• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Poll on Bush v Clinton impeachment sentiment

How did/do you 'personally' see Clinton's vs Bush's impeachable offenses?

  • IMO Both Clinton and Bush committed impeachable offenses.

    Votes: 14 9.5%

  • IMO Neither Clinton nor Bush (yet) committed impeachable offenses.

    Votes: 27 18.4%

  • Only IMO only Clinton committed an impeachable offense or offenses.

    Votes: 13 8.8%

  • IMO Only Bush committed an impeachable offense or offenses.

    Votes: 73 49.7%

  • Don't know and/or don't care, T[G or ?] I'm not in your country.

    Votes: 8 5.4%

  • All the Presidents on planet X are peachy.

    Votes: 12 8.2%
  • Total voters
    147

Skeptic Ginger

Nasty Woman
Skeptic Ginger
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
96,955
The discussion of high crimes and misdemeanors of GW Bush is on this thread, The I-Word, Swapping Presidents. I am looking for admissions of hypocrisy, you can admit it unapologetically and anonymously. If you want to discuss whether Bush has committed impeachable offenses, the other thread is better. If you want to compare Clinton's perjury with Bush's claims he made intelligence mistakes not lies or Bush's claims he acted within his authority while Clinton did not, then this is the thread. I didn't want to hijack the other one.

For the record, I didn't think Clinton's perjury went beyond his personal matters. To claim thousands of people don't perjure themselves in divorce and family courts around the US every day is preposterous. Anyone who has had a messy divorce or child custody dispute knows better. So if Clinton hadn't been President, his crime would have been ignored by any court in the land except where it might have applied to Paula Jone's lawsuit and that was paid for by Republican millionaires.

So without getting into the details of Jone's lawsuit (please don't bother re-hashing that and wasting everyone's time, thankyou) the sentiment of the country was that Clinton was unfaithful and maybe a bit sleazy but it didn't rise to the level of impeachment.

Whereas everything Bush has done has had an enormous impact on every single person in the country.



Grumble grumble, I can't edit the poll questions. Could one of you Mods please delete the extra "only" from option 3? And lower the case of the o in Only on option 4? If not, it's not critical. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
549 and a half days of Stupid-Boy left. Hopefully less, with impeachment (if the Republicans had consciences, which of course they do not).

What havoc can be wrought by BushCheney in exactly 18 months? (July 21, 2007 to Jan 20, 2009)

Maybe we'll double the number of countries with which we're at war: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. War is the only way out for Stupid-Boy, and he and dickie-bird know it.
 
Personally I believe Cheney (and perhaps Bush) merits impeachment... however, to do so requires the votes... and it's clear that there just aren't the votes to do it. To try to push something through is just a waste of our congresspeople's time at this point.
 
Well gnome, it takes a ground swell of people first. The Republicans thought they could get rid of Clinton on their trumped up technicality and they failed. Nixon OTOH, won re-election shortly before he resigned because he was going to be impeached. But the news media had continued to investigate and beat the drums and a ground swelling of outrage grew from it. It wasn't that the Democrats had the power to act without the public's support.
 
skeptigirl said:
Well gnome, it takes a ground swell of people first. The Republicans thought they could get rid of Clinton on their trumped up technicality and they failed. Nixon OTOH, won re-election shortly before he resigned because he was going to be impeached. But the news media had continued to investigate and beat the drums and a ground swelling of outrage grew from it. It wasn't that the Democrats had the power to act without the public's support.
Click to expand...

I took you off ignore for this?

Are you honestly advocating that impeachment should hinge on getting the mob angry? I suggest you at least read the wikipedia page on what impeachment is and understand it.
 
corplinx said:
I took you off ignore for this?

Are you honestly advocating that impeachment should hinge on getting the mob angry? I suggest you at least read the wikipedia page on what impeachment is and understand it.
Click to expand...
You equate ground swell with mob?

I suggest you go to the other thread where the reasons for impeaching Bush are nicely spelled out.
 
The question hinges on what constitutes an impeachable offense. And the answer is, in essence, whatever you can get through a supermajority of both houses of Congress.

So neither President Clinton nor President Bush have committed impeachable offenses.

Oh, and:

Whereas everything Bush has done has had an enormous impact on every single person in the country.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. He's the president.
 
skeptigirl said:
The discussion of high crimes and misdemeanors of GW Bush is on this thread, The I-Word, Swapping Presidents. I am looking for admissions of hypocrisy, you can admit it unapologetically and anonymously. If you want to discuss whether Bush has committed impeachable offenses, the other thread is better. If you want to compare Clinton's perjury with Bush's claims he made intelligence mistakes not lies or Bush's claims he acted within his authority while Clinton did not, then this is the thread. I didn't want to hijack the other one.
Click to expand...

Eventhough I have had (different) problems with both Presidents, I feel that the rush to impeachment has gotten too politicized. I therefore feel I am totally consistent by believing impeachment applied to neither.

Interestingly, I have always wondered if the Supreme Court in the Clinton case ever regretted what they said about suing a sitting President. Recall that Clinton argued he could not be sued while in office because of the burden of time involved in preparing a defense. The Court, however, ruled 9-0that he could be sued stating:

"....that nothing in the Constitution allows a sitting president to postpone a private civil damages lawsuit. The court said it is unlikely the case would burden Clinton's time." (from the Washington Post 5/28/97)
 
Impeachment?

I tend to be conservative in my politics. I think that any president who attempts to suspend habeas corpus should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, publicly executed.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
Why would a Republican Congress impeach their president when a significant parcel of the Dems left with the secession?

Impeachment is a political move, and while I tend to agree with your sentiments on h.c. suspension being bad, the Republicans impeaching Lincoln makes no sense during the Civil War. What was more revealing was the Radical Reconstructionists impeaching a Republican president, in terms of curious politics. With the threat of secession gone, the internal fights on just how far toward one corner the party could go cropped up.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Why would a Republican Congress impeach their president when a significant parcel of the Dems left with the secession?

Impeachment is a political move, and while I tend to agree with your sentiments on h.c. suspension being bad, the Republicans impeaching Lincoln makes no sense during the Civil War. What was more revealing was the Radical Reconstructionists impeaching a Republican president, in terms of curious politics. With the threat of secession gone, the internal fights on just how far toward one corner the party could go cropped up.

DR
Click to expand...

Just because people won't do a thing, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

And party politics are not the place to find justice, ethics, human decency, or indeed, hope for the survival of this civilization. When our leaders spend 99% of their time fighting each other for the gains of their own parties, instead of doing their jobs and working for the people....well, it stinks. We could accomplish so much if everyone weren't total bastards.

eta: they spend the other 1% of their time divided between being on the toilet and screwing interns.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
But since your criteria is that enemies captured in a war should have the rights to habeas corpus that effectively includes all wartime Presidents.
Click to expand...

Which other presidents argued for the legality of perpetual detention of enemies without giving them prisoner of war status? Or keeping them after the war is over? Or arguing that they don't deserve pow status because they're criminals, but they can't have criminal trials because they were fighting in a war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom