Should Bush Be Impeached And Convicted?

[adios]

The investigation for WMD's in Iraq has not turned up a "smoking gun." Several are claiming on this forum that it was a facade i.e. the justification by the administration for invading Iraq was bogus from the git go. Those who are making these claims on the forum are not alone. Apparently this signals a dangerous abuse of political power to many. Is this action(s) by Bush an impeachable offense? If so should he be removed from office? I know the investigation is ongoing but say that a "smoking gun" is never found. Personally I don't think so if for no other reason that he broke no laws that I know of. At least not US laws. I suppose one could argue that he broke international law but if he did I don't think that that's an impeachable offense. Could be wrong though. I believe the wording in the Constitution is High Crimes and Misdemeanors so perhaps but it doesn't look like it to me. If Bush acted in a way that is dangerous and abusive of his political power it seems to me that there ought to be more than outrage directed towards Bush. There ought to be at least some sort of criticism and outrage over the process that led to this course of events if citizens believe that the administration's actions were a travesty. Personal attacks on Bush will fall on many deaf ears and I daresay won't accomplish very much if those that criticize see a need for change.

[Bob T.]

I'm not sure that the absence of a smoking gun, would be a useable justification for impeachment. The administration could claim that their intelligence indicated that the WMD existed, and they acted in good faith based on that information. I think that if it could be proved, that they knew that the information was false, and used the incorrect information to justify the war, then there might be some chance that the threshhold of High Crimes and Misdeameanors might be justified.

[andyfox]

Apparently, thus far 90 suspected locations have been inspected without any evidence of WMDs. But the search has apparently been stymied by disorganization and bad intelligence.

Surely they'll find something to hang their hat on. And if they don't, they'll make it up, or take very thin evidence and fatten it up. All governments do this.

The congress voted thumbs up for the war. No impeachment.

[Chris Alger]

No statute or treaty makes it a crime for a US politican to simply lie. I can't imagine that one would ever exist. If Bush is guilty of crimes, they would concern the war's violations of the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and other treaties. While it isn't any defense to point out violations by others, it seems to me that every President since these treaties came into being, including Clinton, is guilty of something similar, sometimes much worse.

So while people should be properly terrified of Bush's "preventative war" doctrine, the basic problem isn't Bush or one that can be solved by getting rid of him. A reasoned debate about his culpability, however, might liberate some of the public from a tendency, whether based on fear, ignorance or misguided "patriotism," to constantly defer to officials and their unofficial spokespeople in the media in matters of foreign and military policy.

[BruceZ]

Even if no WMDs are ever found, the inspector's failed to verify that Saddam destroyed the WMDs that it had. It was stated several times that this verification by the inspectors was a requirement for Iraq to be in compliance with the UN resolutions banning WMDs. If compliance could not be verified, that is the same as not being in compliance.

Further, it was all too easy for Iraq to have moved these weapons into Syria or elsewhere, and they had ample time to do this. Weapons or no weapons, there is ample evidence from interviewing scientists that they were working on these weapons, and that they were purchasing precursors to make these weapons.

The US acted on the evidence it had. If you think there is a 90% chance your opponent has a hand, and you act in accordance with that percentage, your actions were not wrong when it turns out in fact he did not have a hand.

We DID find a smoking gun linking Iraq to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[Dynasty]

No. He should be re-elected for making the right decision and leading the country in war.

[MMMMMM]

90/1,000+. And that's just locations already designated for search.

[MMMMMM]

I think there is a good chance that history will come to regard Bush as a visionary, somewhat similar to Reagan in this regard, and with perhaps even greater scope.

[andyfox]

Reports of Reagan's "vision" are greatly exaggerated. The man was a colossal ignoramus of galatic proportions. Virtually all Republicans who worked with him are in agreement on this, including Bob Dole, Henry Kissinger, and Colin Powell, to name just three.

[IrishHand]

I think he meant that Bush will go down with a similar legacy, which you have aptly described. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Jimbo]

"I think he meant that Bush will go down with a similar legacy, which you have aptly described."

This "legacy" seems to be a liberal figment of imagination.

[IrishHand]

You're right - neglecting domestic issues while invading defenseless foreign nations on the other side of the world are definitely things historians will look favorably upon.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand,

If historians ran our country they would always be waiting to see how things turned out before they would ever make a decision. Odd how historians seem to have 20/20 hindsight yet no foresight whatsoever!

[J.R.]

Its amazing how the media likes to hark on the WMDs issue. This war was about much more than weapons of mass destruction. The war was never premised solely on WMDs, although the issue was a part of the decision.

Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, as the onus was on them to prove what they did not have, not on the rest of the world to prove what they had. A tyrannical despot who lived an opulent lifestyle in the face of an often starving and impoverished people and a man who killed, tortured and maimed his own people in addition to waging a attempt at genocide against the Kurdish people has been unseated from power. And you would have him impeached for this?

Whether you agree with his actions or political stances, to say he has done anything amounting to a high crime or misdemeanor in waging this "war" is mistating the facts.

[John Cole]

You think that someday he'll be awarded one of these?
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

http://hueyp.lhs.berkeley.edu/thingstodo/thingstodo.jsp?index=26

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif at least you were cognizant of difference between impeachment and being found guilty...this is a political action and has nothing to do with the facts...consider the political split on votes cast on clinton...sure they all said they were voting on facts alone...lol..yeah..lol..no one would get away with impeachment here...it's like treason to suggest that...politically speaking..jmho...gl /forums/images/icons/blush.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[MMMMMM]

Only if they can get him to participate in this, which I doubt:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9193

[BruceZ]

Saying "tear down this wall" was his idea, and his advisors all wanted him to remove that from the speech because it was too unrealistic, but he stuck to his guns and left it in. If that takes being an "ignoramus", then sometimes that helps. A leader doesn't need to be an expert if he knows how to surround himself by experts. He does need to uphold ideals and be a charismatic leader.

The policy to support Afganistan against Soviet invasion was brilliant as it prompted rebellion of the Soviet states and led to the end of the cold war.

[adios]

I agree with your points here scalf. Personally I think the "justification" was for obtaining UN approval only. As soon as we abandon our committment to that corrupt organizaion there can actually be a reasonable debate on the merits of pre-emption.

[adios]

This does provide an opening for the Democrats in 2004 it seems to me as much as I hate to admit it. As MMMMMMM states there is a long way to go in the investigation. Chris I don't think the Administration is going to plant a smoking gun. The downside is too much IMO.

[adios]

"Surely they'll find something to hang their hat on. And if they don't, they'll make it up, or take very thin evidence and fatten it up. All governments do this."

I don't think so, especially after this much time has elapsed. As I posted to Chris I think the downside is too much. Definitely could be wrong though.

"The congress voted thumbs up for the war. No impeachment."

Although congress could say they were deliberately lied too and misled. I agree with scalf though that an impeachment would be politically motivated and the votes aren't there.

[adios]

I agree that it doesn't pass the threshold either.

[adios]

Yes I would say that Saddam was less than cooperative and failed to negotiate in good faith.

[adios]

What I find interesting is that it doesn't seem to be that big of deal to a lot of people i.e. whether or not the US actually finds WMD's that they existed before the war.

[adios]

As I stated in another post, this idea of the main purpose was to disarm Iraq of WMD's was most important for justifying it to the UN. If the USA pulls out of the UN or the UN becomes more or less an irrelevant organization a more honest debate can ensue. Since France, Russia and perhaps Germany have put their votes for sale the organization has become corrupted in my mind. Especially since France and Russia are permanent Security Council members and have veto power.

[andyfox]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030429/D7QMTD8O0.html

The pressure to "find" something is apparently mounting.

[andyfox]

OK, let's give him "tear down the wall." Meanwhile, he was against every policy pursued by America during the Cold War that led to the wall coming down.

The policy to support Afghanistan against the Soiet invasion led to the creation of Osama Bin Laden.

Reagan always read the comics first thing in the morning. During his presidency, he spent 345 days at his ranch--almost a year of the eight years in office. Michael Deaver ran the presidency because Reagan was incapable of doing it. Said one of Deaver's aides, "You have to treat him as if you were the director and he was the actor, and you tell him what to say and what not to say."

Don Regan said Reagan regarded his schedule as "something like a shooting script" in which characters came and went and the plot advanced one day at a time. Bob Dole said that he never had a private meeting with Reagan: "He did invite a few of us to the study, twice that I can recall, for Cokes. I don't think I talked to him on the phone about busienss more than two or thre times." Dole was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in Reagan's first term and the minority leader in his second.

Martin Anderson: "He made no demands, and gave almost no instructions. Essentially, he just responded to whatever was brought to his attention and said yes or no, or I'll think about it. At times he would just change the subject, maybe tell a funny story, and you would not find out what he thought about it, one way or the other. Rarely did he ask searching questions and demand to know why someone had or had not done something. He just sat back in a supremely calm, relaxed manner and waited until important things were brought to him."

