Should Dubya have been impeached?

[Dpm12]

n/t

[IdaBriggs]

1. Yes. On September 12, 2001.

Failure to perform his duties.

Everything after that was just ... disgusting.

[kairos12]

75. +1000

[hlthe2b]

2. Cheney should have been tried as a war criminal. Dubya too, but I'd have been content just to

hold Cheney responsible. Dubya will go down in history as a putz and a mere puppet to Cheney--I do believe. Further, I think he KNOWS this...

[dwilso40641]

3. Yes n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Yes, but the Republicans had already salted the earth, making that near impossible.

We had just come off the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans for extremely petty and partisan reasons.

Had the Democrats attempted to impeach Dubya, there was the risk that they would have simply been viewed by independents as wanting payback for the Clinton impeachment mockery. Even though there were actually legitimate grounds on which to impeach Bush, unlike the case with Clinton. Which is a damn shame.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Chasing the mystical independents is little more than a rationalization for acting in bad faith.

See 2009-2010, where the refrain was in full force and they turned around and voted for the Tealoons and liberals were blamed by the Turd Way coalition.

I maintain almost all of them are as fixed as declared partisans and the rest are so fickle and rudderless that they cannot be pursued other than picked up along the way.

[TheMadMonk]

38. Which may well have been the point of the whole sorry episode.

Make it impossible to impeach one of their own for even the most egregiously impeachable offenses.

[RC]

79. Looking back, I wonder if that was not the real reason they did it.

To indemnify the coming bush administration. Whatever, it worked.

[randome]

5. Is Good preferable to Evil?

[forestpath]

6. Yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yes

And handed over to the International Court of Justice to stand trial for war crimes.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Yes.

[baldguy]

9. He should never have been appointed in the first place.

Given that he was in office illegitimately, he should have been removed as soon as possible. Instead, we got eight long years of intentional & deliberate enforced economic devastation & war. It will take America about a century to repair the damage done.

[Still Blue in PDX]

21. + 1000! nt

[karynnj]

10. It would never have succeeded - even in the House

The charges would be accurate - he did mislead (lie) Congress and the American people into war with Iraq. By 2007, when we first had control of the House and Senate much of the country thought the war was a "mistake".

However, we were still fighting that war. Impeaching Bush would have indicted the UNITED STATES - not just Bush - and would have declared a war - that we were still fighting - illegal. Our country's mythology is that we are uniquely good. This is believed not just by Conservative Republicans (in a time when we have a Republican President.) Most of the US history kids learn in grade school and High school is completely sanitized.

The Republicans would instantly turn the question of "impeachment" to one of whether the US intentionally started an illegal war. On DU, that would not matter --- but for most Americans they would not go there and would take the position, that right or wrong, the motivation was to make us safer "especially after 911".

I suspect that many Democrats, from the more purple or red areas, would vote no. I also think there would be even more false equivalence given than there was - that Democrats saw the same thing and saw Saddam as a threat. (In 1998, there was a Senate resolution - that the Clinton State department supported and lobbied for - that listed the various crimes of Saddam and essentially said the US favored him out of office. The big difference is that was no support given to a war and none was on the table. This WAS when the US bombed Iraq and when the inspectors left.)

I suspect that there would be a very anemic vote in the House for it - essentially vindicating Bush. As it would fail the House, he would not be impeached and there would be no Senate vote.

[RobertEarl]

13. wow, that is sad, your description of America

Sad that America is now the land of 'Getting Away With It',.

The public is so brainwashed it allowed our government to create war.

[karynnj]

19. I spoke of a specific period in time in our Congress

Do you disagree?

I was not saying it was right - or what I would want. I think it takes a lot for people who weren't paying that much attention to believe that their own country did something that wrong. It challenges what many grew up with - especially if you grew up in the 50s or before.

[RobertEarl]

47. Right, No disagreement

You correctly label Americans as not paying attention. And not wanting to face the truth.

And down the drain we go! You do see where all this is leading, right?

[loyalsister]

41. Well said

The post 9\11 love unity and endless pledging allegiance was still very fresh. The love it or leave it defensiveness was no longer just coming from the usual suspects.

I think you're correct that impeaching Bush would basically be indicting the US as a whole. People don't under stand the impeachment process. It has been reduced to petty action against a president that some people dislike. Many people would have seen it as a distasteful retaliation. Remember how Clinton's ratings went up when he was impeached?

I'm glad the Democrats didn't do it, because it would have made it easier to come up with the reason to impeach Obama as they keep hoping for. If they even try it now, it's a "now they go again" thing.

[RobertEarl]

52. Really?

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

You are willing to coddle the criminals because it might make them mad and they might say bad things?

I get where you are coming from, LS, but the crimes go unpunished and for that America suffers greatly. Obama doesn't need to lead this, congress should, but Obama could do a whole lot in the background, and he should.

[NightWatcher]

11. Yawn. What's next, is air good?

Thanks for the thoughtful debate topic.

[leftyohiolib]

12. what kind of question is this? now? well it doesnt matter nancy said impeachment is off the table

[RussBLib]

14. not just yes, but hell yes

Lying us into a war; torture; warrantless wiretapping. All three justify impeachment.

