Lucky...

That is a fair point. My original point was that impeaching Bush, while I may feel he deserves it, may not be best for the nation. Congress checking Executive power might be a better option. And impeaching Clinton over a BJ and subs lie is a good thing? Welcome to this fucked up world in 2000. It wasn't the BJ Lucky, it was lying under oath that powered the request for Clinton's impeachment. Technically, but the witchhunt of Clinton is what initiated the whole thing. Why would it even come to light to subpoena the pres over that? That is the real question, as Lawrocket said, it was a moral indictment. It wasn't as if they were exploring something else, they went after the man for his sexual indiscretions, that is not debatable, is it? Then the idiot lied so his wife wouldn't know and they had him and then turned it into an issue of a lie. The whole thing started out as a fishing expedition of a man's sexual life...pathetic.

The difference is that the conservatives didn't focus on this. They did not focus on the readily apparent difference between two consenting adults and the head of government with an intern. The move on Clinton was focused on the moral - not the legal. On that basis, the conservatives blew it, no pun intended. Right, so ot goes from the logical to the emotional, rendering a reciprocal impeachment.

I'm not sure if the wiretapping stuff might be callified as impeachable. Remember, all we have to do is get some lame charge and push it thru the House, as it will go eaily and then let the Repub Senators up in 08 shuffle their feet. IF there was Dem solidarity in the senate, a couple crossovers in teh senate and the senators up in 08 who might want to run again, well, it could happen (removal), not likley. As for an impeachment, just get any charge before the House and it's a lock.

Your boys started it, so quit whining. You were probably on teh edge of your seat cheering for impeachment during the Clinton years, deal with this now.

Oh no, Rus is, this is a 1-way street.

CLINTON BROKE THE LAW BASED ON A SEXIUAL HARRASMENT SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM FOR HIS ACIONS BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT!!! He purgered himself and conspired to have others lie for him under oath. Did not have a fucking thing to do with a GD BJ. Big dam difference And that's where you don't understand the impeachment of Clinton, he was impeached for Purgery and obstruction, they failed o get the other 2 attemped impeachments for the Paula Jones issue. A charged filed befoe teh House that fails is not an impeachment, just as a Grand jury failing to indict and issue a true bill for a criminal defendant.

Not a valid reason. "I don't like him!!!!" is not an impeachable offense no matter how much you don't like him. For a person who claims to know about the impeachment process and law, you seem to forget, or just choose to ignore, that he has not done anything illegal that you or anyone else can produce any evidence. If he ignores the direction of congress, they will go fishing and find a charge. Right now they are just posturing with their threats. IF he were to agree to a pullout by 09 they will back down. If not, I see them going thru with it. As for teh Senate, if tehy get a charge (impeachment), I see some Repubs, esp ones who are up in 08 going against Bush. If you are a Repub senator up in 08 you probably act very unRepublican.

That is to be discovered. I if was a fly on teh wall of anyone, I could constitute some behavior of theirs as felonious. The laws are written so loosely that anything is a felony just as the pres could be indicted on charges. The composition of the House is such that any charge will do. Sure, he is stupid. He appoints them and knowingly has then do their dirtywork.

Worrying about referring to Bush as a Nazi is semantic. At the end of teh day, where do we sit? The 3 stooges have jacked this debt up by over 75% of its total, the OT law, Ergonomics Bill, BK law, medical coverage, etc. Willard, these are all topics I've gone into detail with here and the righties just ignore them and defer to me calling Bush a Nazi.....so what???? That is not a pilitical charge, but that can motivate them to seek political charges, which is what their recent fiching expedition is, ala Ken Starr's fuching expedition, a witchhunt and it has begun as teh subpoenas were issued....need to be served and then teh fight starts.

And you don't think Bush has done it himself? The Dems might be there to point it out, as any opponent would do, but the boob even makes un of his own semi-litteracy, not a good standpoint for a pres. They pointed it out for teh first 4 years, the country didn't understand it, so they need to make clear what a horror he is. I see what you mean: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html?ei=5090&en=4785bb029b806e38&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=print A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies. Of course and that has opened the door for all Republicans to be witch-hunted like he was. The thing is that the country loved Clinton and the Repubs were seriously scared of an FDR kind of love for the Dems, a trend to have 5 or 6 terms of Dems as pres, so they had to set up a person with his achilles. This trend is good for the people,perhaps not the Repubs. On a more global basis, the Repub congress has show how putridly abhorrent they are by refusing to pass the min wage increase. They truly suck and there is no recovery from that, so the Repubs need to be minimized in our gov and now and I think the American voters see that. The leading losers, McCain and Guliani are going to get wasted by Hillary or Obama, watch and see...

