• 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?

The following is a quote from President Clinton made in an address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and pentagon staff in 1998. He was explaining how the “terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals” were a genuine threat to America and he goes on to say “There is no clearer example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.” Clinton went on to say “Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.”
Click to expand...



Never used against America even after Gulf War I....and where was the outrage when this happened over 20 yrs ago? If I remember correctly the U.S. maintained a friendship with him after all these attrocities...All Presidents lie....why expect from Bush Jr. what you couldnt get from Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan ,Carter etc........


peace
 
I don't really like how Americans are acting right now, I'm not saying I don't like America. We love to complain about how the system doesn't work and how all our presidents are stupid unless they do exactly what YOU want, you know what? Why don't you run for president! I don't really like everything bush has done I really don't like him or Kerry! That's that but we need to realize that there have been worse, he started a war but that war has been smoldering for hundreds of years, since biblical times. Maybe it wasn't our business but neither was Rwanda and everyone says we should have gone there. People love to look at things in retrospect and say "why did they do that, there so stupid". I'm sick of little rich kids saying how o well this war isn't doing anything, you know what! People ARE dieing. I'm also sick of people saying that ya that Saddam was killing thousands of people in horrible ways, but that's not our business. OK yes it didn't effect us but shouldn't we as a country who can do something to help a people who cant speak out without being hung from a fan and being beaten? If you see a little kid being beat up shouldn't you do something? You and I can't imagine losing a son or daughter. I'm not gonna say whether bush should or shouldn't be impeached so i guess I'm going off subject, but people please don't judge actions of the past by the knowledge of the present/
 
Originally posted by shuamort:
The US hasn't declared war since WWII.
Click to expand...
Congress authorized Bush on October 11, 2002 to attack Iraq if they didn't give up WMD's as required by the UN Resolutions. But he was already at war. Again, an impeachable offense. People who look the other way in the face of obvious evidence and common sense are just disgusting human beings. Not to say your one of these. I'm just getting sick of all the excuses people make for this guy that is destroying everything this country was supposed to stand for.

You look at how other country's view us and tell me if this is a good thing. Neo's got no business being in the drivers seat of this government. No one with that much hatred should be anywhere near an elected office.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
 
Billo_Really said:
Congress authorized Bush on October 11, 2002 to attack Iraq if they didn't give up WMD's as required by the UN Resolutions. But he was already at war. Again, an impeachable offense. People who look the other way in the face of obvious evidence and common sense are just disgusting human beings. Not to say your one of these. I'm just getting sick of all the excuses people make for this guy that is destroying everything this country was supposed to stand for.

You look at how other country's view us and tell me if this is a good thing. Neo's got no business being in the drivers seat of this government. No one with that much hatred should be anywhere near an elected office.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
Click to expand...
How, then, did Congress avoid its constitutional power - or duty - to declare war over Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf?

The answer is that Congress played it safe. It gave the three presidents - Truman, Johnson, Bush - something, without having to go on record as formally declaring war.

In each case - Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf - Congress "actively acquiesced" in the President's conduct as Commander-in-Chief. In Korea, Congress, while not declaring war, consistently supported our engagement by, among other things, approving conscription and appropriating money. In Vietnam, while not declaring war, Congress again provided for the draft, and again appropriated the necessary funds - even going further by giving Lyndon Johnson the questionable Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In the Gulf War (I), Congress gave President George H. W. Bush a resolution of support, rather than a declaration of war.

In this "active acquiescence," Congress reasonably could be confident that so long as it did not expressly oppose what the Commander-in-Chief was doing, the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the President's power to fight even absent a Congressional declaration of war.

The question of whether any of these three conflicts were "constitutional" - absent an express declaration of war by Congress - was never decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Had it been - and if the current President Bush's forthcoming attack on Iraq is ever reviewed by the High Court - Article II will trump Article I. The reason is found in the Korean War era case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer - a case which, while President Truman lost, President Bush can rely on as precedent to support his war against Iraq without Congressional approval.
 
shuamort said:
How, then, did Congress avoid its constitutional power - or duty - to declare war over Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf?

