Poll Results: 45% Favor Impeachment

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is incompetence grounds for impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but lying to the public to justify a war is, in my opinion!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to impeach Hillary too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not know she started a war... She probably, like so many misguided people, believed Bush. Hey I did... I am NOT guilty.. I never thought someone would be able to lie the way Bush did, especially holding that office. I have learned, however. I will not forget. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yours is truly a strawman argument, showing that my criticism bites! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Bush deserves to be impeached just for signing McCain-Feingold...

Sources said Bush believed McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. But rather than honor his oath of office to uphold the constitution, he chose to sign it believing the supreme court would strike it down and he would avoid the political fallout for being against "campaign finance reform". It was a shallow and cowardly act. To my amazement, 5 nitwits in the supreme court said it was constitutional to limit free speech on the radio and TV 30/60 days before an election.... In my opinion, Bush, the 5 supreme court justices, and every member of congress that voted for McCain-Feingold deserved to be impeached... For McCain he has a history of unconstitutional bills. E.g. Revenue bills are suppose to originate in the house but at least twice he has initiated revenue bills in the Senate. Once, he withdrew the bill after he was call on it. Twice on immigration. This bill was killed before it left the senate. Several GOP members in the house had planned a lawsuit against the immigration bill should it had survived the senate....

McCain-Feingold was a direct assault on the 1st amendment.
Not being able to criticize incumbents 30/60 days before an election is 100% UNconstitutional.... If it is OK to limit free speech 30/60 days before an election then why not make it 180 days before an election? or perhaps 360 days before an election? McCain-Feingold is correctly called the "Incumbent Protection Bill".... For better or worse, Radio/TV is the best avenue for challengers to make their case against an incumbent. To take this tactic away further entrenches the political elite and makes them more out-of-touch with their constituents. E.g. The immigration bill would have passed the Senate despite the polls which showed the people were HEAVILY against this amnesty bill(even the Dems). Talk radio was KEY to motivating voters to call the Senate shutting down their switchboard....and intimidating the senators to respect the wishes of the voters... To the annoyance of many Dems, the talk radio audience includes a significant amount liberals who like to listen to the other side. Many of these liberals got fired up about the amnesty bill and were calling their senators as well.... Talk radio saved the day on the immigration bill.....

This is one one HUGE beef with Fred Thompson who signed McCain-Feingold.... I heard Fred's explanation on Fox saying he signed the bill despite not liking the 30/60 day free speech restrictions on the radio/TV. Complete BS.... Fred talks a good game but him signing McCain-Feingold is a huge red flag....

[XxGodJrxX]

I don't understand this thread. People are advocating impeaching Bush for signing unpopular bills and being incompetent. The CONSTITUTION says that the President can only be impeached for a HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. What high crime or misdemeanor can Bush be attributed with? The only thing that may come close is if he was directly involved in the Valerie Plame case.

There have been Presidents in the past that have committed treason of the highest magnitude, and are celebrated as heroes by most Americans. Bush hasn't done anything to warrant impeachment. This is coming from somebody that has never voted Republican, and actively campaigned in favor of Kerry.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is incompetence grounds for impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but lying to the public to justify a war is, in my opinion!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to impeach Hillary too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not know she started a war...

[/ QUOTE ]

She voted to authorize it.


[ QUOTE ]
She probably, like so many misguided people, believed Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like these people?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Note these are all before Bush took office. Were they all bamboozled by Bush's lies?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Does not violating his oath to uphold the constitution qualify?

The constitution is the highest law of the law. Where specified, it trumps all other laws. By signing McCain-Feingold he violated the 1st amendment. BUSH BROKE THE LAW. He broke his oath to uphold the constitution of the United Sates...just like his father broke his oath about not raising taxes.... Breaking the law is by defintion a crime....yes? The constituion is the highest law of the land. Crime + Highest Law = High Crime .....yes?

The apple does not fall far from the tree... Bush can go to hell. I can't wait till he is out of office....

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
By signing McCain-Feingold [Bush] violated the 1st amendment. BUSH BROKE THE LAW. He broke his oath to uphold the constitution of the United Sates...

[/ QUOTE ]
If only there was some sort of "supreme" court to rule on this law's consitutionality.

Signing laws into act that are later ruled unconstitutional is not illegal. Similarly, signing laws into act that are later ruled constitutional (as McCain-Feingold was) is also not illegal, even if you say it is.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is incompetence grounds for impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but lying to the public to justify a war is, in my opinion!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to impeach Hillary too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not know she started a war...

[/ QUOTE ]

She did.

[ QUOTE ]
She probably, like so many misguided people, believed Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, she and Bush both got their information from the same intelligence. Are you also going to try and tell me that Bill Clinton was just believing Bush's lies when he was president?

[ QUOTE ]
Yours is truly a strawman argument, showing that my criticism bites! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not a straw man at all. You're all double standard here and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by Bush hatred.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Signing laws into act that are later ruled unconstitutional is not illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course they are.....hence the rejecting of the unconstitutional law. Traditionally there is no punishment for violating one's oath to uphold the constituion...


[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, signing laws into act that are later ruled constitutional (as McCain-Feingold was) is also not illegal, even if you say it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? Your opinion and $4 will buy a cup of Starbucks coffee...

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you also going to try and tell me that Bill Clinton was just believing Bush's lies when he was president?


[/ QUOTE ]

LDO !!

everyone knows that Karl Rove was hiding in the Clinton's bedroom closet waiting for Bill & Hill to fall asleep and then using hypnosugestion on them to advance the future Bush agenda.

As a bonus he caught some really amazing footage of Hillary nailing Bill with a strap-on. .

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By signing McCain-Feingold [Bush] violated the 1st amendment. BUSH BROKE THE LAW. He broke his oath to uphold the constitution of the United Sates...

[/ QUOTE ]
If only there was some sort of "supreme" court to rule on this law's consitutionality.

Signing laws into act that are later ruled unconstitutional is not illegal. Similarly, signing laws into act that are later ruled constitutional (as McCain-Feingold was) is also not illegal, even if you say it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he knows a law is unconstitutional and signs it anyway, that's a blatant violation of his oath of office, which as far as I'm concerned, qualifies as treason.