Impeach Bush!

[Boxlicker101]

There's the rub.

In today's divisive world, a President could <insert outrageious crime here> on the 50 yard line of the Superbowl in front of 100,000 people and a world wide television audience, and get away with it totally as long as his party controlled both sides of Congress.

Today, our representatives see themselves as a members of a party, and working for its donors more than they do as members of their Nation and working for its citizens.

All I want for Christmas is the return of right and wrong, integrity and honesty. <sigh>

Please don't tell me how naive I am. I am depressed enough during this joyous holiday period.

Actually, you are exaggerating here. If he were to commit some heinous crime in such a public way, he would be arrested immediately and taken to prison. The VP would become acting president unless he was bailed out. Impeachment proceedings, separately but concurrent with the legal proceedings might or might not start, depending on the nature of the crimes. Of course, such a thing will never happen.

As Colly and others have said, you are not likely to see integrity become a part of politics. The two are incompatible. A person with integrity would almost never get into politics because they would be repelled by what a dirty business it is. Some reform-minded persons may have integrity and get elected, but they would have a very hard time making changes because the double-dealing and crookedness are so ingrained.

This is nothing new, by the way, and goes at least as far back as the John Adams administration.

 

[Guest]

Actually, you are exaggerating here.

Yes, I am. Not as much as I'd like to believe, but yes, I'm exaggerating.

Ted on Impeachment

Box's comment yesterday, summarized how I felt about Clinton...

if I had been a member of the House, I would have followed the party line in voting for or against. If I had been a member of the Senate, I would have voted for acquittal on the grounds that perjury about a personal matter would not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". That's not to say it wasn't a crime and prosecutable, just not grounds for impeachment.

I remember too that Clinton was testifying under oath because the person suing him stayed with the case because the people who encouraged and financed her didn't care about her, or if she had been harmed, but rather for the embarressment they could bring the President. Their goal wasn't to get justice for this young woman, but to hamstring a political opponent.

Did Clinton lie under oath? Yes.

I'm not excusuing it, so much as putting it into perspective.

Who here does not have questions they ferverently hope are never asked of them under oath? Won't a non-vicious dog bite if you poke him with a stick over and over? Clinton lied--but he wasn't the only one to blame in that whole matter.

Who lost? The American people. Their choice for office was hamstrung in his effectiveness. And competent, less political people, had more reason to decide to stay out of public service.

You'll notice in this post I am not commenting on the current President, or impeachment thereof. They are two separate matters. When mentioned in the same thought, it makes questioning Mr. Bush to be revenge for Clinton. It cannot be that way.

I hope we never again have such a politicallly motivated impeachment as was Clinton's.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm not keen on "revenge" impeachment. I'm not even a Clintonite. I just think that what Bush did was far worse than what Clinton did and is closer to the spirit of what the Framers considered to be "High Crimes And Misdemeanors".

Of course, I don't expect any action on this from a GOP Congress that has decided to extend America's version of the Enabling Act in this country for another month.

 

[jacintexas]

I was actually hoping they would have soem guts and let it expire as it should even thought it shoudl never have been enacted in teh first place,,

 

[davidwatts]

You won't see integrity return. Neither side stands for it. Democrats will still insist a man lying under oath is somehow noble and wonderful, while the GOP will have mass being celebrated to open sessions of congress.

Integrity and politicas are as antithical as cats & dogs.

The Cliff's Notes version of American Politics.

It took P.J. O'Rourke a whole book to say that.

 

[shereads]

I might as well say it before one of the Republicans says it:

"But Clinton lied under oath."

Remember how adamant the White House was that Bush and Cheney wouldn't testify before the 9/11 Commission if they had to do it under oath? Live and learn.

 

[cantdog]

Cheney would become President only if Bush were convicted and removed from office.. not if he was simply empeached and found not guilty as Clinton was.. Personally I'm beginning to believe Cheney will resign due to health reasons and Rice with be selected as VP to replace him putting her in position to run in 2008 as the GOP pres nominee.. pitting her against Hillary if she runs and is nominated... just my thoughts

McCain as a spoiler.

