ExNavyAmerican

Hagel: Some Might Seek Bush Impeachment, GOP Senator Says Impeachment Possible If President Pushes Ahead With Iraq Strategy - CBS News

There are absolutely no grounds for impeachment, but that's the left for you.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

RadioM

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed."

Despite being an avowed leftist and against the 'hunt-for-WMD' style of the Iraq war I must say that I always thought that 'the people' expressed their opinion during ELECTIONS!

If this were grounds for impeachment (based I assume solely on opinion polls) would not every president be up for impeachment at least a couple of times per term?

Seems a strange premis for such an important decision. Or is this guy positioning himself for something after the next US election?

SnowLeopard

I wouldn't go that far in statement, no grounds, but only because the Constitution has been so open to interpretation over the centuries. There are several sections which, in interpretation, could be applied ...... if enough of the senate holds that interpretation.

Take your choice, Habias Corpus, defending the Constitution, Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of said Office, etc.. Not saying it is there but it might be there in interpretation. Just as some official said during Clinton's dance with impeachment "This is ridiculous; impeachment was meant for the removal of tyrants, not this!" (wtte). I forget who said it, however.

No grounds? Not quite, when we have been redefining our Constitution, our history, right and left, for years.
----------------------------------------------------
("Captain, Captain, save your strength. These people are sworn to live and die at my command two hundred years before you were born."--Khan to Terrill, (w,stte), ST II:TWOK)

Ray

What will be achieved by impeaching someone who has hardly much time left?

Maybe to prevent him for going his way which is not giving the instant result that people want? If so, valid!

If he was to be impeached, it should have been done earlier.

The die has been cast and it is too late to change anything that will ensure the return to those days when the US was unchallenged on the international field.

Now, even little nations are talking tough. It will take a lot to get them out of this habit!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

SnowLeopard

(all interpretative, not saying "judgement" either way)

Oh, a few things, here and there. First of all, it is the reminder that one is always accountable. It is a reminder that the US justice system is relentless, that it doesn't forget. It is a reminder not to be a sore loser and try to really muck up things in the last days. A president of the superpower of the world can do a lot of bad in a very short time. Tied up with that is the historical note. Some may note that this or that person was the worst president but that is always argueable, changeable, over time. Being impeached, however, that's kind of hard to shake out of the history books.

Next, he got there originally because he was saying that because my dad was president, I should be president. It won't help any other member of the family if there is an impeachment attached to the name.

It makes an example out of a president. It shows to future presidents that they are accountable, that the people are willing to do what is necessary. It shows to the rest of the world that the country is willing to remove a bad situation. Ie, all Americans may be held responsible in belief for allowing this or that person to be elected; if they remove that person, then world opinion may shift slightly.

A few things, here and there.
-----------------------------------------
("I understand you have finally caught up with the killers of (child) Daniel Lewin."--Judge Hardin
"Yes, finally. We (the police) are not necessarily swift, but we are relentless."--Detective Lowes, (w,stte), "The Star Chamber")

ExNavyAmerican

According to the constitution, and I quote, "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes, and misdemeanors."

Lying, though morally wrong, is not unlawfull: perjury is, but he has never testified before congress, or a judge while under oath; therefore he can't commit perjury. And there is precious little proof of other illegal activity-except in left-wing conspiracy theories.

SnowLeopard

As previously noted, it is all open to interpretation but

18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Just two of the "charges" that certain parties have wanted to bring against Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and others.

Now, one could always argue that the above are invalid because if they were done, they were done in due process of the law.

Maybe yes, maybe no .................. that's what makes impeachments. That's what made the case of Andrew Johnson. They said he couldn't fire people he appointed and confirmed by the Senate but the counter arguement was that he didn't appoint them (I think, it's been quite a while since I've looked at that point of US history). Others say Lincoln was up for impeachment because he suspended the right of Habias Corpus which a president can do where there is rebellion or invasion but supposedly Lincoln wouldn't allow the term "war" to be used because he didn't want to give credance to the south that they were now a seperate nation. Without that, it's debatable, hence open to interpretation, whether he illegally suspended it.

