[Bobboau]

Bush is looseing ground FAST, by the upcomeing elections his party is very much likely to lose it's congressional majority, when that happens the Democrats will be in a prime position to launch impeachment hearings. the question is do you think they will actualy do it? and if they do, will the impeachment lead to a conviction? is there enough evedence to prove that Bush was more than incompetent, but actualy corupt that he actualy lied, ie knew absolutely there were no WMDs but continued to push for the war.

[aldo_14]

No, even thought he should.  to an outsider, at least, the American democratic system seems designed to protect an elected leader from this type of criticism/accountability.

[Nuclear1]

No, even thought he should.  to an outsider, at least, the American democratic system seems designed to protect an elected leader from this type of criticism/accountability.

Only when the same party holds both the executive and legislative branches simultaneously. Take a situation like Clinton--Republican-controlled Congress impeached him, and it is very likely, as Bob said, that a Congress controlled by the Democrats would impeach Bush in a heartbeat.

[Mefustae]

True, but I have doubts they'll actually impeach him even when given the oppertunity. The question here is whether a Congress dominated by Democrats will have the balls to actually begin the impeachment process, as - IMO - the Government and democratic system as a whole within the US has changed a great deal from Clintonian times [ie. that euphoric and yet politically correct time of the 90's].

[Deepblue]

How can you impeach somebody when they havn't actually legally committed a crime?

Sure you can say he lied, etc. and so forth, but he hasn't done it on the stand and committed perjury.

[aldo_14]

How can you impeach somebody when they havn't actually legally committed a crime?

Sure you can say he lied, etc. and so forth, but he hasn't done it on the stand and committed perjury.

i would imagine, for example, that any connection with illegal wiretapping would be considered a crime; I'm pretty sure it's considered barred by the Constitution (at least to the extent that would require being debated in court).

[Deepblue]

I don't believe what the NSA is doing is actually barred by the Constitution. As far as I have read/understood it at least. If it is, then you might as well impeach FDR and Wilson post-mortem.

[Mefustae]

What about breaking UN Law? When hippie protesters say the Iraq invasion was 'illegal', they weren't kidding. There are international laws established by the UN to prevent superpower nations from invading smaller nations, meaning the invasion ordered by Bush was an illegal act, and therefore he has committed a crime. Would that count within an impeachment?

[Deepblue]

UN law = US Constitution!

The UN doesn't follow it's own bloody laws/provisions. Bunch of bloody hypocrites. The last thing you want to bring up in an argument to try and impeach bush is the UN. In fact, invading Iraq was following UN provisions better than the UN itself was.

[aldo_14]

I don't believe what the NSA is doing is actually barred by the Constitution. As far as I have read/understood it at least. If it is, then you might as well impeach FDR and Wilson post-mortem.

Well, the 4th amendment is;
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Of course, that's aside from the issue as to whether you think it's acceptable for what purports to be the worlds greatest democracy and an exporter of freedom, to legally permit and continue to allow the warrentless tapping of phones or the alleged storage of trillians of private phone call records.  Certainly I don't think the writers would have intended, in writing the constitution, that it could be ignored by the simple development of new technologies.

What about breaking UN Law? When hippie protesters say the Iraq invasion was 'illegal', they weren't kidding. There are international laws established by the UN to prevent superpower nations from invading smaller nations, meaning the invasion ordered by Bush was an illegal act, and therefore he has committed a crime. Would that count within an impeachment?

AFAIK the US does not hold itself applicable to UN law where it doesn't suit it.  Both the Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay have been declared illegal (the latter to do with torture) by the UN, and the US simply disregards such criticism.  I also believe the US has broken/ignored the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the abortive development of nuclear 'bunker busters'.  For example.

Quick Edit; Deepblue, the US does and cannot not dictate what the UN needs to do to follow its own provisions; why do you think it is the United Nations?  Would you accept it if China unilaterally decided Taiwan was in breach of some UN regulation and declared war?

[Col. Fishguts]

I don't think it will happen, but it should. But then, he shouldn't have been reelected in 2004 either, by an out-of-US POV.

[aldo_14]

I don't think it will happen, but it should. But then, he shouldn't have been reelected in 2004 either, by an out-of-US POV.

As a side thing; http://www.slate.com/id/2109242/

[Mongoose]

I don't think it will happen, but it should. But then, he shouldn't have been reelected in 2004 either, by an out-of-US POV.

As a side thing; http://www.slate.com/id/2109242/

Wow, that's some wank-fest there.  Nice to know that the proper function of our democracy is to elect someone who is approved by the rest of the world.

[aldo_14]

Wow, that's some wank-fest there.  Nice to know that the proper function of our democracy is to elect someone who is approved by the rest of the world.

It's interesting how you can use the Presidents' foreign policy failures to spin criticism of the electee into some sort of attack on US democracy.

[Col. Fishguts]

Of course it's none of our business, and I don't want to fall in the all too popular America-bashing.
But if the self-proclaimed leader of the free, democratic world reelects a president, that had several major ****-ups in his first 4 years, we can only shake our heads in disbelief.
In most European countries (with Italy being the exception), leading politicians are forced to resign if they produce one major ****-up, leave alone an ongoing series.

[aldo_14]

If the US can invade a country to invoke 'regime change', and criticise countries for opposing them at the UN ('old europe'), then I'm sure they're only too happy to accept criticism of their own governments' actions and policies.

Right?

[Scuddie]

First of all, **** the UN.  It is now nothing more than a crime family based on bribes and economic interest.

Secondly, the conservatives love the power.  I believe an impeachment will be attempted, but nothing will come of it, simply because it wont be allowed by the republicans.  When all 3 branches of government are controlled by the same party, checks and balances go right out the window.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm going to paraphrase Bill Maher regarding this issue: There's a whole laundry list of things for which Bush could be legitimately impeached, but he really doesn't deserve to be kicked out for something huge and important. What he deserves is to suffer Clinton's fate, and be impeached for absolutely nothing.

[Nix]

Why should America follow the laws and rules of a corrupt orginazation like the UN?  According to most people, isn't Bush arent' we corrupt enough? 
No, seriously, why should America follow the rules of the UN, who supports other interests that would harm the American people?  That's just utter nonsense. 

Democrats love the power JUST AS MUCH as the Republicans, make no mistake.  First thing, if Pelosi is elected (God FORBID SHE IS) she'll probably institue "investigations" against Bush and start the impeachment movement.  Oh yes, and the interviews with Pelosi... Oh my god, how stupid.  Hosts calling her "speaker Pelosi" supposedly as a "slip of the tongue".  Bull****.  That's the only reason they're wanting to get the power back.  Just to make the Republicans look bad.  Not to improve the country and make it the best it can be, they just want to sling sand in each other's faces and see who can cry the loudest.

[phreak]

You guys realize if bush is impeached then cheney becomes president?

My solution is: kill all politicians