It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senate Hearings on Bush, Now
BY CARL BERNSTEIN
Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.
John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.
Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.
inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It doesn't matter whether you or the population agrees or not. This is not a popularity contest, it's an official, formal investigation and it's the only way to tell whether or not the president has committed impeachable offenses.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Few can deny the increasing level of controversies and doubt surrounding President Bush and several members of his administration including Vice President Dick Cheny. We're on the verge of a flood of articles in mainstream media proclaiming "Bush is the worst President ever" in one way or another. Among the first is a piece from someone with a bit of experience.
Originally posted by shots
Now I ask you why if you or anyone feels Bush should be impeached, why hasn't senate/congress started the process? My guess would be the legal experts feel there is/are insufficient grounds.
Originally posted by seagull
It's a good thing that his term is over in two years, unfortunately, we're replacing him with what? More of the same.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
I will admit I have grown increasingly disenchanted with President Bush and his administration over the last year. The neo-cons and religious right have far to much say in what does and does not get done. However, I don't personally believe there is any one or any two, or three things that have been done that constitute an impeachable offense and I think it would be an enormous folly and prove extremely counterproductive to the nation to even try to do so.