at one time or another.

There are people who disapprove of Bush and his policies: there were people who disapproved of Clinton and his policies as well.

Plain and simple: if there is no way to convict him of a crime, then impeachment is pointless.

"IMPEACH!" at least as I have come to understand it, is just what certain people like to yell whenever they forget that there are some people who actually supported the man in office.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:51 am ]
Post subject: 
It's interesting you compared him to Clinton... seeing as the House impeached him...
But it's true, if he hasn't commited a crime, you don't impeach someone because you don't like him. He's made mistakes, but he's not intentionally harming the country.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:52 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think he should be impeached.

I do think he's done some bad things, but I (still) don't think he's impeachable.

I think the Sheehan v. Pelosi battle will be interesting.

Just so everyone knows, impeachment means nothing regarding whether or not said president stays in office.

You see a lot of people saying "Impeach Bush" as if it means he'll be out of the country immediately. This is far from the truth. More or less, impeachment is congress shaking their finger at the president, saying "you're a bad, bad boy and you're in trouble!"

A move on Pelosi's part to start impeachment hearings would be little more than an attempt to win some votes for Hilary/Obama in 08. People are angry because the current congress is utterly useless (you can argue this all you want, but any group with a lower approval rating than George W. Bush can't be doing much right), so an impeachment move would simply be a way to try to bury all of the broken promises made last November.

Regardless, though, I'm thoroughly convinced that removing a sitting president would be one of the most damaging things a country could go through and would only further the divide between right and left (plus, removing Bush would put Cheney in charge. Do you really want that?).
Author:  ChickenLeg [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Not really. I mean, he has 17 months left, so it would be rather pointless to impeach someone that'll be out of office soon anyway.
Author:  sci-fi greg [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh yeah, it's rather pointless, it could save thousands of lives. That's stupid, "Let's let someone run our country for another year and a half, what's the harm."If was was bad enough to impeach ever, than he's bad enough to impeach now.

Wait, you're a mod now. Uhhh... *bows*
Author:  Einoo T. Spork [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Uh, ChickenLeg isn't a mod.
Author:  ramrod [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Has Bush some wrong things? Yes. Has he over-stepped his boundry? Yes. Should he be impeached? Probably not. Like stated earlier, he's a lame duck. In order to get anything passed, he needs to be kissing the Dem's boots.


While on the topic though, I do remember a bumpersticker I once saw that I wanted to get : "Impeach Bush; then we'll be even."



Einoo T. Spork wrote:
Uh, ChickenLeg isn't a mod.
I think Greg was referring to Kef, though I'm not positive.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:40 am ]
Post subject: 
sci-fi greg wrote:
Oh yeah, it's rather pointless, it could save thousands of lives.

How could impeachment save lives?

Even if Bush were removed from office (which is NOT what impeachment is), the Iraq pullout (even if expedited) could not/would not happen overnight.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:58 am ]
Post subject: 
sci-fi greg wrote:
Oh yeah, it's rather pointless, it could save thousands of lives. That's stupid, "Let's let someone run our country for another year and a half, what's the harm."If was was bad enough to impeach ever, than he's bad enough to impeach now.

Wait, you're a mod now. Uhhh... *bows*

I'd be interested to see how you justify the claim that impeaching Bush WOULD save thousands of lives.

Iraq? Well, guess what! The next president would still have to deal with the problems of that country, and simply yanking the troops out before there's good security there wouldn't solve it at all.
Author:  Did he sell eggs? [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:00 am ]
Post subject: 
It's a bit late to do that.

And what Diddy said.
Author:  Mike D [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Remember that impeachment is similar to bringing someone up on charges: you have to be able to prove that the official in question has committed a crime. If proof could be provided that Bush and / or Cheney manipulated the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War, for instance, you'd have a definite and clear-cut case for impeachment. A number of congressmen do think they have a case against Cheney, but Dennis Kucinich's resolution is currently in subcommittee limbo since Nancy Pelosi refused to approve it.

Mike
Author:  Rocoramore [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think that ship has sailed. Even if we impeached Bush, I don't believe it would have that much of an impact. However, I believe Cheney should be impeached.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
The thing is that while I'm not sure what Bush should be charged with, exactly, I'm not sure there's nothing to charge him with. Really, when you look at it, the stuff Bush has gotten away with is much more severe than what Clinton got in trouble for. Not that I think Clinton is a paragon of virtue or anything, either as a person or as a President...

But I am mildly ashamed of myself for having done this:
Me: Down with the President! Impeach! Impeach!
People: What should we charge him with?
Me: uhh... you know... that thing...!

Still, I can't help but feel that disrespect for the Constitution alone should bar you from being President. Something like being elected under false pretenses. But I guess that isn't really illegal...

- Kef
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I think that ship has sailed. Even if we impeached Bush, I don't believe it would have that much of an impact. However, I believe Cheney should be impeached.

Really? And you have evidence of criminal behavior to justify such charges? Or are you simply hoping that Impeachment charges would somehow prevent him from being able to run in 2008? Way to tamper with the democratic process there, pal.

Here it is in a nutshell: there would be absolutely no point in impeaching Cheney. If you brought formal charges, and they were dismissed, it would do absolutely nothing to prevent him from running anyway. In fact, he would smell like a rose. But if Cheney actually has participated in demonstrable criminal behavior, then wouldn't that fact prevent him from garnering any serious vote in the next election? And who knows? He may not even run (even if it is tradition for the VP to run when the lame duck goes out of office). In the end, impeachment would be a lengthy, drawn-out, costly, and counter-productive process that would end up accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Please, try to have at least some faith in the democratic process, before proposing absurd ways to circumnavigate it.

Quote:
Still, I can't help but feel that disrespect for the Constitution alone should bar you from being President.

That's some pretty vague terminology there, Kef. Do you honestly think that if you asked Pres. Bush if he were disrespecting the Constitution, he would say yes? At best, you can claim that your understanding of the Constitution deviates from his, but that's about the best you could claim. Especially since Clinton, and pretty much every president in history, pretty much has acted on their own understanding of their authority under the Constitution.

Quote:
Something like being elected under false pretenses.

May I inquire, what false pretenses are you speaking of?

So we're right back where we started: if we're going to bring charges against the President, we need to know what those charges are going to be. With Clinton, it was fairly simple: perjury. With Bush, it's pretty much just that people don't like him for different reasons.

And bear in mind, this is coming from someone who did not vote for Bush, and is not particularly happy with all of his decisions.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
If you brought formal charges, and they were dismissed, it would do absolutely nothing to prevent him from running anyway. In fact, he would smell like a rose.


I don't know about that...being brought up on charges still says something about the integrity of a person, even if they ARE found innocent. I mean, do people really still trust O.J. Simpson as much as they had before the whole murder trial thing, even though he was found innocent?

I think the real bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much or how little a politician is charged or even found guilty (either accurately or inaccurately) of any crime or series of crimes. What will ultimately determine the public's perception of him will be how the media portrays him, and how much they harp on any given issue of dubious legality.
Author:  Pop_tire1 [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
The thing is that while I'm not sure what Bush should be charged with, exactly, I'm not sure there's nothing to charge him with. Really, when you look at it, the stuff Bush has gotten away with is much more severe than what Clinton got in trouble for. Not that I think Clinton is a paragon of virtue or anything, either as a person or as a President...

But I am mildly ashamed of myself for having done this:
Me: Down with the President! Impeach! Impeach!
People: What should we charge him with?
Me: uhh... you know... that thing...!

Still, I can't help but feel that disrespect for the Constitution alone should bar you from being President. Something like being elected under false pretenses. But I guess that isn't really illegal...

- Kef


Being elected under false pretenses is close to perjury (lying), which has already convicted many people in office, however I still don't think he should be impeached.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
The question still remains: what "false pretenses" are you referring to?
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd consider respect for the Constitution to be a very fundamental pretense for being elected for the Presidency.

Unfortunately, something like this is difficult to quantify in any meaningful sense, so even if it were outright illegal, it would be difficult to charge and convict him for that.

- Kef
Author:  sci-fi greg [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Hey I'm not even that much of a Bush hater. I wasn't saying "ZOMG HE WORST PRESIDENT WORSE THAN HITLER MUST BE IMPEACHED." My point was leading a country is no small task, and not impeaching him makes no sense if the only reason you're not doing it is because he doesn't have that much time left.

And about he bowing to the mod, I have no idea who I was talking about.
Author:  Rusty [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Wasn't there something in Florida? His brother, or something?

Yeah, it's probably best to just wait it out. He's not gonna stick around long. Although I agree with Kef on this one, it'd be pointless at this point.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Not that I remember. The only thing I remember about Florida was the multitude of problems with the voting system. But, from what I've gathered, much of that can be attributed lack of preset standards for conducting the process, and to both parties equally trying to control the process when it wasn't working right.

There was also something about some senator (a man of very low reputation anyway) hiring some guy to write a program he intended to use for his own voting fraud purposes, but the attempts to connect the fraud to the president or to the presidential elections were sketchy at best.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
You mean some senator tried to frame the president?
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
No. He had the program created so he could use it for his own political gain. The problem was, when the programmer spilled the beans, there was media speculation that tried to tie him to Bush. But in reality, the only real link between him and Bush was the fact that they were both Republicans, so essentially the argument was: (1) That one senator attempted to commit voting fraud. (2) He was a Republican. (3) President Bush is a Republican too. (4) Therefore, President Bush is guilty of rigging the national elections.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
That is some of the most flawed logic I've ever heard.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
I do think the 2004 election should have been scrutinized much more closely, but not because of that particular incident... my impression was, and to an extent still is, that we hardly even tried to investigate fraud just because we didn't want a repeat of the 2000 election. (Does that suddenly make fraud OK?)

But that's another thread...

I'm not sure anybody really tried to pin the blame on Bush for the voting fraud thing. (Then again, I don't really watch or read the news...) What mattered most wasn't who was committing fraud, but whether or not there was fraud at all.

- Kef
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
That is right, but you would need to know who was making the fraud to dish out the punishment to those who deserve it.
Author:  Mr. Sparkle [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm sure that is implied.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/