Donald Regan: "Never did he issue a direct order. He listened, acquiesced, played his role and waited for the next act to be written."

Frank Carlucci (Reagan's NSC adviser) and his deputy, Colin Powell, would give Reagan briefings. Reagan would never say anything. "The President would merely acknowledge that he had heard him," said Powell, "without saying yes, no or maybe. Frank and I would walk down the hall afterward with Frank muttering, 'Was that a yes?'. . .One morning after we had gotten another decision by default on a key arms control issue, Frank moaned as we left, 'My God, we didn't sign on to run this country!'"

Henry Kissinger said it was very unusual to have a president who was completely ignorant of and uninterested in policy.

One is reminded of the line from My Favorite Year: "I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star." Reagan was an actor, not a leader.

[BruceZ]

The policy to support Afghanistan against the Soiet invasion led to the creation of Osama Bin Laden.

That's wrong. Bin Laden's association with Afganistan was brought about by the US failure to support Afganistan after their independence, not by the policy to support them in fighting the invasion.

[ACPlayer]

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

[ACPlayer]

Sure. It will give the media another reality TV show to replace the Iraq war show.

[Chris Alger]

There won't be any real investigation and they don't have to plant a smoking gun. There might be hearings, but every administration has an airtight alib for these occasions: "we relied on the best intelligence we had, and acted accordingly; any mistakes were made in good faith." And just as in Iran-contra, the "intelligence" will never see the light of day. In the meantime, the Democrats will be pilloried by right-wing pundits for partisan harping about the integrity of public officials regarding wartime judgments (something that's flatly unassaiable), hypocrisy after most voted to authorize war, interference with a core executive function, etc.

The worst case scenario for Bush will some congressional criticism about morally netural errors of judgment which the media will explain as understandable overeaction given the nature of the enemy we faced, public outcry over 9/11, the Islamicist threat, and rhetoric similar to that used to justify all the other foreign interventions we've launched since WWII. Any investigation will therefore shore up the perception that the Democrats are relatively soft on defense and will cost them more than they'll gain. Some Democratic "centrists" like Lieberman will side with the GOP.

Here's the crux of the problem: the average American that reads the news (and is not among the large group who are psychologically incapable of questioning any American use of military force) finds it difficult to imagine, much less articulate, a logical non-defensive reason why the war was fought without falling into the discredited conspiracy theorist or Quaker paradigms. The notion that the US acts like other powerful countries throughout the world and throughout history, that it has elite foreign interests unrelated to most citizens, and even less related to its domestic political norms and ideals, and that it will use mass violence to protect them, simply is not a position that can resonate in the popular press. It can barely be mentioned except by sources that are discredited as falling outside the spectrum of responsible debate (Robert Scheer, for example, presently the target subject of a right-wing campaign to get newspapers to drop his column). There are too many pressures to flavor any discussion of foreign policy with what Aurthur Schlesinger once called "high-falutin corn" (in advice to JFK about how to explain our Cuba policy) and even worse rhetoric pandering to the racists and fascists among us. In fact I suspect I'm understating it.

As for "finding" WMD, there are lots of scenarios short of a planted "smoking gun" this that will give Bush the minimal level of vindication he needs to at least retain his popularity. (BTW, I read that polls show that Americans don't much care whether WMD are found in Iraq). They can find "trace amounts" of agents and their precursors in "suspect locations." There are dual use chemicals like "gorwth media" that Iraq certainly has. If Iraq destroyed agents by burying them, they can be dug up with the claim that we can't prove "when" they were buried (perhaps on the "eve of war!"), and that they probably haven't been usable for years will be buried down in paragraph 20. These discoveries will be hailed by the propaganda machine as "likely" or "potential" WMD.

And it is entirely possible that Iraq retained some modest stockpiles of somewhere. Although this won't refute the anitwar argument that they never posed a serious threat to anyone, given that Saddam never used them without at least an amber light from the US, and would have sealed his fate if he did, the media will treat it as proof positive that the antiwar crowd had it wrong on the basic facts.

If little is found, I can outline the apologist defense right now: liberal appeasers and Saddam defenders, always squeamish about using the military for its intended purpose, demand absolute proof that Iraq was about the launch WMD against the US. Thank God that Bush & co. have the moral fortitude to act before it was too late. And in any event we liberated Iraq from the Great Satan, restored our credibility abroad, etc. etc.

[Parmenides]

Shicklgruber's polls were about the same after the Reichstag and annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. You are in good company.

[Parmenides]

One would expect a reply like this from a sycophant bootlicking Brown Shirt.