The answer is that Congress played it safe. It gave the three presidents - Truman, Johnson, Bush - something, without having to go on record as formally declaring war.

In each case - Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf - Congress "actively acquiesced" in the President's conduct as Commander-in-Chief. In Korea, Congress, while not declaring war, consistently supported our engagement by, among other things, approving conscription and appropriating money. In Vietnam, while not declaring war, Congress again provided for the draft, and again appropriated the necessary funds - even going further by giving Lyndon Johnson the questionable Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In the Gulf War (I), Congress gave President George H. W. Bush a resolution of support, rather than a declaration of war.

In this "active acquiescence," Congress reasonably could be confident that so long as it did not expressly oppose what the Commander-in-Chief was doing, the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the President's power to fight even absent a Congressional declaration of war.

The question of whether any of these three conflicts were "constitutional" - absent an express declaration of war by Congress - was never decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Had it been - and if the current President Bush's forthcoming attack on Iraq is ever reviewed by the High Court - Article II will trump Article I. The reason is found in the Korean War era case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer - a case which, while President Truman lost, President Bush can rely on as precedent to support his war against Iraq without Congressional approval.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct...

The second the Senate approved the first $87 billion dollar bill with cashish going to Iraq(The one Kerry was against before he supported it) would be the second that they would be considered "co-conspiators"....The only people with the capability to impeach Bush for the war are the same ones that gave him the cash to continue it...Impeach Congress?
 
No, I do not he should be impeached.

He's done more good than almost any president, and even although he does have major flaws, its foolish to ask for a better one.

His choice to go to war in Iraq in my opinion was a bold one, but one I think will help the entire world. About this misinformed intelligence issue, he can't know every part of the government perfectly, and he based his judgement out of what he was given (or so i hope!).
 
cnredd said:
The second the Senate approved the first $87 billion dollar bill with cashish going to Iraq(The one Kerry was against before he supported it)
Click to expand...
The funny thing about the whole Kerry thing, something he really would've faired much better if he had, was that he was originally for the bill when the spending had a way of having it re-funded by loans to Iraq. The second bill for $87B was because Bush didn't want Iraq to shoulder any of the responsibility for it which was against congress's bill to find a way to pay for what they spend.

cnredd said:
would be the second that they would be considered "co-conspiators"....The only people with the capability to impeach Bush for the war are the same ones that gave him the cash to continue it...Impeach Congress?
Click to expand...
Sticky wicket there. To blame Bush would to also show their complicity too. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
shuamort said:
The funny thing about the whole Kerry thing, something he really would've faired much better if he had, was that he was originally for the bill when the spending had a way of having it re-funded by loans to Iraq. The second bill for $87B was because Bush didn't want Iraq to shoulder any of the responsibility for it which was against congress's bill to find a way to pay for what they spend.

Sticky wicket there. To blame Bush would to also show their complicity too. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Click to expand...

I only posted on this forum in hopes, that one day.....................

someone would write "Sticky wicket"...:lol:
 
cnredd said:
Absolutely correct...

The second the Senate approved the first $87 billion dollar bill with cashish going to Iraq(The one Kerry was against before he supported it) would be the second that they would be considered "co-conspiators"....The only people with the capability to impeach Bush for the war are the same ones that gave him the cash to continue it...Impeach Congress?
Click to expand...

Bush had already started the war..what exactly could congress have done? Said "bad Bush..put your toys away and sit in time out"?
 
O and I almost forgot, STICKEY WICKET, :2rofll:
 
Originally Posted by shuamort
In the Gulf War (I), Congress gave President George H. W. Bush a resolution of support, rather than a declaration of war.
Click to expand...
Under false pretenses and nine months after he started dropping bombs. When you look back on all this, don't forget all the bullshit he told the nation about WMD's and uranium tubes. When you add his lies to the equation, he should be impeached.

But, sadly, I would agree that Congress doesn't have the balls to do it. In part because they are responsible. And so are we.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom