Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/coolgeek/freetag/freetag-0.240/adodb/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 340
Honest Argument: President Bush should not be impeached
join message

President Bush should not be impeached

(Click boxes for full text or to add/edit/delete node. More help?)
President Bush should not be impeached  President Bush should not be impeached
       Leaves Cheney to succeed to the Presidency  Leaves Cheney to succeed to the Presidency
              Could pursue a double impeachment  Could pursue a double impeachment
                     Will be seen as an attempt to seize Presidency by Democrats  Will be seen as an attempt to seize Presidency by Democrats
                     Sets a historical precedent of unimaginable consequences  Sets a historical precedent of unimaginable consequences
                            An untenable position for the Chief Executive of the U.S.  An untenable position for the Chief Executive of the U.S.
                            This would be a serious dissolution of the separation of powers  This would be a serious dissolution of the separation of powers
       American people will view impeachment as partisan payback for Clinton  American people will view impeachment as partisan payback for Clinton
              Will handicap the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee  Will handicap the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee
              Polls indicate support for impeachment  Polls indicate support for impeachment
                     Popular opinion is irrelevant  Popular opinion is irrelevant
                            Indeed, this is the logical fallacy ad populum  Indeed, this is the logical fallacy ad populum
       Impeachment would distract from higher priorities  Impeachment would distract from higher priorities
       Bush is already a lame duck  Bush is already a lame duck
       If there is a legal case to be made, it is the duty of Congress to pursue it  If there is a legal case to be made, it is the duty of Congress to pursue it
              Nixon pardon damaged the Presidency  Nixon pardon damaged the Presidency
                     Separate standards of justice  Separate standards of justice
                     Diminished stature on world stage  Diminished stature on world stage
              Bush used signing statements to grant himself supreme power  Bush used signing statements to grant himself supreme power
       Better to impeach lower level officials  Better to impeach lower level officials
              Many have encouraged, if not participated in, offensive activities  Many have encouraged, if not participated in, offensive activities
              Prevents greater subsequent offenses  Prevents greater subsequent offenses
              Won't be seen as attempt to overturn 2004 election  Won't be seen as attempt to overturn 2004 election
       Has done nothing to warrant impeachment  Has done nothing to warrant impeachment

Comments:




I'm not sure if impeachment is a low priority

I'm not clear on some of the nodes in the tree.

Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors -- and possibly for treason -- seems like it might be supported by legal evidence.

Claim 1: The U.S. Constitution was written by men who expected that traitors in office would be impeached.

Claim 2: Failure to enforce the U.S. Constitution according to the intentions of its writers is un-Constitutional.

If there is a legal case to be made that Bush committed treason, it is the duty of every U.S. government employee to see that case get made.

Of course, if U.S. government employees don't care about upholding the Constitution and living up to their oaths of office -- they'll find reasons not to impeach.

Comment by: riprock At: 2006-11-23 04:10:04



Majority support for impeachment

A majority of Americans appear to want the US president impeached.

http://www.democrats.com/...

Here's one poll on it but there are various others, phrased in different ways. By comparison with the Clinton years I think about 60-70% of the country was against impeachment, whereas about 50% are in favour of it against Bush with a few undecided. It seems likely that this number would only increase if the media covered the question and reported the large generally little reported backing for impeachment.

Majority support appear to undermine not only the thesis but several of the supporting arguments. eg the idea that impeachment would be unpopular, resented, seen as payback or that impeaching Cheney would be seen as trying to steal the presidency. Those points depend upon the general mood of the country which is currently very much against Bush and Cheney. Arguably the idea that Democrats are stealing the presidency should be a positive in favour of impeaching Cheney too, not a negative. After all the Republicans did just lose the elections in a landslide generally seen as turning on people's view of Bush.

Comment by: DavidByron At: 2006-11-23 09:20:52



Re: comment: I'm not sure if impeachment is a low priority

riprock - I'm arguing that the Democrats should not pursue it, but I added a node regarding government employee responsibility based on your comment.

Comment by: coolgeek At: 2006-11-24 20:27:06



Re: comment: Majority support for impeachment

I added a node for polls indicating support, but I picked a Newsweek poll because

a) it's newer, and
b) Zogby is identified as a Democratic pollster

Comment by: coolgeek At: 2006-11-24 20:35:35



Re: node: Could pursue a double impeachment

A double impeachment is a possibility but unlikely, as it would set a historical precedent of unimaginable consequences, it likely would render any future Presidents as serving at the pleasure of the house and senate. Nixon resigned from the Presidency rather than face impeachment, apparently for the good of the country. Clinton was impeached, setting the precedent of the executive branch of government continuing to serve out its term even after a successful impeachment. Democrats know that Mr Bush has had his two terms allowed by law, and in just about two years he will be out of office, and is unlikely to run again in his lifetime. I doubt that even if the current president had zero support, the Democrats would waste the time and money it would take to mount a call for impeachment hearings, then have the hearing, and assuming the President was impeached, then go to the apparent trouble of removing him from office. And I think the argument becomes more persuasive if you are considering a double impeachment of the president and vice president at the same time? Very unlikely to happen that way, in my opinion. One must always be careful about predicting these things. I doubt anyone would have believed that the President could be elected by one congressional district in one state. But that is how Gerald Ford became president.

