• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Bush be Impeached?

Bravo GySGT.! :clap: I am a civilian and while I do not know all that happened under Clinton, I have seen some of the complete idiocy of those dealings, and I thank god that it was president Bush's job instead of Al Gore's.
 
Try not believe everything you read. President Clinton's tiny contribution of promises and then backed up with the most subtle of retribution was completely silent to the mass organizations of terror. Bringing a few individuals to court after largely organized attacks is like putting a bandaid on a cut off limb, and is hardly defending your nation. The enemy is the men that place the gun in the shooter's hand. Somehow, considering 9/11, I don't think Clinton delivered the message.

Bringing links to a forum is a definate way of showing everyone that you need someone else to speak for you. You don't know what you are talking about. I do. Military strikes against terrorism in the 90's were completely minimal and lacking. We might as well have not even had a military. It was a very frustrating time for us, knowing who the enemy was and not being able to do anything about it.

President Bush inherited a weakened America from President Clinton and he has had to deliver a message, loud and clear, to these animals. But, by all means, impeach the man that was in office after only 8 months when the bottom fell out.
 
Last edited:
Should Bush be impeached? One can only hope for that, there is no true evidence to impeach President Bush. It is not against the US Constitution for a President to be a scum-sucking low-life.. but then again, only retarded politic ans would want to be President. They all seek for one thing, that is power.

The only good President, ever, was George Washington. He gave up his power, how many Presidents would actually give up their power on their own accord?
 
Nixon did. How "good" was he?

Since George Washington was the only "good" President...you must think Americans are the dumbest bunch of people on Earth, considering they have voted for every President since him.
 
Last edited:
I still haven't come across any credible, real information or startling revelations as to why George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America, should be impeached.
 
Me niether. I mean it's not like he's a Communist or a Democrat.
 
I'm a Socialist and I plan to move to Austria, and also, I'm living in Canada, so I laugh at you, haha, (edited by Pacridge- name calling.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soviet_Guy said:
I'm a Socialist and I plan to move to Austria, and also, I'm living in Canada, so I laugh at you, haha, (edited by Pacridge- name calling.)
Click to expand...

I edited your post due to name calling. Feel free to post your arguments and thoughts, whatever they may be. However we do not allow name calling on this forum.
 
What the hell is a guy, claiming to be a Socialist, be living in Canada for and why would he move to Europe when there is an exotic island below Florida that embraces what Socialism will always be doomed to become? I hear they have good cigars too, although I don't smoke.
 
Cuba is not Socialist, what are you, a 5 year old kid locked up in a toolshed with a map of the world as it was in 1955?
 
Soviet_Guy said:
Cuba is not Socialist, what are you, a 5 year old kid locked up in a toolshed with a map of the world as it was in 1955?
Click to expand...
I think what GySgt is saying is that Canada (and/or socialist governments)is/are doomed to become failed communist countries. Of course, you can look at China and see that communist countries can become financial powerhouses too.
 
Soviet Guy,

You are very insightful. I am 5 years old and I do live in a tool shed...and....wait a minute.....yep...there's my map of the world as it was in 1955.

Were you intelligent enough to understand what I easily and plainly wrote out, I would have enough respect to at least waste time with you here.
 
No law has been broken. There is no basis for impeachment.
 
GySgt said:
No law has been broken. There is no basis for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be a matter of breaking the law, misdemeanor as used in the context of the constitution means, misbehavior. If Bush announced tomorrow that he was no longer going to the White House, no longer going to meet with his cabinet, not send any nominations up or sign any bills, just stay on his ranch and tend the sage brush, he could be impeached and remove. Not that the congress would dare impeach him under a misdemeanor charge for his actions against Saddam. Too many Democrat AND Republicans who voted for the war, supported action against Saddam BEFORE Bush was even elected would have "a lot of 'splaining" to do including Hillary and Kerry.
 
It still would come down to whether or not a law was broken. Peoples opinions on whether or not he lied about anything is not enough to impeach an American President. Impeaching for anything less than proof would be trivializing the entire legitimate use of impeachment.
 
GySgt said:
It still would come down to whether or not a law was broken.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If the congress believed he had misbehaved or otherwise not performed his duties they can impeach and remove him. Impeachment and removal does not require a law being broken. Now it would be very difficult to do so but it is not umprecidented.


GySgt said:
Peoples opinions on whether or not he lied about anything is not enough to impeach an American President.
Click to expand...

But actual lying for the purpose of obstructing justice is plenty. And that is not opinion that is fact, Clinton did lie under oath for the purpose of obstructing justice. That is perjury, that is a felony. We're not talking about when he went on camera and pointed his finger at us all and lied, although he should have stepped down after it was confirmed he lied to us then. We're not talking about when he went on camera with Lehrner (sp?) on PBS and lied through his teeth, although he should have done the honorable thing and resigned when again it was confirmed he lied to us once again. We're talking a federal court and a federal grand jury.


GySgt said:
Impeaching for anything less than proof would be trivializing the entire legitimate use of impeachment.
Click to expand...

I go back to my example of a president who moves to Monte Carlo, refuses to even read bills sent to him, refuses to meet with his cabinet, refuses all calls from Congress. No laws broken but the Congress would certainly be within it's power to impeach and remove him for misdemeanor behavior
 
galenrox said:
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. He wasn't under oath, so he could legally say whatever he wanted.
Click to expand...

Too Bad he wasn't under oath
 
Comrade Brian said:
Yeah but he lied to get it
Click to expand...

What was the lie and be specific, what did he present as truthful but knew was not?
 
galenrox said:
I concur brother
Click to expand...

There's a lot of well documented lies from Bush. Everything from where his tax cuts go to the "trifecta" comment. But I have yet to hear any actual lies he's told in regards to going to war in Iraq. Don't you think it's possible he actually believed what he was saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom