1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Impeach Bush?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Kwyjibo, Jul 17, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68040


  2. macrumors member

    LOL. The Florida Senator is just trying to get traction for his off track presidentail campaign, and he's making a fool of himself.
  3. macrumors 6502

    There are many reasons we could impeach Pres. Bush, but the most important reason we won't, is because he is popular. For all the rhetoric about this being a land where "Rule of Law" prevails, it really doesn't. If you are rich enough, and/or you are popular enough, you can get away with murder or war or unlawful imprisonment.
  4. macrumors 68040


    ...or making bad software and foisting it on the public because you have a monopoly...
  5. macrumors 68040



    I doubt that anyone would really be able to impeach Bush with what was said any more effectively than Clinton was. Yes, I realize that Clinton was actually impeached, but that's as far as he got.

    He was able to survive because the case was based on Clinton telling an out-and-out bald faced lie, when what he actually did was tell a half-truth. The wiggle room he provided himself was the use of the words "Sexual relations". You can drive a truch through the definition of that. Therefore, it couldn't be proven unequivocably that he Lied.

    Bush did a similar thing in the state of the union with the line "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    There it is, the 16 words that lead to all of these hot debates. But this again, is not an out-and-out lie, it's a half-truth at it's worst.

    This doesn't make Bush innocent any more than Clinton, but they're playing semantics, and they can get away with it.

    At the end of the day when all of this talk is boiled down, this is not a political thing - it's a legal one. And these two men played that game well.
  6. macrumors 68000


    As much as I'd like to see Bush out, this is going nowhere. I'd have to agree that the statement by Graham has more to do with his own campaign than a serious call for impeachment. Unlike Clinton, Bush has both houses of Congress in the hands of his party and the Congressional leaders won't let this get to stage one. I also think that if any political lessons were learned during the debacle of the last impeachment it would be that the American people don't like their leaders put on trial. Clinton's poll numbers went up during the last mess. I think it is better to try and show the costs of Bush's policies and work to get him out in 2004. The Senator did get his name mentioned at the top of each newscast, so I think he accomplished what he set out to do.
  7. macrumors 68040


    Bush won't be impeached unless things get ALOT worse for him. The Republicans have the House of Reps. sown up pretty tight right now, nothing gets through without the nod from Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay. Those two in particular are likely to be as zealous in their defense of Bush as they were vociferous in their attacks on Clinton.
  8. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    I agree with those who've said that impeachment talk is a waste of time and energy. That being said, we don't know, and probably will never know, what a "Fourth Branch of Government" (the Investigative) would discover if they had the power subpoena everyone and everything in sight, in pursuit of whatever caught their fancy, and for as long as their curiosity held out (money being no object). I somehow doubt that the Bush administration would hold up any better under that level of scrutiny then the Clinton administration did.
  9. macrumors 6502

    Things aren't gonna change so deal with it. Republicans are in power, bush is a republican. They only reason they are making a big deal about it is to make waves before the election in 2004. The reason Clinton wasn't removed from office was the fact that he did nothing legally wrong with regards to his power and position. Immoral, yes but he's only guilty of denying it and that wasn't why they impeached him.

    Bush did nothing wrong. Every government in the world has been doing things like this for years. The US is not any different. It's strictly spin doctoring to gain public opinion. Such is life, it's time people began to realize this
  10. macrumors 601


    That is not a high crime. To say that the British have learned something. The evidence in question is not all of the evident that exists to the subject. Britian still stands by their intel.

  11. macrumors 6502

    No! The reason I want Bush investigated, is because I believe he has broken his Oath of Office (To uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America). He is responsible for the unconstitutional imprisonment of American Citizens, without trial, or council. There is damn good Moral, and Legal reasons to impeach him. It won't happen because he is popular.

    There goes the "Rule of Law".
  12. macrumors 68000


    I'm certainly not the biggest GWB fan, but I have to agree with everyone here that going forward with an impeachment would be a terrible waste of time, energy and resources. With both house under Republican control, it's a moot point anyway. Graham is just throwing out sound bites to see if there is any support for him.
  13. macrumors 68040


    I'm not saying that this is going to happen especially with the way congress is. I'm trying to say in a different time, if we went by the standard by which clinton was held, Bush should be in more trouble. 10 years down the line I think if you looked at both cases (clinton lies or bush lie) the bush lie would seem more serious. I also agree that graham is blowing steam, but as a democrat he should be ... he should be atleast raising the question of the standard despire popularity.