Cool

 

[shereads]

Actually, you are exaggerating here. If he were to commit some heinous crime in such a public way, he would be arrested immediately and taken to prison. The VP would become acting president unless he was bailed out. Impeachment proceedings, separately but concurrent with the legal proceedings might or might not start, depending on the nature of the crimes. Of course, such a thing will never happen.

As Colly and others have said, you are not likely to see integrity become a part of politics. The two are incompatible. A person with integrity would almost never get into politics because they would be repelled by what a dirty business it is. Some reform-minded persons may have integrity and get elected, but they would have a very hard time making changes because the double-dealing and crookedness are so ingrained.

This is nothing new, by the way, and goes at least as far back as the John Adams administration.

The argument that integrity and politics cannot coexist seems to have become unusually popular among Bush/Cheney voters in recent years. Where was that "boys will be boys" attitude and the accompanying jaded sigh when conservatives were cheering on Ken Starr's 6-year, $40 million obsession with the Clintons? I honestly believe there is nothing so vile that a Bush voter couldn't sooth his conscience by saying, "Well, they all do that; it's not that unusual for politicians to be serial axe murderers."

Yes, politics forces people of integrity to compromise, and no doubt there are many who lose their integrity along the way. But there is a huge difference between people whose honor is tarnished by the compromises that are necessary to staying in office, and those who had no honor to begin with.

George W. Bush's record as a private businessman was a pretty good indicator of what his presidency would be all about. With him at the helm, a long series of companies were driven into bankruptcy - yet Bush himself came away unscathed, netting the millions he needed to buy his favorite baseball team. Employees and small-time stockholders suffered, but Bush and his cronies got rich.

Judged by an ethical standard, leading a company into bankruptcy would be considered a failure. Judged only by the standard of personal gain, Bush's business career was a success.

Judged by pre-neocon standards, the Bush presidency has been a miserable failure, living up to the worst expectations of everyone who bothered to learn his history and dreaded what was coming: he has led a country from a record budget surplus to a record deficit; led a War on Terror that has spent hundreds of billions in borrowed money without addressing the most basic steps outlined by the 9/11 Commission as necessary to protect Americans from terrorism; led a rape of the environment that earned him the first failing grade ever given by the League of Environmental Voters; promoted fuel-wasting policies while decrying our reliance on foreign oil; and lest we forget, he invaded the wrong country, using "intelligence" provided by a convicted con artist.

(I won't say he led the invasion; patriots like Bush and Cheney prefer to support the troops from the safety of another hemisphere.)

Judged acccording to a wish-list of accomplishments that will benefit the wealthiest Americans and the industries that keep them that way, the Bush presidency is a resounding success.

Politics doesn't make integrity impossible - Paul Wellstone was proof of that. But it does provide an ideal environment for con artists and idiots savant like Cheney and his hand puppet.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The argument that integrity and politics cannot coexist seems to have become unusually popular among Bush/Cheney voters in recent years. Where was that "boys will be boys" attitude and the accompanying jaded sigh when conservatives were cheering on Ken Starr's 6-year, $40 million obsession with the Clintons? I honestly believe there is nothing so vile that a Bush voter couldn't sooth his conscience by saying, "Well, they all do that; it's not that unusual for politicians to be serial axe murderers."

Yes, politics forces people of integrity to compromise, and no doubt there are many who lose their integrity along the way. But there is a huge difference between people whose honor is tarnished by the compromises that are necessary to staying in office, and those who had no honor to begin with.

George W. Bush's record as a private businessman was a pretty good indicator of what his presidency would be all about. With him at the helm, a long series of companies were driven into bankruptcy - yet Bush himself came away unscathed, netting the millions he needed to buy his favorite baseball team. Employees and small-time stockholders suffered, but Bush and his cronies got rich.

Judged by an ethical standard, leading a company into bankruptcy would be considered a failure. Judged only by the standard of personal gain, Bush's business career was a success.

