Can we at least agree that bush QUALIFIES for Impeachment?

[Philosoraptor]

They impeached President Bill Clinton for no reason at all other than revenge for his two victories against them, there were no grounds for impeachment, no reason for it whatsoever, yet they shut the fucking government down for two years as if it meant our very lives.

Now we can't get the majority Democrats to impeach the man who qualifies the most for impeachment more than any other man in U.S. history, no need to start a fishing expedition to find something to pin on him, he qualifies a dozen times over, and then qualifies for prison, yet, we are taking the 'high road' and not pressing impeachment.

This is failing to do our duty, it is not about revenge, its about saving America and doing the right thing, and punishing the wicked and the guilty, that's all.

Many of our own Democratic leaders have said that they don't want to appear vengeful or vindictive, or sink to 'their' level, which is fine, I suppose they can attack the man and his masters on many other levels and impeachment is not a live or die issue to me, but can we at least agree that Bill didn't qualify and dubya does?

[HaggardsMethDealer]

1. I think people need to relax about the impeachment thing.

Politically it is stupid for the Democrats to come out and demand impeachment right after an election because all eyes are on them and it would make them look petty and turn a lot of voters off. There needs to be some positive steps by the Democrats and some investigations, and THAN start talking about impeachment.

Believe me...Conyers and Reid would love nothing more than to get some payback on these scumbags...but you have to be smart about it.

Patience.

[Philosoraptor]

4. I'm relaxed to the point of exploding.

call me politically stupid if it helps

[acmejack]

16. I've been stupid for 54 years.

It has gotten me this far. I may not be rich or famous but I know what is right.

[sarge43]

8. Yes

We can not be perceived as a lynch mob or Repug thugs lite. We must be calm, deliberate, implacable and just.

[rman]

10. i think "just" means Bush should not be allowed to get away with his crimes

[sarge43]

18. I did not say hand wave him.

Let me say it again. We must have evidence, solid, verified, taken under oath overwhelming evidence.
Yes, right now Articles of Impeachment would pass the House, but right now there is no way in hell the Senate would vote for conviction. The numbers are not there. Without unarguable facts even the Senate Democrats would think twice, because without the evidence, this would be Clinton's impeachment redux - political vengeance and nothing more. And Bush would walk away - smirking.

We owe it to ourselves, the American people, our system and the future to bring back the rule of law. That Bush has denied it to others is even more reason for him to know its full force. If a president is not above the law, he is not beyond it either.

[rman]

19. Everybody understands there can't be impeachment without

evidence, and no evidence with investigation.
No-one is calling for impeachment -without- investigation and evidence.

Is there any particular reason why not to start an investigation that will most likely yield evidence that warrants impeachment?

[sarge43]

21. No reason at all

Investigate everything. Put the janitors under oath, "What did you hear and when did you hear it?"

Some people seem to be calling for impeachment right now. All I am saying is have enough solid evidence so that even the Senate Republicans can get behind it. The evidence is out there, Jesus is it ever. It's a matter of harvesting and processing it.

Believe me I want that creature nailed; I don't want him getting away with his crimes. I want the net woven so tightly he can not wiggle free.

[rman]

9. "would make Dems look petty and turn a lot of voters off"

How do you know that is what will happen?

[lapfog_1]

14. Bingo...

How do all of these DLC types become such experts on what the voters want?

Personally, when I talk to both my liberal friends AND my fed-up republican friends, they want to see Bush/Cheney strung up on the nearest tree. I don't have freeper friends, but I suspect they are the only ones that don't want this. My fed-up repuke friends are even more pissed off at the Neocons than we are... if that's possible. I think it's because they supported Bushco soooo long, and in the face of so many lies from *, eventually they sort of just snapped.

Oh, and my online poker playing buddies want all of the repukes waterboarded to within an inch of their lives.

[H2O]

2. His actions

certainly do point in that direction; so do his words.

One question though. What purpose would impeachment serve right now? Would it help our troops get out of Iraq? Would it help the victims of Hurricane Katrina? I am not certain that it would.

There are so many issues that we must tackle right now that are far more critical.