[Parmenides]

Bush has lied to Congress over the need to go to war. He has lied to the American public repeatedly about WMD. He has doled out huge contracts to his cronies' companies. He's making the middle class tax burden heavier and heavier, while giving away Social Security to benefit the rich.
He's a fascist. You are a sycophantic bootlicker, just like M.

[Cyrus]

Ronald Reagan apologists try to compensate for the man's colossal ignorance and equally grand lack of leadership qualities with the same old tired cliches about his supposed ability to gather round him competent people and let 'em do their job. The old cliche about extensive delegating to competent people. (I even recall an interview conducted by a business magazine with Reagan about his "managerial style" !)

Which is all fine and good until you take a look at Reagan's record when he chose to veer off the teleprompter. The guffaws he drew! And until you look closer to the kind of "competent" people he chose to surround himself with, men like James Watt or Oliver North or Kissinger-wannabe Al Haig (snicker, mirth). As to Reagan's grand strategy, I have only two words for you: Star Wars. (But I forgot, this was part of the bust-the-Russkies grand strategy too.)

For anyone still clinging to some weird notion that RR "won the Cold War" or any statement of equal value, I can only, if humbly, recommend a perusal of the totally hilarious account offered by Oliver Sachs, the well-known ("Awakenings") doctor of neurology, about aphasic patients watching The Gipper on TV. Read it and weep --- from laughter.

[adios]

So the WMD hysteria in Iraq is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in your view?

[adios]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

[adios]

If you had your druthers what would you put on TV? I mean reality TV might be low class to some but I think it's the public's choice more or less. Cable and Satellite TV provide many alternative channels.

[ACPlayer]

The statement was in jest and not a jab at the reality watchers -- if it is a jab it is at news media and the pundit sub-culture who are always looking for an interesting show.

I like some reality tv shows (specially if you include discovery channel, travel channels, as reality tv).

I have no trouble turning off the TV for the shows i dont like and finding the shows i like; and i think that the companies should cater to their audience.

[oscark]

"Odd how historians seem to have 20/20 hindsight yet no foresight whatsoever!"

Not so odd actually, Jimbo. By definition:

1. a historian is a writer, student, or scholar of history.

2. a historian is someone who can predict the future /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Oscar

[MMMMMM]

No, I actually think the administration is perhaps a bit too liberal on both foreign policy and domestic economic policy.

Here are a few suggestions that might have merit:

1) Be even more assertive internationally in dealing with hostile and totalitarian regimes. Ask the Islamist fanatics and regimes that support terrorists if they "want some too." SHAME the North Korean leadership if they don't cooperate. Tell them what they WILL HAVE TO DO if they wish to be removed from the 'Axis of Evil' list, that being: immediately discontinue all nuclear production facilities and stop selling advanced weaponry abroad. Tell them this as we build up next to them like we did near Iraq. If they say ONE bellicose word, tell them they better not blow their last chance to cooperate. As we continue to build up near North Korea, watch how fast the North Koreans change from threatening us--->to daring us--->to trying to reason with us--->to being themselves more reasonable. If however they still don't cooperate, blast their nuke plants to hell all at once. Kim is bluffing: why isn't this obvious? However he will continue to build and sell arms to undesirables unless he sees the iron hand that he has so long wielded descending upon him instead. That's what their leadership really understands--iron.

2) Withdraw from the U.N. and form a more realistic and beneficial organization of Friendly Free States

3) Get rid of pork barrel politics. How? No federal monies to states, that's how (except perhaps for the Federal Disaster Area Relief Fund). Cut federal taxes by the amount saved above

4) Eliminate unconstitutional laws and redraw the scope of the federal government in keeping with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights

5) Restore the uninfringed right to keep and bear firearms

5) Eliminate all legal support for discrimination and reverse-discrimination

6) Protect the environment more, not less, because it's the only environment we have

7) Decriminalize all "victimless crimes"

8) Restore eroded Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens, but profile the hell out of suspicious visiting foreigners. Make the INS do what it was originally supposed to do. Make visiting or immigrating to our country a privilege, not a right. Surveil, deport or arrest suspicious terrorist types who are not U.S. citizens far more readily. In short, protect the rights of U.S. citizens more, but be a lot stricter on visitors, would-be immigrants and illegal aliens. Bolster our Border Patrols with Special Forces.

9) Improve our Hellfire missile system and blast any terrorists or rogue heads of state who declare war or jihad against us. If the leader of AbuRabuZabu Terrorist Group, Inc. declares war on us, blast him from the skies for making a terroristic threat and plotting to endanger our security.