Judged by pre-neocon standards, the Bush presidency has been a miserable failure, living up to the worst expectations of everyone who bothered to learn his history and dreaded what was coming: he has led a country from a record budget surplus to a record deficit; led a War on Terror that has spent hundreds of billions in borrowed money without addressing the most basic steps outlined by the 9/11 Commission as necessary to protect Americans from terrorism; led a rape of the environment that earned him the first failing grade ever given by the League of Environmental Voters; promoted fuel-wasting policies while decrying our reliance on foreign oil; and lest we forget, he invaded the wrong country, using "intelligence" provided by a convicted con artist.

(I won't say he led the invasion; patriots like Bush and Cheney prefer to support the troops from the safety of another hemisphere.)

Judged acccording to a wish-list of accomplishments that will benefit the wealthiest Americans and the industries that keep them that way, the Bush presidency is a resounding success.

Politics doesn't make integrity impossible - Paul Wellstone was proof of that. But it does provide an ideal environment for con artists and idiots savant like Cheney and his hand puppet.

The attitude that politicians are all crooked has been around a lot longer than that, probably over 200 years. I've never voted for Bush, by the way, but I doubt that Gore or Kerry are any less dishonest. One thing I will say about Bushy is that he has never claimed to have invented the interrnet.

I don't know what Bush and Cheney were saying about the investigation of the shenanigans of Bill and Hillary Clinton. One was governor of Texas and the other was VP of Halliburton at the time. I do know there was a lot more than Bill getting a blow job and similar activities but the denial of that under oath is what caused his impeachment.

I believe people of integrity are not usually politicians. When I refer to "politicians", I mean people who run for student council in high school, take up law and political science in college, attach themselves to some other politician and spend most of their lives either running for office or trying to get appointed to government politions. Such persons rarely hold honest jobs and use their positions to either steal or gain dominance over their countrymen. Eisenhower and Reagan were not politicians but Nixon and JFK and LBJ and most presidents were. I don't know if I woud call W a politician or not. Businessmen can be just as crooked as politicians.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't think a person can get to be either rich or elected to high office without compromising their integrity to some degree.

For that matter, I don't think someone can get to be 40 without compromising their integrity to some degree either.

As Shereads points out, where they choose to compromise says something about their basic values.

I believe firmly that people can act legally while not acting ethically. That's a proven way to realize ambitions, and a frequent rationalization for rich and/or powerful people. I think many of them come to equate what is legal with what is ethical - in my book, that is damn close to the line between good and evil. It amounts to accepting the dictum that "the end justifies the means", so long as one can give a jury the reasonable doubt that the means weren't illegal. And if there's no proof, there's no crime.

Is the reverse true? ie, can people act ethically while not acting legally? Apart from civil disobedience, I can't come up with an example off the top of my head. I'm sure BushCo would like me to come up with "monitoring US citizens without court approval" as an example of this, but I'm not convinced. It's not like this is an isolated incident of pushing legal limits for ethically dubious acts for these people.

It's difficult for me to understand how people that argue for the death penalty use emotional appeals to justify their viewpoint. some murders are so heinous that death is the only option! Are victims of less-gory murders any less dead? However, when the crime is perjury, there is no degree or circumstance to be considered! Or when the non-crime is lying to the public outside of sworn testimony, there is no illegal act, and therefore no ethical equivalence to be considered. The murder is illegal, and subjective in its degree. The lying may or not be legal, and there is no subjectivity allowed in assessing the damage done to society by the nature of the lie.

 

[shereads]

The attitude that politicians are all crooked has been around a lot longer than that, probably over 200 years. I've never voted for Bush, by the way, but I doubt that Gore or Kerry are any less dishonest. One thing I will say about Bushy is that he has never claimed to have invented the interrnet.

Neither did Al Gore. In his answer to a reporter's question, Gore quoted someone who credited him with inventing the internet. His enemies took the quote out of context and invented the lie that Gore claimed credit. It's a good smear tactic; the smear-ee can explain what really happened until he turns blue, and the legend will only grow. Which is unfortunate, because Gore was, in fact, one of the essential figures in pushing funding for projects that made the internet a component of our lives. The smear has done its work: denied him a historic accomplishment that some of his enemies envied.