Comment by: garrettp At: 2006-11-28 02:22:21



Re: comment: Re: node: Could pursue a double impeachment

Good point(s).

Nodes added for "set a historical precedent of unimaginable consequences"

Comment by: coolgeek At: 2006-11-28 15:15:32



Re: node: Polls indicate support for impeachment

Public opinion is fickle, and public opinion polls even more so.

Comment by: goethean At: 2007-01-04 17:53:26



Re: node: Impeachment of Bush is not an option for the Democrati

It's an option, but not a smart option.

Comment by: goethean At: 2007-01-04 17:54:46



Re: comment: Re: node: Impeachment of Bush is not an option for

Why not?

As an Aussie, America’s failure to impeach a president and his administration following such vast corruption of the office will only dilute your nations importance, relevance and standing within the world community.

Ford pardoned Nixon so that the country could get over watergate, but in doing so he severely cheapened the office of President of the United States.

If the USA and its clear thinking citizens do not impeach George W Bush and his cronies for the lies and subsequent waste of lives they have wrought, you can take it for granted, the rest of the world will look upon you with scorn and ridicule and very little else.

You owe it to yourselves. Believe me when I say the rest of the world is judging all Americans based on the person that leads their country. And at the moment, you have a moron leading your country.


Comment by: Chook At: 2007-01-08 18:19:24



Re: comment: Re: comment: Re: node: Impeachment of Bush is not a

I agree completely, but there's more, I don't understand all these problems with this but this should solve them. I don't believe this is an "option", it should be a responsibility, a duty, a requirement,not a choice! I mean if someone, anyone, is charged with a crime, it must be investigated. And if it is found to have supporting evidence, then whoever is charged and found to have enough evidence against them, they must be prosecuted and tried, NO ONE, can be above the law. I mean it is as if no one charged o j simpson, yes ,I know he was found not guilty and I am sure bush is just as innocent, but the law says if he is charged then he must be investigated and if found wanting then prosecuted.

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:02:35



Re: node: Could pursue a double impeachment

I would agree, but not could, must!

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:05:28



Re: node: Will be seen as an attempt to seize Presidency by Demo

not if done properly, as it should be, as an obligation, not a choice, there have been charges of wrong doing, they should be investigated, and if found to be true, then he should be prosecuted.

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:08:46



Re: node: President Bush should not be impeached

I don't believe it is an "option", at all, and I don't understand how the congress is getting away with NOT having an investigation! I think it is their duty,and that they are obligated, and have a responsibility to the people to investigate, and if evidence supports it, it is mandatory to prosecute. If you posters are serious, you should check out Free Speech t v's "keynote" spot with John Nichols'1 hour special, I think it is on again the first week or so in February, but it is very informative and to the point, it's called "The Genius of Impeachment". It is very good and answers a lot of the questions that are brought up here. He is also on youtube, and a website. very good.

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:19:58



Re: node: Sets a historical precedent of unimaginable consequenc

I could've never imagined these things we are seeing, don't know how the consequences could get much worse, unless let to go farther.

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:26:22



Re: node: Bush is already a lame duck

If you see the spot on FREE SPEECH TV by John Nichols, you will understand why impeachment proceedungs will prevent further damage, for instance, every 10 minutes, someone dies, every 10 hours, an American dies, and every 10 days 2 Billion dollars go out of our pockets and into the pockets of Halliburton or Blackwater. This is true damage control..

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:31:57



Re: comment: I'm not sure if impeachment is a low priority

I think you are exactly right, the founders, mandated impeachment for any one who "would be king" and said they would not serve a monarch. This is supposed to be the ultimate public servant, not someone who swears to uphold the Constitution and then calls it just a goddam piece of paper. Many have fought and died to uphold this piece of paper for an unelected, would be king, to not honor it. And I think by NOT investigating the claims this congress is also un-Constitutional

Comment by: billyknight At: 2008-01-28 11:52:04



Re: node: Indeed, this is the logical fallacy ad populum

You used it in correct context! I'm proud of you!

Comment by: J-Luck At: 2008-08-05 01:01:41



You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in or create account (all you need is a valid email address)




Pending Arguments

There are no pending Arguments.

Create an Argument!