    I just thought it was an interesting read, I mean its not like i'm throwing this out there as an immediate possiblity or a rant about how i hate Bush but as a news item that perhaps should be exmained by all angles
  14. macrumors newbie

    Sexual Acts vs. Manslaughter. Impeachment?

    So Clinton got a blow job from an intern and ends up being impeached.

    Bush lies about the war, puts tens of thousands of U.S. troops in harm's way (how many have died now?), a national infrastructure (admittedly ruled by a tyrant) was destroyed, and Iraqis are suffering and dying from diseases arising from raw sewage contaminating their water supplies, hospitals without supplies, oh-and a few gazillion errant cluster bombs laying around for kids to play with ('til they blow their little heads off).

    Nah, Bush won't be impeached for THAT.

    It's not the American Way, now is it?

  15. macrumors 6502

    Funny how they didn't Impeach FDR for doing the same thing...That was a different time i know and repercussions have been paid...Doesn't change the fact that he did the exact same thing. Wait....Isn't FDR one of our greatest presidents?????

    Remember the Homeland Security Act that is the thing that violates the constitutional rights of citizens not GWB don't shoot the messanger it takes 2 branches to make the law. So why don't we impeach all of congress while we're at it....
  16. macrumors 601


    Re: Sexual Acts vs. Manslaughter. Impeachment?

    First off, there was a lot more to Clinton's impeachment than that :rolleyes:
    Second. Bush did not lie about the war. British intel had told the US government the statement that he made. That is fact. The brits still stand by it. Lets see about 185 troops have died. The infrastructure of Iraq was already destroyed. The problems of raw sewage existed before the war, especially in Bashra. Hospitals are without supplies because of the ineffective sanctions of that wonderful administration in the 90's and Mrs. Albright.

    As for the American way. Would you have impeached Truman for dropping the bomb?
  17. macrumors 68040


    It's not going to happen unless much more damning evidence indicting Bush specifically (I personally believe his administration -- Rummy, Cheney, Perle, Wolfy, etc. -- are at fault for most things he's come under fire for) reaches the surface.

    And people who have come forward with damning evidence have been having a streak of bad luck lately anyway.

    And Clinton wouldn't have had nearly the problems he did if he'd gone to Congress to ask permission for oral sex first, even if he lied about it before and after.
  18. macrumors 68040


    -Bwaaaah! :D :D

    Oh the imagery of that petition!

    Thanks pseudo, this thread needed that. :D
  19. macrumors 68000


    lol, haven't laughed that hard in months, thanks:D
  20. macrumors member

    LOL. Half the Congress probably would have demanded that he cut them in on the action!
  21. macrumors 68040


    Whoa, that could be taken either way! :p :eek:

    That image is disturbing, unless you're a Congressman, and then it's probably arousing.
  22. macrumors 6502

    It was wrong then, it's wrong now. The Supreme Court has repedetedly ruled that persons enturned like this are unconstitutional.

    Don't get me started on Congress! Bush has a choice, all in his hands. He can either allow the Jose Padillia trial to continue, or continue to imprison him (among others) indefinatly without trial or councel. One way is constitutional, the other is not. This to me is not a gray area of the Constitution, as it expressly provides for these rights, and expressly forbids the government form removing these rights without due process.

    As for the whole war issue. I am on the fence, but leaning toward "He lied" side considering his record.
  23. macrumors 68040


    Re: Re: Sexual Acts vs. Manslaughter. Impeachment?

    It was also reported, and accepted as fact, that Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky" until the dress surfaced. So before you get too sure about what Bush did and did not know, lets let the story come out. What happens to Bush's position if the British change their tune? Wouldn't that be the same as finding a DNA-laced dress?

    And yes, if Truman had had to face the rabid media of today, there certainly would have been an investigation into whether he really needed to drop something like that on a populated city, rather than giving a demonstration of its power somewhere else first, giving the Japanese government the chance to do the right thing before we began wiping out their cities. Would it have resulted in impeachment? I don't know
  24. macrumors member

    There's no way that Truman would have been impeached for fighting a war against Japan that included using the bomb to end it, nor should he have been impeached.

    He said that his decision to bomb Japan was easier for him than his decision to back South Korea against the North.

    It is a gray area of the consititution. If it were not, the courts would have taken action on it already and Padilla would either be cut loose or tried. Fact is, the models for war and for dealing with legal ramifications of what to do with those captured have changed. That's going to take some time to shake out.
  25. macrumors 68040


    I'm sure gettin a BJ was one of the easier decisions Clinton made, but that doesn't mean it was right. I don't think Truman should have been impeached for using the Abomb, but then again I didn't think Clinton should have been impeached for lying about a non-crime. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Share This Page