How do you compare degrees of dishonesty? Clinton-bashers use the "oath/no oath" criterion. I think it makes more sense to weigh the predictable consequences of one's dishonesty.

If you tell a dozen lies a day about things you believe are no one's business but your own, and nobody dies as a consequence of your dishonesty, is it right to say that you are just as dishonest/lacking in integrity as someone who lied once or twice, knowing it could lead to the deaths of thousands of people?

I don't know what Bush and Cheney were saying about the investigation of the shenanigans of Bill and Hillary Clinton. One was governor of Texas and the other was VP of Halliburton at the time. I do know there was a lot more than Bill getting a blow job and similar activities but the denial of that under oath is what caused his impeachment.

Yes, there was a lot more to the Whitewater investigation than Bill's sex life. Specifically, there was the investigation of the Whitewater scandal. It didn't amount to much, but after four years nobody was going to admit that. Whitewater pre-dated the Clinton presidency by years but was obviously essential to the well-being of the nation, as far as Republicans were concerned - unlike the financial shenangins of GWB, which made it as far as the Securities and Exchange Commission, where a director appointed by GWB's daddy assigned an investigator who had acted as GWB's attorney when he purchased a baseball team using profits from the very transactions that were being investigated; and unlike the Halliburton/Cheney investigation, which is officially still open but rarely makes the news.

When the investigation Starr was authorized to conduct failed to turn up anything shocking enough to recapture the public imagination, it somehow morphed into something much more exciting, and just as relevent to the president's job performance: a sting operation designed to confirm that he hadn't kept his pants zipped. That worked brilliantly for a while, as a diversion from the real work of the White House and Congress. Then the backlash began, and people started muttering that it wasn't anybody's business who sucked what and whether it was a good cigar or a cigarillo. Rather than let all that good material go to waste, maybe someone had the idea that if they got the president pissed off enough about the intrusion into this thing that was none of their business, they could get him to answer a direct questioin about his sex life, under oath. Presto! Impeachment City!

The President Couldn't Be Trusted! It was an outrage! It wasn't about sex after all; it was about integrity.

People who were foaming at the mouth back then, and determined - along with George W. Bush - to bring integrity back to the White House seem strangely unperturbed by GWB's utter lack of it. Is it the oath that makes the difference? Back when GWB and Cheney made the 9/11 commission agree that they would not have to speak under oath - and that there would be no written or recorded records of their testimony - I thought the public would be outraged at the sheer gall, if not suspicious of their reluctance to testify. It wasn't the first time I misunderestimated their supporters' tolerance for Bush/Cheney's bizarre behavior.

Btw, you don't have to tell me that business and politics can be equally crooked. If this White House and Congress were any more closely tied to corporate interests, the letterhead would be "White House, Inc., a Division of Halliburton Industries."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not keen on "revenge" impeachment. I'm not even a Clintonite. I just think that what Bush did was far worse than what Clinton did and is closer to the spirit of what the Framers considered to be "High Crimes And Misdemeanors".

Of course, I don't expect any action on this from a GOP Congress that has decided to extend America's version of the Enabling Act in this country for another month.

Actually, Clinton's misbehavior was exactly what the defintion of high crimes and misdemeanors is. It was originally prosecuted when judges were caught with prostitutes or in adulterous affiars, etc. High crimes in that sense were exactly what Clinton was guilty of.

As far as his crime, perjury by the man charged with enforcing the law? I think his contempt for the foundation of our justice system, a man's oath meaning something, pretty much says it all.

As to Bush, he hasn't been charged with anything criminal I know of. I doubt he is guilty of high crimes in the original sense. I tend to believe his handlers have been careful to keep him on the technically legal side of all his actions.

 

[amicus]

The hatred of Clinton did not stem from his sexual escapes before or during his White House stay.