And so forth.

What it comes down to in the present is whether or not enough in the Congress so interpret the situation to swing the vote. If so, then one can probably find a charge.
------------------------------------------------------
("He has never broken the law, at least not seriously."--Spock talking about the trader Jones, (w,stte), ST:TOS "The Trouble with Tribbles")

ExNavyAmerican

SnowLeopord;

You're proably right: they probably trump up a charge, but that would prove complete dishonesty on the left's part. I don't think that they could succeed in impeachment, AND removal from office, though. It is pretty much even in the Senate, and I thimk it would be impossible to remove him from office, but the dems' majority in the house may be enough to impeach him, but I doubt it. Impeaching a president is a measure rarely used. Then again, the dems may just be desparate enough to make Bush's administration rife with scandals to try.

Kassad

It would be a smear against the Republican party, and thus a political victory for the Democrats in the upcoming election. I'm no political strategist, but Hagel (a Republican) may have opened a narrow door for the Democrats. Although, Hagel did not state the President should be impeached, which leads me to believe that the media is sensationalizing his negative comments about the war.

Dreadnought

They may try it but I seriously doubt it will get very far and now your ass is hanging out for even attempting it.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Bluesman

This is completely RIDICULOUS.

Exactly correct: policy differences - and that's what this comes down to - are what ELECTIONS are about.

There is NO GROUNDS for impeachment, even reaching as far afield as Snow Leopard has.

And as far as being a victory for the Left if they tried this weak crap? They'd be HAMMERED for it by the voters, who have a dam' sight more sense than to go for this idiocy.

I swear, I am seeing the 1970's unfold again, right before my eyes. The world is completely upside down.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

ExNavyAmerican

Bluesman:

Pretty much my thoughts. I rememer the 70s, and I was sure that Nixon wouldn't be impeached, and I was right. But not quite in the way I wanted... I hope the same doesn't happen here.

BenRoethig

It sound to me like they're setting up the Democrats in a trap.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Ray

It would be too ingenuous to expect anyone to lay any trap.

Right now, the trap is Iraq and the US has played into the hands of the Islamist trap.

Just the right environment has been created - a fight between Americans themselves, while they (the Islamists) chisel away in Iraq! The correct recipe to weaken the US.

It is time that Americans stop quibbling amongst themselves and grow the glint in their eyes to get the job done, even if were a mistake in the first place of biting more than what one could chew.

There is no doubt that one should get back the boys from Iraq the earliest, but if it can't be done, it is just too bad. True, more shall die and more sacrificed to the ill conceived war, but then it is better to be valiant and sacrifice, rather than calling its quits and moving back as Porus' Army!

Bluesman

I mean it in a rather larger, more comprehensive sense. The impeachment talk was presnt then, too, but so much more was going on. And none of it was good, either.

I remember when common sense was all too rare, not 'common' at all. People would say the most ridiculous things, because some snot-nosed actor or professor said it and sounded so droll. I remember the global retreat America went into, and the election of the very worst president of the modern era. I remember the scorn the military was subjected to, and the way people reflexively loathed their own country. We seemed in some vague sense to be 'losing', and the pessimism was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Our enemies were on the make; our economy was in the tank; our kids were on drugs; our flag was descerated not just by thug regimes, but by AMERICANS, too. We were self-loathing, defeated, cynical and world-weary.

It feels like some of that is coming back. And it is a herald of bad times for us, AND the world. When America doesn't lead during a period of high threat - and that's what we're in RIGHT NOW - we are in danger. And with too many of us doubting not only our fitness to win, but our RIGHT, when the world thinks we're the problem and not the solution, we have a serious problem.

We need Reagan. I also remember what it was like when he took office, and the nation bloomed again, like he had watered a dieing plant.