He literally has dozens of possible charges in which he could be impeached. If people were willing to impeach Clinton for lying about an inappropriate relationship, why aren't more people willing to impeach Bush? How much worse will things have to get before Republicans will support removing him? Is there nothing too low?

Just a sample of firmly impeachable offenses:

1) Signing statements. Bush violates his oath of office to faithfully execute our nation's laws (as the chief executive). Says he will not enforce hundreds of laws that he doesn't like.
2) Risking the lives of CIA agents by outing their names in the media (Valerie Plame) to punish political dissent.
3) Approval of torture against the Geneva Conventions, which the US is signatory to.
4) Refusal of right to due process of law for imprisoned persons (14th Amendment)
5) Attempts to politicize the judiciary, interference with investigations into corruption
6) Ordered destruction of records of torture by CIA, even though ordered not to by the courts
7) Downing Street Memo, Bush's intention to start war in Iraq regardless of circumstances or facts
8) Domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping
9) No bid war contracts to political allies, against all established government protocols.
10) Appointing unqualified candidates (political appointees) to head nations federal agencies.
11) Allowed use of federal soldiers in New Orleans (violates posse comitas) as well as private military contractors.
12) Refuses to answer judiciary investigations, claims executive privilege for self and subordinates.

12/16/2007 4:39:52 PM

12/16/2007 4:46:20 PM

Cheney shot a guy in the face and the guy apologized to him.

Chuck Norris doesn't have shit on these guys.

12/16/2007 4:57:47 PM

Quote :

"1) Signing statements. Bush violates his oath of office to faithfully execute our nation's laws (as the chief executive). Says he will not enforce hundreds of laws that he doesn't like. --clinton did this too 2) Risking the lives of CIA agents by outing their names in the media (Valerie Plame) to punish political dissent. --not proven, though i would love to see an investigation 3) Approval of torture against the Geneva Conventions, which the US is signatory to. --agreed 4) Refusal of right to due process of law for imprisoned persons (14th Amendment) --agreed 5) Attempts to politicize the judiciary, interference with investigations into corruption --completely agree 6) Ordered destruction of records of torture by CIA, even though ordered not to by the courts --agreed 7) Downing Street Memo, Bush's intention to start war in Iraq regardless of circumstances or facts --yup 8) Domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping --yup 9) No bid war contracts to political allies, against all established government protocols. --not sure about what protocols you're talking about but i think it's shady regardless 10) Appointing unqualified candidates (political appointees) to head nations federal agencies. --yup 11) Allowed use of federal soldiers in New Orleans (violates posse comitas) as well as private military contractors.--don't reallly know anything about this one 12) Refuses to answer judiciary investigations, claims executive privilege for self and subordinates.--this started with truman. read Takeover"

12/16/2007 5:02:47 PM

he'd be out of office before any impeachment proceedings could come to a close, so the whole question is a moot point.

12/16/2007 5:09:37 PM

The Democrats could definitely impeach him, but that might rattle too many cages and cost them the 2008 election. I also seriously doubt that anyone wants to hear "President Cheney" on the news.

As long as Bush stays in office and continues to carry himself like he has then he's only a liability to his own party. Republican candidates have all distanced themselves from him considerably, kinda like Al Gore having that really awkward makeout session with his wife in 2000 to distance himself from Clinton and his infidelities.

12/16/2007 5:17:57 PM

He'd have to get a blow job from Condoleeza Rice.

12/16/2007 5:18:13 PM

Quote :

"What would Bush have to do to get impeached?"

1) Dick Cheney would have to die first.


2)

Quote :

"he'd be out of office before any impeachment proceedings could come to a close, so the whole question is a moot point."

12/17/2007 7:15:01 AM

If he makes another of them hurricanes that kills poor people or hurts any more of them terrorists in Cuba...he'll be cruising for a bruising.

12/17/2007 11:16:22 AM

Quote :

"What would Bush have to do to get impeached? "

the answer is obvious.

he'd have to have sex with someone.

12/17/2007 11:29:22 AM

another productive TSB thread

12/17/2007 11:33:36 AM

Quote :

"he'd have to have sex with someone"

well played sir.

12/17/2007 11:49:53 AM

Quote :

"he'd be out of office before any impeachment proceedings could come to a close, so the whole question is a moot point. "

Quote :

"The Democrats could definitely impeach him, but that might rattle too many cages and cost them the 2008 election. I also seriously doubt that anyone wants to hear "President Cheney" on the news. As long as Bush stays in office and continues to carry himself like he has then he's only a liability to his own party."