Fuck, that makes me a neo-conservo-maggot. Fuck Good obsrvation with the thread trend. I realize it will do nothing to benefit anyone, I just want the neo's to understand that if they are gonna bring to oath a person for personal reasons, then the door swings both ways.

Didn't save Clinton, prob saved AJ as he had many charges the senate voted on. That's teh way it was, now it's used as a censure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Andrew Johnson was the successor behind Lincoln, the first Repub pres. I don't know the composition of congress during the Lincoln/Johnson admin, so I can;t attest as to why he was impeached other than disregarding congress, Usurpation of power from congress. New world. With teh impeachment of Clinton the Repubs have opened a can of worms.

That is not an impeachable offense. Find some evidence that shows he committed a CRIME, not "I don't like what he did". Then sure, try to impeach him. Usurpation of power, lying to congress

That is not an impeachable offense. Find some evidence that shows he committed a CRIME, not "I don't like what he did". Then sure, try to impeach him. This is becoming circular, that is why the Dems want the criminal party under oath. That is also why the criminals want a backroom dress rehersal, so they fix which lies won;t work and even own up to the lies that won't wash. If Clinton had a dress rehersal (no pun intended) then he would have admitted to the affair and there would have been no impeachment. I don't want the criminal party having any different rules.

Suppresing evidence could be usurpation of power.

Well then if your party is so virgin, a quick testimony under oath would put this baby to bed, agree? Oh no, you want the ability for a dress rehersal to see which lies won't wash, right?

I thought it was to me. I'm so used to Rush constantly clammering that I don't know the impeachment process, guess that was an extension of that. WHat's condescending is for someone to suggest that I don't know the general rules of impeachment. I now realize you were talking to somone else, but to assert someone does't know the rules, fatcs etc is just agrumentative rather than illustrating why.

I thought it was a waste of time and money, myself. Well, it's that whole equal and opposite reaction thing. I think they should but won't toshow they are above it. If two wrongs don't make a right, try three! Here here. (raises drink)

Yes, things never change, the Japs are considering a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor too.

I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. It is just the climate of today;s politics. You are proving once again that you do not know why Clinton was impeached or, you just want to continue the medial lie about it. I illustrated why in teh previous thread and even posted the charges that the House brought forward, 2 of the 4 attempted, and the senate result. You keep bantering this theme but have yet to produce evidence to the contrary. No comment on Lott..... can't figure out why?

Yep, oh well, Cogress would just be arguing over something else anyway. One benefit of an impeachment and failed removal would be that of healing relationships with the rest of the world. We would show that the voters elected Reps who were sick of this assfuck criminal, so they tried to remove him. The world would realize the idiocy is just a remote part of America and not the entirety.

Well, who can tell? You can poll people on an incorrect question, but the results only prove GIGO. If the polling is accurate, more people are in favor of impeachment than who actually voted in the last election. Apples/oranges, who knows what percentage of the last election voters voted in this poll. This poll is remotely scientific, but I bet if you took the same poll from a cross-section of AMerica the results would be similar.

This is the problem I have with these things. The poll is suggesting that he wasn't wrong in doing it, but just keeping it going is impeachable. Huh? Is it a high crime or misdemeanor? Or is it just a policy for which 62 percent of the public are unhappy? There may be other reasons for impeachment, but not if he "keeps" his Iraq policy. That's a political question - not a criminal one. ----> There may be other reasons for impeachment, but not if he "keeps" his Iraq policy. That's a political question - not a criminal one. Good, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one; fits perfectly. As for the poll, it denotes a bit of a mob mentality, I agree. It misses teh obviosu point that Bush lied to Congress to get them agree to go to war and fund it. Perhaps a tit for tat from the Lewinsy idiocy.

I am no fan of Bush, but I was wondering the same thing. Usurpation of power, lying to Congress.

The country was under this mass dose of temp patriotism after 911. Then Bush came in and lied to Congress by suppressing intel and only showing the data that supported this silly notion that Iraq had WMD's. Does it take a genius to not reveal all of the intel? I think not.