Could the entire Bush Admin be impeached?

missy · Post by **missy** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:07 pm

thanks - jGilder - and I do realize what you are saying is important.

I guess what I'm asking is there some way to do impeachment and NOT tie up the entire Federal Government in it? Is there a way (Constitutionally or otherwise) to make sure progress is made on those issues that need it, the war is somehow or another tied up (at least from our end) and our Representatives and Senators don't spend the entire proceedings trying to make a "name" for themselves and be in every lead story on the nightly news?

I just don't honestly see how this country can survive, let alone pull out of some of the crisis it's facing, if most of the Federal government is tied up with impeachment goings on. And if status quo continues for a year (I don't mean status quo in the Presidency) - or things get even worse - will we ever be able to overcome it?

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:07 pm

I'm saying I'm scared of tying up Congress for more than a year while the impeachment would go on.

Congress has it's own guilt in the matter of the war and the craven way they surrendered their own responsibility to decide on whether or not the US goes to war to the president, but holding the president to account is a primary responsibility of congress. That's one of their most significant jobs; far more important to the constitutional health of the nation than declaring the slime-mould the official fungus of Washington DC, or conducting trade wars with China and the EU.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:08 pm

edit--actually I don't want to get into this again. I don't have the time. I'm such a busy lady these days...

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:09 pm

Yes, I do think that there is a very, very serious concern about what is going to happen in Iraq and how people will be able to manage it. I'll have to think about this some more, Missy.

missy · Post by **missy** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:12 pm

Simon wrote:
"......far more important to the constitutional health of the nation than declaring the slime-mould the official fungus of Washington DC, or conducting trade wars with China and the EU...."

Yes, but more important than Social Security, loss of jobs, environmental impact, etc?

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:16 pm

missy wrote:Simon wrote:
"......far more important to the constitutional health of the nation than declaring the slime-mould the official fungus of Washington DC, or conducting trade wars with China and the EU...."

Yes, but more important than Social Security, loss of jobs, environmental impact, etc?

Ah, yep!

...and environmental impact? Bush?

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:21 pm

Missy, I'm sure the Bush Administration is hoping people will think the whole thing is a big bother. Just today the Repubs defeated a bill that mandated the US reliance on foreign oil be reduced to 40% rather than the current 80% (I'm not sure about the exact figures) The military is pouring cement all over Iraq and doesn't seem to feel any need to withdraw. If America continues to rely on oil, (and foreign oil on top of that,) then we'll never leave Iraq. An impeachment is what's needed to begin to correct a corrupt and dangerous policy that will only benefit a few wealthy corporations.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:25 pm

Yes, but more important than Social Security, loss of jobs, environmental impact, etc?

Impeaching Bush is the most beneficial thing congress could do on those fronts, as well.

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 pm

They're broadcasting the hearings right now on CSPAN-2

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:52 pm

s1m0n wrote:
Yes, but more important than Social Security, loss of jobs, environmental impact, etc?
Impeaching Bush is the most beneficial thing congress could do on those fronts, as well.

Thank you s1m0n.
I had to go outside with the flute for a bit after that one! I'm better now!

missy · Post by **missy** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:58 pm

ok - I guess I'm just worried that impeaching will bring this country to a long term standstill.

I mean - in all honesty, I feel the Federal government has taken on WAY more than they should (by law and by Constitution). But since they HAVE, I don't want to see gridlock for months on end.

And, honestly, if people are so worried that another President will perform the same way Mr. Bush has - will somebody PLEASE get some DECENT candidates for the next election that people can honestly vote FOR, and not just vote against the other one??? Or how about a viable third party candidate that isn't "beholden" to anyone???? Will people please vote in a way that both the Presidency and the Congress aren't all from the same direction so there is a true "checks and balances" going on?????

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:08 pm

Here's the url for the live video stream. Copy & paste it into your Windows media player.

http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/ ... wmext=.asx

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:13 pm

missy wrote:Worm - I'm NOT saying he's not guilty of these things.

I'm saying I'm scared of tying up Congress for more than a year while the impeachment would go on. I think empowering Congress to DO something right now would be a much better step for the country's well being than impeaching Mr. Bush.
How about Congress limiting the funds going to the war in Iraq? That would force the issue, wouldn't it? How about cutting support for the Patriot Act? Voting to try the detainees at Gitmo within a stated timeframe?

I'm having trouble getting what I'm thinking into words.

I understand about "sending a message" to future Presidents about not doing what Mr. Bush has done. I just don't know if impeachment and tying up Congress for a year or more is the best way to do that.

In this particular case, I think following a very important principal is worth tying up Congress for a bit. IF it's true, it's a flagrant case of the most powerful person on the planet breaking the law, with very harmful consequences. I guess we just disagree.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:18 pm

missy wrote:ok - I guess I'm just worried that impeaching will bring this country to a long term standstill.

That would be a positive development, considering we're in reverse in many important respects now.

I mean - in all honesty, I feel the Federal government has taken on WAY more than they should (by law and by Constitution). But since they HAVE, I don't want to see gridlock for months on end.

And, honestly, if people are so worried that another President will perform the same way Mr. Bush has - will somebody PLEASE get some DECENT candidates for the next election that people can honestly vote FOR, and not just vote against the other one??? Or how about a viable third party candidate that isn't "beholden" to anyone???? Will people please vote in a way that both the Presidency and the Congress aren't all from the same direction so there is a true "checks and balances" going on?????

If we impeach a crook, it might makes crooks think twice before running for office.

If we let a fraudulent war slide, how do you expect people with character to take an election seriously and actually vote? NOT following principal, in this case, would lead to public apathy, leading to poor candidates, leading to bad policy. . . rinse/repeat.

IRTradRU? · Post by **IRTradRU?** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:48 pm

Always good to drop in to threads like this for a great laugh.

This one's a keeper.