In addition, impeachment comes into play for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Most of the dirt on him and beefs people have with him aren't criminal.

12/17/2007 12:46:28 PM

Hmm...and like Clinton's escapades were?

(Yes, I know the argument was for lying under oath...but seriously? There's no way Clinton's lying about having an affair is worse than half the shit that this idiot has done)

12/17/2007 12:48:50 PM

you have to attach... Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

before you can even start the process

we respect the rule of law...

even if the administration does not...

12/17/2007 12:51:00 PM

It isn't so much a question of what's worse as a question of what's illegal (coupled with what is more politically viable to trash a President over)

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ^ that's kinda what i'm getting at]

12/17/2007 12:52:04 PM

JFK wouldn't have had his dick within 100' of the ugly chicks that Clinton had affairs with

12/17/2007 12:53:15 PM

Quote :

"As long as Bush stays in office and continues to carry himself like he has then he's only a liability to his own party."

12/17/2007 1:03:14 PM

speaking of presidents who have been impeached, clinton is going to be in raleigh tonight

http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/409267.html

lock up your wives and daughters!

12/17/2007 1:41:28 PM

do you think there is a discount for students? i know often being a student allows you to get discounts and i cant afford 1000 or 2300 for that matter to see him

12/17/2007 1:45:32 PM

the idea of a fundraiser is to raise funds so i doubt it

12/17/2007 1:48:55 PM

Heres the next impeachable offense

WASHINGTON - White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives.

The records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Bush administration has ordered the data turned over to the White House, where they are treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said logs from the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence are subject to public records request.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_secrecy

12/17/2007 2:28:04 PM

i think a dolorean at 88mph would have to be employed.

12/17/2007 2:29:21 PM

---



[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/17/2007 3:23:04 PM

^^thats impeachable??

are you freakin kidding me? you are just showing what a partisan you are...

12/17/2007 3:28:49 PM

Quote :

"Allowed use of federal soldiers in New Orleans (violates posse comitas) as well as private military contractors. "

In bush's defence the federal troops were needed to help restore order to N.O post-Katrina b.c a lot of the Louisana national guard that normally would have been on stand-by was "on duty" serving in Iraq.

12/17/2007 3:38:13 PM

Quote :

"The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives."

Looks like they already know whos on the list even though its not public.....somehow

While I dont want to argue about your list..the one that really sticks out to me is:

Quote :

"Approval of torture against the Geneva Conventions, which the US is signatory to."

I assume your talking about Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Sure, we torture them by listening to Christina Agulleria music...but its not against the geneva conventions which clearly state how "soldiers" should be treated. Terrorists are not soliders of any nation...they were no uniform or symbols....they hide amoung the general population...

Let me guess....you disagree with torture in general, and even if the geneva conventions didnt exist, you would find some other reason to oppose (even though US Generals and Intellegance agencies say it aids in our cause...if it didnt, do you think we would waste the resources to begin with...do you honestly think that "Bush" enjoys taking people thousands of miles to suffer for no reason...and I use the word suffer lightly.....about the worst thing we do to them is sleep deprivation). You are simply using them to try and get your point across, right?

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 3:39:43 PM

^ fuck waterboarding put me in a room playing "oopps I did it again" or "hit me baby one more time"

and i'd spill my guts in 10 seconds.

12/17/2007 4:54:02 PM

he'd have to get a blow job from someone and then lie about it under oath...

12/17/2007 5:23:35 PM

THE HORROR

12/17/2007 5:29:14 PM

OMG OUR LEADERS ARE HUMAN AND ENJOY RECEIVING ORAL SEX FROM YOUNGER WOMAN WTF HAS OUR SOCIETY COME TOO I BLAME MTV AND HIPHOP

12/17/2007 5:44:55 PM

"YOUNGER WOMEN"

lol too bad he doesnt enjoy it from HOT younger women

12/17/2007 6:06:10 PM

because then you wouldn't give a shit and wouldn't ever bring it up

12/17/2007 6:07:27 PM

so who picks interns in the oval office btw? earlier today i was wondering if repubs picked her specifically to go there and were like "hey act super slutty when you are alone and tell him you will suck his dick, and see if he lets you"

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 6:07:47 PM

Kennedy was banging movie stars. Clinton used his position as the most powerful man in the free world to bang chubby chicks. 99% of TWW could get a hotter chick than Monica.

12/17/2007 7:31:57 PM

and thats what makes clinton so damn cool

12/17/2007 8:16:34 PM

Quote :

"Let me guess....you disagree with torture in general, and even if the geneva conventions didnt exist, you would find some other reason to oppose (even though US Generals and Intellegance agencies say it aids in our cause...if it didnt, do you think we would waste the resources to begin with...do you honestly think that "Bush" enjoys taking people thousands of miles to suffer for no reason...and I use the word suffer lightly.....about the worst thing we do to them is sleep deprivation). You are simply using them to try and get your point across, right?"

You don't know what you are talking about. Please exit the thread at your convenience.

12/17/2007 8:24:27 PM

Quote :

"Let me guess....you disagree with torture in general, and even if the geneva conventions didnt exist, you would find some other reason to oppose"

yeah, how about trying to act like a human person who doesn't like to inflict harm on other people

12/17/2007 8:40:05 PM

as opposed to a non-human person?

12/17/2007 8:41:41 PM

Quote :

"he'd be out of office before any impeachment proceedings could come to a close, so the whole question is a moot point."

part 1 - agreed.

part 2 - not only should cheney and bush be impeached simultaneously, but impeachment does not equal being kicked out of office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Quote :

"Impeachment is so rare that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges, paralleling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment."

12/17/2007 9:39:54 PM

I'm not necessarily against torture. I think they should use hedge clippers to cut the dick off of child molesters. However, I do not like Bush acting like hit poop smells like roses and what we do is not torture b.c we are the USA.

Lastly, I see know point in impeaching Bush unless we can get Darth Cheney booted out also. I'd rather keep Bush in office then Emperor Cheney taking the helm. The man is the fucking anti-christ.

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : l]

12/17/2007 9:46:29 PM

Quote :

"its not against the geneva conventions which clearly state how "soldiers" should be treated. "

Exactly. I don't think torture is something we should be engaging in (other than in a handful of unusual scenarios), but insurgents are not lawful combatants and enjoy none of the protected status that goes along with it.

Quote :

"Heres the next impeachable offense"

There is nothing even remotely impeachable in what you described.

You consistently make some of the most ill conceived posts in the Soap Box.

12/17/2007 11:08:31 PM

Quote :

"insurgents are not lawful combatants and enjoy none of the protected status that goes along with it"

who are the insurgents?? this is the problem in Iraq. yeah the iranians or syrians in there just to cause trouble should get locked up with the key thrown away. but what about the soldiers of all the various factions within in Iraq all fighting in the post-sadaam power vacuum. If you commit a crime then you face the punishment just like any other criminal.

Even though unrelated this was the problem in Vietnam. "Insurgents"/"Freedom Fighters" were rebelling against the despot US backed Diem. Who had the moral high ground? Did these "insurgents" deserve to be locked away in Gitmo for life b.c they were fighting against nepostic dictator. Luckily we were smart enough to let him fall from power before we got involved beyond just having military "consultants" over there.

12/18/2007 1:14:22 AM

again, it ultimately doesn't matter who has the moral high ground in terms of whether or non unlawful combatants enjoy legal protection.

12/18/2007 1:15:48 AM

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has ordered a hearing on whether the Bush administration violated a court order by destroying CIA interrogation videos of two al-Qaida suspects.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy rejected calls from the Justice Department to stay out of the matter. He ordered lawyers to appear before him Friday morning.

In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

More here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_ot/cia_videotapes

12/18/2007 12:29:15 PM

Quote :

""its not against the geneva conventions which clearly state how "soldiers" should be treated. ""

god dammit, this is patently false.

In fact, though the Third Geneva Convention
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
defines a category of detainees called "prisoners of war" (POWs) and lays out specific protections for them, the Fourth Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War")
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
lays out separate protections for civilians, including so-called "unlawful combatants"

http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200501050008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Quote :

"Part I. General Provisions This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV: * Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory. * Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. * Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are. * A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons. Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons. Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the American Administration's interpretation of unlawful combatants."

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ,]

12/18/2007 4:44:00 PM

that's what I thought, bitches

12/20/2007 6:32:29 PM

If a person has strapped bombs to themselves that does not apply at all...

12/20/2007 6:54:18 PM

umm, most of the guys who have strapped bombs to themselves are dead.

.... and anyway, yes, it does apply to your arbitrary criteria

12/20/2007 6:56:30 PM

well...im just saying..i dont think that terrorists are what could be considered POW's under the geneva conventions...i could be wrong...need to do some more research

I guess it depends on what the terrorist is doing....

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 7:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/20/2007 6:58:50 PM