Any one of those three items would have had a Republican Congress falling all over themselves to impeach if the President had been a Democrat at the time.

Democrats are just too even-tempered for their own good.

[s-cubed]

15. Yes and no.

Yes because he certainly deserved it. No because the country wasn't ready to believe what he and his cronies did.

Look at what is finally coming out about Nixon's and Reagan's treason. Most people haven't hear of it and probably wouldn't believe it still. I think Johnson was dead wrong to not expse Nixon. We might be a better country today. He made a judgment call, thinking the exposure would destroy Americans faith in their government, but he unleashed the destroyers of our government.

[raccoon]

72. Can you give us a link? nt

[1-Old-Man]

16. Yes, but then so should Obama

Anyone who thinks that the planned killings (authorized kill list approved by the President) of American citizens without due process, which requires a Judge and jury and delivery of a verdict and sentence, is not an impeachable offense is out of their mind. Obama did it and he should be removed from Office for it.

[larkrake]

18. please grow up

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. Should a, Would a, Could a, but until 2006, it wasn't possible because Republicans controlled the

House.

After 2006, no one had the political will to investigate.

Even had they impeached in the House, he would never have been convicted in the Senate.

[karynnj]

22. We took the House and Senate in the Nov 2006 election and they took office in 2007

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. In June of 2008, Kucinich and Wexler took impeachment to the floor of the House with 35 articles

This was the last of several attempts. The House voted 251 to 166 to send it to the Judiciary Committee. IMHO, it died there at the hands of Democrats that did not want the political fallout of an impeachment hearing in an election year, and because nobody in power really wanted to impeach him, anyway. Pretty sad state of affairs, but these things are never just about high crimes and misdemeanors. After the victory in 2008, nobody cared to investigate the crimes of the previous administration.

John Conyers, who strongly advocated impeachment before 2006, stayed mostly quiet after 2006.

Clearly, there was a decision in elected leadership of the Democratic Party not to go that route.

[Aerows]

20. He and Cheney

should have been JAILED.

[Still Blue in PDX]

23. Immediately, if not sooner.

The world would be a far different place had President Gore been allowed to take office.

I am probably more bitter over the s/election of pResident Bush than over any of the wrongs that have been done to me personally in my life, and there have been a few.

[Cleita]

24. Tried as a war criminal, impeached and charged with treason by allowing

the Supreme Court to circumvent the Constitution in how a President is elected, and appointing him instead. It goes without saying that his whole administration should have gotten the same judicial treatment as accessories to his crimes.

[brooklynite]

33. How did he "allow" the Court to do anything? He was only a candidate at the time.

[Cleita]

40. Did you not follow what was going on at that time or were you in a cave

in Anarctica? He got daddy's SOS, James Baker, to stop the legitimate recount in Florida. Then his lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of the USA that had no jurisdiction in a state (FL) election dispute and the SCOTUS, essentially crowned him king. The whole story is out there if you care to Google.

[brooklynite]

45. Explain to me what the CRIME is, and what evidence you have to prove it...

"we all know" isn't admissable.

[Cleita]

46. What? I'm a prosecutor now?

I'd say leading us to war with lies is a pretty big war crime for starters. Why are you a Bush backer? Shouldn't you be on another forum?

[brooklynite]

48. Not a Bush Backer...I believe in the Law whether it's on my side or not.

...and yes you ARE the "prosecutor" if you're going to say Bush should be charged with crimes...because if its not provable under the LAW, you just acquitted him, which is a worse condition than you have now.

[Cleita]

54. There are laws out there but no one has the cojones to charge him and Cheney with

war crimes. Our Atty General should be doing it or Congress. It's their job. I have no idea what they are afraid of. My big hope is that the Hague tries them. I believe once we are out of Iraq, entirely, the Iraqis can file a complaint with the Hague and I hope they do.

[brooklynite]

55. What-is-the-Law???

Here's the United States Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

What you think SHOULD be against the Law and what IS against the Law are not the same thing.

And by the way, the US does not participate in the International Criminal Court.

[Cleita]

56. There are several replies on this very thread that will address your poutrage.

I myself am fed up with this silliness. This is a message board not a court room. Buy bye.

[muntrv]

26. Oh hell yeah!

[DinahMoeHum]

27. Yes.

.

[putitinD]

28. YES

[Warpy]

29. Yes, on many grounds

First, when he ignored all the conditions placed on going to war in Iraq and simply ordered the troops in instead of letting Blix finish the job and submit his report.

Then, on his policy of overriding Congress through executive order and "signing statement."

And finally, for abrogating the Geneva Conventions, a treaty this country had strictly followed for over a century and which has saved lives in war, enemies knowing that surrendering to American forces would result in humane treatment.

Because he wasn't impeached, his evil will continue to live on. Unfortunately, his own party was in charge and too corrupt and short sighted to do the job.

[Kalidurga]

30. No the Supreme Court should have been impeached.

Then we wouldn't have to worry about whether GW should have been impeached or not.

