Impeach Bush now

October 10, 2003 8:04 AM

Impeach "the crazies" now!"Can there be any greater violation of the public trust than to bear false witness to the people's representatives in pursuit of short-term political gain? Can there be injuries more immediate to society than to send American citizens to their death on a fraudulent pretext? With each shooting of a U.S. soldier in Iraq, the case for impeachment grows stronger."
posted by acrobat (28 comments total)

This article once again poses a lot of fine questions. But before we launch off into another rant-fest, might I suggest that we discuss the first question posed:
"Why aren't Americans talking seriously about impeachment?"
posted by ahimsakid at 8:26 AM on October 10, 2003

After Bush's speech yesterday - "I acted because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman.", I think we should impeach him for either stupidity or insanity.

The only madman who has threatened us in recent years is the leader of North Korea.

With evidence mounting that the madman in charge of Iraq was a braggart who couldn't attack the US if he wanted to, why is the president clinging to this rhetoric? More and more I'm thinking that Bush may be pathological. His fixation with the guy who tried to kill his dad is getting more than a little creepy.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:32 AM on October 10, 2003

ahimsakid: Cuz lying is only lying if the lies are something you don't agree with?
posted by i_cola at 8:38 AM on October 10, 2003

Somewhat related:

President Bush told the press on Tuesday that he doesn't "have any idea" whether the senior administration officials who blew a CIA operative's cover will ever be found. But if he just asked his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming that they weren't involved, and referred anyone who wouldn't to the FBI, it's possible he could flush out the perpetrators in a day. To date, the President hasn't even discussed this matter with his staff.

We've already done the President's homework for him by writing the affidavit. Now let's show him how easy it is for innocent people to legally declare their innocence. You can sign the affidavit and send it to the President in under a minute by filling out the form below.
posted by muckster at 8:40 AM on October 10, 2003

It wold make sense first to understand what is and is not an impeachable offense. If Bush "lied" he can defend himself by blaing incorrect intelligence analysis. Remember, too, that Congress gave huge support for the war.
posted by Postroad at 8:40 AM on October 10, 2003

Why is it that Americans aren't talking seriously about impeachment? I guess because we don't seriously talk to each other about anything anymore. We yell and rant and blindly scream "traitor" or "fascist" at each other without really talking about the facts. The problem as I see it is that no one in this country wants to admit to being wrong. Clinton tried to dodge the Lewinsky thing until he couldn't do it any longer. No one it the congress wants to admit that they really didn't think about the ramifications of their vote for war at the time. They were just focused on getting re-elected. The people behind Bush will never admit to making a mistake or miscalculation. They just keep changing the reasons for war until something sticks.

I just don't get it. I'm wrong about things all the time. I don't like it but I find it easier to admit it right away than to keep trying to convince someone that I'm right.

The truth is that Saddam was an evil man, resolved. The evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction was sketchy at best, resolved. There was no clear plan for winning the peace, resolved. But we are now in there and the phrase "you broke it, you bought it." has never been more relevant than now. We need to show some respect to the UN and other countries that we dismissed and get some help.
posted by bas67 at 8:55 AM on October 10, 2003

Icola"Cuz lying is only lying if the lies are something you don't agree with?"
Can't be clear what your intent is here. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?
Does anyone still believe that Dubya did not purposely deceive us regarding Iraq?
Anybody else impressed by PBS' Frontline story "Truth, War & Consequences" ?
posted by ahimsakid at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2003

Michael Moore's talking about it.
posted by yoga at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2003

Finishing off what his Dad didn't in Iraq was probably the main reason Dad and his cronies leveraged George W., into office.

By all means begin impeachment. Didn't George W., outlaw that with the Patriot Act? Just to cover his ass, you see. That's what I'm afraid of. Anyone trying to begin impeachment can just be told that that is a terrorist act during time of war and bingo, case closed.

The article brings up a good point, September 7th, 2002 being the operative date.

Can bearing false witness to the people's representatives in pursuit of short-term political gain be an impeachable offense.

interesting side bar regarding the paper with said article
All this from a paper that sponsors a police state. That being Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Imagine that. I just wanted to mention that the same paper certainly didn't object to police interference in provincial [state] politics. Ought they be pointing their finger south of the 48th? Notice anything amiss in your own backyard?
posted by alicesshoe at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2003

Hey postroad, was the linked article too long for you?
Just kidding, but the information is in there.

"the president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
...
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the conduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust," he wrote. "They are of a nature which may with particular propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Here's an encyclopedia entry for more info.
posted by milovoo at 9:36 AM on October 10, 2003

ahimsakid: *heh* Seriously, a lot of people - mainly in the US - want to believe that Iraq had WMD & GWB was A-OK to go after SH. He didn't lie because they wanted it to happen.

And spell my name right please. Thanks.
posted by i_cola at 9:47 AM on October 10, 2003

As long as the House is controlled by Republicans, it won't happen. (Another reason to vote next year.)
posted by amberglow at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2003

But if he just asked his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming that they weren't involved, and referred anyone who wouldn't to the FBI, it's possible he could flush out the perpetrators in a day.

this would likely raise serious 5th amendment issues, but it's certainly cute.
posted by probablysteve at 9:59 AM on October 10, 2003

Complacency. Period. The majority of American's couldn't be bothered to actually spend any of their precious time on "issues" beyond their personal plight. And since ours is a "representative" gov't, the so-called representatives will vote the "majority."