I saw and heard him speak in Oregon during his tenure. I was greatly impressed by his intelligence and verbosity. I also closely followed his time in the White House and read and listened to most of his speaches and as a radio commentator, analyzed and commented on them.

I began to discover two things: one, that he did not follow through on the content of his speeches, did not deliver what he promised to any sector he addressed; two, I began to discover that he had no absolute moral foundation or ethical basis in his words or his actions.

In other words, he was a typical left wing liberal politician, functioning as a working moral relativist in all areas, foreign policy, domestic policy and of course, as vividly displayed, personal behaviour.

The man is a total disgrace to the office and to mankind in general.


amicus...

 

[Guest]

and as a radio commentator...

OMG - Amicus is Rush! I knew it!


Seriously, a political blog raised an interesting question yesterday :

When was the last time there was a major terror alert? They were something like a regular occurence for the eighteen months or so before the 2004 election. And through 2004 the administration pushed the line that al Qaida was aiming to disrupt the elections themselves. But as near I can tell there hasn't been a single one since election day.

...

How do we explain what appears to be a night and day difference between the year prior to November 2004 and the year since in terms of terror alerts and scares?

Don't misinterpret. I am not suggesting using fear and manipulation for votes is impeachable. Just an interesting question, and I didn't see any point in starting a new thread when their was already this active political one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Actually, Clinton's misbehavior was exactly what the defintion of high crimes and misdemeanors is. It was originally prosecuted when judges were caught with prostitutes or in adulterous affiars, etc. High crimes in that sense were exactly what Clinton was guilty of.

As far as his crime, perjury by the man charged with enforcing the law? I think his contempt for the foundation of our justice system, a man's oath meaning something, pretty much says it all.

As to Bush, he hasn't been charged with anything criminal I know of. I doubt he is guilty of high crimes in the original sense. I tend to believe his handlers have been careful to keep him on the technically legal side of all his actions.

Maybe in the Victorian Era. Like I said, however, men like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. considered it far more serious and criminal when people abused their office. As far as I can tell, abuses of power were more in line with what the Framers had in mind. They were not prudes (except a few, like William Paterson). For instance, one of the Signers of the Constitution, William Blount, was impeached for abuses of his office when he was a federal judge.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Maybe in the Victorian Era. Like I said, however, men like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. considered it far more serious and criminal when people abused their office. As far as I can tell, abuses of power were more in line with what the Framers had in mind. They were not prudes (except a few, like William Paterson). For instance, one of the Signers of the Constitution, William Blount, was impeached for abuses of his office when he was a federal judge.

Try the 1890's and onward until World War II. the most common high crime was visiting a prostitute. Adultury was also up there. High crimes and Misdomeaners were moral failures. In a broader context, sometimes ethical failures which you would term abuse of the office, but which were tried as failures of the person's character. To impeachone's character is still a phraseology you ocasionally see, it traces back to this definition.

I'm not advocationg a return to that era, merely pointing out that Clinton was guilty of moral/ethical lapses and by the definition the framer's knew, he was impeachable.

Obviously, we no longer impeach public officals for renting No Man's Land Vol. 284 and jerking off. Our conception of morality has moved on, but the process takes it's name, impeachment from the era and high crimes also come from that era's morality.

His crime, perjury, is a diferent matter. It's a felony. And he should have been removed from office for doing it. He was well aware of the consequences were he discoverd and he was equally aware he could have simply opted to exercise his fifth amendment rights. In either case he could have avoided answering the question truthfully, but he CHOSE to lie under oath. That choice indicates a complete contempt for the system he, as president and head of the executive branch, was charged with upholding.

 

[cantdog]

And so did Bush's perjury. But he will neither be impeached nor convicted by the present Congress.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And so did Bush's perjury. But he will neither be impeached nor convicted by the present Congress.

When did Bush perjure himself since bcoming president Cant? Not trying to be combative, but I do not recall this.

 

[impressive]

I found this interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/*

The overwhelming percentage kind of blew me away. (Nevermind that those voting may have no real idea what constitutes an impeachable offense.)