After all, how can we say that we can " get it right" in Iraq if we do not even attempt to make peace with our political opponents at home? This is the message that we need to send to the world. Americans can live and work with each other in spite of our differences and go beyond the hateful rhetoric that has dominated our country for the past decade.

[Philosoraptor]

3. I'd like to see Articles of Impeachment at least drawn up & presented

To show the world that he QUALIFIES for it, and any poll will show ninety percent of Americans agree.

[JTFrog]

5. Why

is everyone so heated about impeachment? Wouldn't you rather see them criminally charged? You need 2/3 support for impeachment. Think we could get that today? I don't think so. But let them start the investigations and the impeachments will take care of themselves. As Waxman said, his biggest problem is picking where to start, not when or if. I would be 10x more pissed if we started impeachment and all we got out of this was Bush leaving office when his term is up anyway Remember, Bill stayed in office til his term was up. I'd rather see Bushco in jail. I'd rather see him resign and get the hell out of the office.

But that's just me and I am by far very uneducated about politics. But I'm trying to learn.

Can someone please explain to me the benefit of rushing into impeachment in this situation? I am honestly trying to understand more about this process.

[Philosoraptor]

6. giant brains like ours will disagree

Was that your attitude while the last impeachment was going on? check out nbc's poll on impeachment, almost 90% disagree with you. But I can take it or leave it really, I agree, w may want to quit before the two years is up.

[JTFrog]

7. Well

I agree he qualifies for impeachment. But in my opinion, that 90% wants justice and that's their way of stating it. Does the poll the statistics come from ask if they would prefer criminal action or political action (impeachment)? I think if most people realized there was a difference, their answers would be different.

But regardless of my opinions, I still would like to know if there are benefits to starting an impeachment immediately.

[magellan]

11. He's over-qualified

As are most of his cabal. And come January, I hope to see the investigations into their abuses of power begin in earnest.

[Hubert Flottz]

12. Oh Hell Yeah!

That is the only thing Turdzilla IS qualified for!

[aquart]

13. Oh, yes. He qualifies.

A civilized society would have drawn and quartered him. But we are not civilized.

[stevietheman]

15. Yes, but we need investigations to begin first... and Dems need to...

listen to the American people and confirm that 2/3 of the Senate will vote to remove before officially proceeding with impeachment.

Let's not make the same historical mistake Congressional Republicans did with Clinton. They played politics against the American people's wishes, and fell on their faces.

[lonestarnot]

17. Finally something the bitch is qualified for!

:rofl:

[baby_mouse]

20. Impeachment of the president US...

... can only be brought up as a result of bribery, treason or "other high crimes and misdemeanours", and that last bit is where things get muddy. It's pretty much up to Congress to say what that means, as the Constitution doesn't really say anything about it. I guess precedent would play a large part? (They weren't impeaching Bill for the blow job, they were impeaching him for perjury *about* the blow-job.) So, *I* think he qualifies, and *you* think he qualifies, but that's on our definition of "qualify". ( which is right, of course :-) )

It's also worth noting that impeachment doesn't carry a sentence, it's not a criminal proceeding, it's a political proceeding, it's function is to provide officers of the executive the ability to *remove* leaders, not *punish* them. Punishment follows *criminal* proceedings.

Also, impeachment can take place *AFTER* the miscreant has left office, to bar further holding of office and pension rights. Also, impeachment doesn't preclude REAL criminal proceedings, although politically, in the past, it has been used as a kind of "image" trial to AVOID criminal proceedings...

Impeachment isn't enough, really thse people should be put on trial, *a proper criminal* trial. Impeachment is played out like a trial, but it *isn't* trial in the ordinary sense, and I think you chaps must be very wary of treating it like one.

He is UNQUESTIONABLY a qualifier for CRIMINAL proceedings. Of that there is NO doubt AT ALL.

[blondeatlast]

22. ABSOLUTELY. But it must not come at the expense of

getting our sons and daughters home from Iraq and restoring the glory of the Constitution.

So much work to be done, so precious little time. We must prioritize.

[porphyrian]

23. Anyone who says know doesn't know the qualifications.

Impeachment is coming. Count on it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. It's probably the only thing he's ever been qualified for. eom