[brooklynite]

31. For what "High Crime"?

If you think "yes", please don't offer up "lying us into a war". It's unethical but not criminal unless he's under oath.

[HiPointDem]

43. for mass murder

[brooklynite]

44. So you believe Roosevelt and Truman should have been convicted as well?

I'm not comparing WW 2 to Iraq; I'm observing that the Congress gave Bush authorization to engage in military action in Iraq, and killing outside the US, while deplorable, is NOT a US crime.

[Gravitycollapse]

68. It is essentially a US crime under international law.

And can be tried in any country participating in the passage and enforcement of said laws.

[MoonRiver]

32. YES, OF COURSE

[XRubicon]

34. You ok with preemptive war?

I'm not.

[grantcart]

35. Bush isn't as stupid as people think he is

With his father's experience and advice I expect that Bush's moral misdeeds probably never crossed the line of legal action, he was too smart and had too many lawyers reading everything he signed.

Cheney on the other hand had his fingerprints all over everything including Plame and interfering with specific intelligence procedure.

We should have started low, gotten people to flip and worked our way up. We might have gotten as far as Cheney but I doubt that there was a culpable action that would prove 'high crime'.

Turning intelligence on its head would not have been a crime as long as there was one credible intelligence source that agreed with what he wanted to do.

Interfering and blocking intelligence, which Cheney certainly did, would have been impeachable.

[NealK]

36. Yes n/t

[heather blossom]

37. YES YES YES

[haikugal]

39. Yes!

[HiPointDem]

42. yes

[Terra Alta]

49. yes.

and Cheney as well.

[johnp3907]

50. Yes.

That was an easy one.

[liberal N proud]

51. He should be in JAIL!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

53. Yes

[magellan]

57. Definitely, without respect for its chance of succeeding

Many of the lies - and liars - would have been exposed for what they truly are during the hearings, and we might not be contending with those criminals in Congress today. And it would have shown the world that we still have principles, and who among our political leaders still uphold them.

Not impeaching - not even bothering to hold an investigation - has proved nothing but that the mockery and distrust of our country and its hypocrisy is entirely justified.

[brooklynite]

59. Just like the Republicans showed "we still have principles" by impeaching Bill Clinton, right?

Impeach Bush, fail to get 67 votes for Conviction, and in the minds of most voters, he's been acquitted.

[magellan]

63. Are you seriously comparing lying about a BJ to lying this country into war?

Maybe you can't tell the difference between a witch hunt and prosecuting real high crimes and treason, but most people can.

[brooklynite]

64. No; I'm being realistic, rather than emotional.

NEITHER is a chargeable crime, NEITHER would result in conviction in the Senate, and the result of a Senate acquittal would be the perception in most voter's minds that Bush was innocent.

[magellan]

65. We disagree. n/t

[Solly Mack]

58. Yes.

And tried for war crimes. And not just him, of course.

He and Cheney both admitted to torture. Waterboarding is torture and absolutely anyone pretending it isn't is a liar or a fool....or complicit.

Alas, America has a hypocrisy problem. Not to mention wanting to believe it is something it isn't. "Good guys" don't torture. Nations who actually value human rights don't torture. And they don't pretend they didn't know better or that somehow it's debatable or that it is somehow legal to do the illegal because some obsequious toadie says it's legal. (A nation with integrity indicts the toadie as well.) And they don't pretend that sending money to tsunami victims somehow washes away the war crimes. (i.e. that doing a good somehow mitigates the war crimes committed)

Oh, well. Not like it matters.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. is the sky blue?

[lonestarnot]

61. He should have been jailed, and he still should be.

[Gemini Cat]

62. Yes. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

66. Impeached, tried for crimes against humanity and hanged.

[doc03]

67. Absolutely and Cheney, Rice and Powell should be behind bars

with him.

[MiniMe]

69. They should have impeached both Bush and Cheney

Does no good to impeach Bush without impeaching Cheney

[OldDem2012]

70. How do you impeach a guy who was never elected? nt.

[WilliamPitt]

73. Yes

[and-justice-for-all]

74. Fuck yeah!!! straight to prison at that! nt

[KansDem]

76. Yes!

[leveymg]

77. And promptly.

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

3,000 plus Counts of Negligent Homicide with Depraved Indifference to Human Life, Conspiracy, and a number of included charges. As quickly as they could convene a Grand Jury after September 11. They could start adding charges as soon as they got sworn statements from those who knew the details of how it happened.

[raging moderate]

78. Yes. And Dick Cheney as well.

And possibly the Supreme Court justices who actually listened to the preposterous lawsuit claiming that Al Gore would do irreparable harm to George Bush by persisting in his legal right to have ALL the votes counted.

[Flashmann]

80. Should Dubya have been impeached?

At least....

[Recursion]

81. Congress knew the Iraq arguments were BS but voted yes anyways

Hard to make a convincing argument for impeachment with that crowd.

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. "Should" is irrelevant

Splitting on party lines? There were never the votes in the House to pass a bill of impeachment, and there were never the votes in the Senate to secure a conviction had such a bill of impeachment passed. "Politics is the art of the possible," as Bismarck said.