I know that such polls have little integrity ... but still ... 85% over 125,000+ votes?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Try the 1890's and onward until World War II. the most common high crime was visiting a prostitute. Adultury was also up there. High crimes and Misdomeaners were moral failures. In a broader context, sometimes ethical failures which you would term abuse of the office, but which were tried as failures of the person's character. To impeachone's character is still a phraseology you ocasionally see, it traces back to this definition.

I'm not advocationg a return to that era, merely pointing out that Clinton was guilty of moral/ethical lapses and by the definition the framer's knew, he was impeachable.

Obviously, we no longer impeach public officals for renting No Man's Land Vol. 284 and jerking off. Our conception of morality has moved on, but the process takes it's name, impeachment from the era and high crimes also come from that era's morality.

His crime, perjury, is a diferent matter. It's a felony. And he should have been removed from office for doing it. He was well aware of the consequences were he discoverd and he was equally aware he could have simply opted to exercise his fifth amendment rights. In either case he could have avoided answering the question truthfully, but he CHOSE to lie under oath. That choice indicates a complete contempt for the system he, as president and head of the executive branch, was charged with upholding.

That was part of a Victorian morality which did not exist a century before, in the time when the Constitutional Convention was in session. Rather, some people held similar views, but they were in the minority. Like I said in another thread, there was a saying in Virginia that a virgin was a girl who could outrun her uncle.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

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

That is a relevant link. The only "high crimes and misdemeanors" mentioned by name are very serious ones like treason and bribery, leading me to conclude that abuses of power were primarily what the Framers meant.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I found this interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/*

The overwhelming percentage kind of blew me away. (Nevermind that those voting may have no real idea what constitutes an impeachable offense.)

I know that such polls have little integrity ... but still ... 85% over 125,000+ votes?

One of the safeguards of our system is that impeachment is so difficult to accomplish. And once you build a case, we have yet to have a president removed from office by that method. It keeps us from facing popular discontent or political wrangling creating Chief executive de jour.

Nothing Bush has done, that I know of, is a grand slam for impeachment. The secret wire taps and spying can be justified via the war on terror and its needs, bolstered by implied authority granted the executive via USA Patriot. I don't think, he has crossed a line, whreby his plausible deniability is sacrificed. If you have noticed, his handlers have always had a legal opinion in hand before they screw up. thoise opinions, provide him with fairly strong cover. he can argue that he was acting within the law. Even if those opinions prove to be incorrect, he can still say he was acting in good faith and now that the judicial system has ruled the opinions were wrong, he will adhere to the judges decisions in all future matters.

He may not be the sharpest kniofe in the drawer, but those around him seem to have an exceptional grasp of what he can do, cannot do, and what things he can try to do and still skip away safely if discovered.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I found this interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/*

The overwhelming percentage kind of blew me away. (Nevermind that those voting may have no real idea what constitutes an impeachable offense.)

I know that such polls have little integrity ... but still ... 85% over 125,000+ votes?

That is a surprising percentage allright. However, that is partly a matter of those who are voting. If the same poll were to appear in Foxnews.com, the results might be the opposite.

 

[impressive]

That is a surprising percentage allright. However, that is partly a matter of those who are voting. If the same poll were to appear in Foxnews.com, the results might be the opposite.

Very true.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

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

That is a relevant link. The only "high crimes and misdemeanors" mentioned by name are very serious ones like treason and bribery, leading me to conclude that abuses of power were primarily what the Framers meant.

I tend not to trust wikpedia too much. The first federal offical impeached was impeached for Drunkeness. You seem to want to disassociate the moral ity from the crimes. Treason and bribery were merely the crimes that were unambiguous and thus named in their own right. the actual use has been, more often than not, an extention of partisan politics. Since you won't find toomany cases wehre you can nail him for bribery or treason, the actual crimes used are a lot less severe and moral failures were the most common.

You could argue these are most common because they incited the wrath of the morally minded public more easily at the time, but that is the genisis of the term High crimes and misdemeanors. Public drunkeness, picking up a ho, blooking someone's old lady, etc. were alot more common than treason.