Far more disturbing though, should be that even when so many put aside their own agenda's temporarily and took to the streets, signs and fists in air, to oppose this war before it happened, all their efforts fell on deaf ears.

And that just sctratched the surface of why Americans aren't talking seriously about impeachment. The list is endless with none of the reasons ever truely being completely valid, but hey, as long as your city didn't get bombed, who really cares, right?
posted by LouReedsSon at 10:34 AM on October 10, 2003

"Why aren't Americans talking seriously about impeachment?"

Probably because at its peak, 75% of the population supported the war, and even now half believe it was worthwhile. Not exactly a groundswell of support for impeachment. Sometimes it really does pay to remember there's a big world outside of MetaFilter.

Of course, there's also the pesky technicality that there's no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

But if he just asked his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming that they weren't involved, and referred anyone who wouldn't to the FBI, it's possible he could flush out the perpetrators in a day.

If Novak or the other six reporters would reveal their sources, we could flush out the perpetrators in a minute.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:02 AM on October 10, 2003

Who is saying that Americans are not talking about impeaching George W. Bush?

• Vote To Impeach George W. Bush
• Impeach Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft & Rumsfeld Home Page
• Impeach Bush
• Yahoo! Groups : impeach-bush
• Impeach George W. Bush Petition
• Impeach Bush: The Four Reasons
• Impeach Bush, Resist the Bushoccupation

There's 74,300 results when you search for Impeach Bush on Google.

On the other hand, there is only 45,700 results when you search for Impeach Clinton on Google. (Al Gore has 20,800 results)

I've been very vocal about discussing impeachment of Bush with friends and co-workers. I've got a coffee mug and I'm planning on wearing this shirt on Saturday to the airport.

I don't think this is an issue of American's not discussing Impeachment. It's an issue with our congressional leaders and the corporate media not discussing impeachment. We're being sold out my friends.
posted by DragonBoy at 11:03 AM on October 10, 2003

Hey, quick question. Not trying to muckrake here; seriously curious.

I presume that many those of you who are so gal-danged in favor of impeaching the president were also the ones who were outraged over the recall in California.

How is one situation different than the other? I defy anyone to provide any concrete evidence of any intentional deceit, malice, or anything other than incompetence from Bush. (And, sadly, perhaps, incompetence is not an impeachable offense.)
posted by jammer at 11:06 AM on October 10, 2003

Jammer, why do you hate Metafilter?
posted by UncleFes at 11:23 AM on October 10, 2003

Jammer, why do you hate Metafilter?

I don't, I just hate you. ;)
posted by jammer at 11:26 AM on October 10, 2003

I like Kevin Drum's analysis of how we got here.
posted by goethean at 11:32 AM on October 10, 2003

If Novak or the other six reporters would reveal their sources, we could flush out the perpetrators in a minute.

But they are protected as journalists, and no one is saying that even Novak broke the law. Yeah, it would be cool if they broke their silence, but I'm sure that some of them have "off the record." The real point is that the president obviously doesn't want to know who did this, or he could find out in five minutes. He could demand the truth from everyone on his staff, have the White House counsel bring in a polygrapher, and have our answers by the time the evening news went on.

I defy anyone to provide any concrete evidence of any intentional deceit, malice, or anything other than incompetence from Bush.

Eh? Ultimately, though, he needs to be placed under oath to answer some serious questions. I wonder if being sworn in under oath would budge him from claiming that he "has no idea" who conducted the Plame leak.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:32 AM on October 10, 2003

BOYCOTT POLITICAL BLAH-BLAH
posted by kablam at 11:34 AM on October 10, 2003

jammer: Umm... citing reports that never existed? There's a difference between incompetence and playing make believe.

Oh, and I was for getting Davis out of office, I just don't think Arnold is a qualified leader. He'll be a puppet just like Bush.
posted by klaruz at 11:44 AM on October 10, 2003

my dick is so hard right now
posted by poopy at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2003

I voted no on the recall, and opposed it not only because I didn't like the replacement candidates, but also because I felt it was a case of misplacing the blame.

That being said, I don't and won't support a recall of Arnold, as distasteful as I find him, nor do I support an impeachment of Bush. 2004 will come soon enough, and I'll do my best to get him out of office the old fashioned way, vote tampering by voting.
posted by mosch at 11:58 AM on October 10, 2003

Of course, there's also the pesky technicality that there's no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

Wrong. Revealing the identity of a CIA operative to anyone without proper clearance is a felony. It is also treason according to Poppy Bush. Covering up for known felons is a felony too.

If Novak or the other six reporters would reveal their sources, we could flush out the perpetrators in a minute.

True, but a quicker, shorter method would be for Dear Leader to tell us instead who among his elite are guilty. Breathtakingly simple and elegant.
(Not picking on pardonyou, just thought the statements deserved a reply.)

Until the multinational corporate media behemoths decide that impeachment is good for them the buzz will not be created. Meanwhile the lazy media whores in their employ will continue to copy and paste the latest talking points from Dear Leader's minions.
posted by nofundy at 12:44 PM on October 10, 2003

dragonboy: I don't think this is an issue of American's not discussing Impeachment. It's an issue with our congressional leaders and the corporate media not discussing impeachment.

Well put, the second the media takes Bush's crimes seriously, the faster his house of cards will collapse. In a media culture, crime and truth are really determined by a handful of well connected editors.
posted by skallas at 5:52 PM on October 10, 2003

It all depends on what the word "war" is.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:20 PM on October 10, 2003