What Happens If Bush Is Impeached Before Nov ?

my responce continues as i accidently hit post before i was done...

#2) while the term millitary industrial complex gets topssed about, and no doubght they do seem to have some type of "industry" going....big deal again.

The US gov plays ball with many different "industry groups" in various ways.
Which business should the gov be encouraging growth in (support of)? Energy co.? Auto co.? Millitary/industrial co.? Media co.? Food production co.? Who decides this policy direction if not the President?
Where is the wrong doing?

"You're blind to the fact you're blind, baby"

The deriliction of duty is a huge issue. Not something to be passed over with a "In fact they formed their own committee to examine this issue....even if they came to the same conclusions much later, so what? Any administration taking office would no doubght review ALL of the previous administration policies. "

That's all well & good on economic policy. Not matters of life & death....there you move quickly & resolute and you don't remove saftey measures already in play. That's high crimes.

On MIC: it's a term you see tossed around alot' for a reason: contractors with direct ties to the VP & S of D ans well as the president have been given sole reign over the rebuild, have not implemented any type of accounting to see where our billions actually go , and have been uncovered to be perpatrating fraud on several levels.
Add to that the US now outsources to them on a scale never before seen in US history, and yes, you have impeachable offenses.

It's a 2 part issue for you & folks like Seek: first, you're looking at the word "impeach" as being a charge/trial/conviction all in one. It's not. It's definition is "to accuse an official of an offense: to charge a serving government official with serious misconduct while in office".
Second, you apply John Gotti logic: they called him the Teflon Don because of a brilliant strategy of always being so many levels removed, that no charges could really stick to him. But was he a crime lord? Of course. Did they eventually get him? Yup.
In America, we're blind to the crimes because partisan politics is a thick curtain to which rational people fail to see the complicity of their team.
The problems we're seeing come to fore today started with an arrogant government saying that "Enemy Combatants" don't qualify under the Geneva Convention....even if they are US citizen. Basic & core American rights were crushed under this regime. Basic legislative policy fundamental to our branches of government set up were violated with this War Powers resolution. Tthe GOP-led Congress allowed it to happen, with the cooperation of a majority of Dems, who defined patriotism as agreeing with Bush and his neocon hawks. All of this has set the tone for the torture that has apparantly been going on in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq under Bush. Unfortunately, none of this is cause for impeachment in our undemocratic republic controlled by moneyed, safely districted imcumbents who win most elections and are being run by a one-party system placed in power by less than 25% of Americans qualified to vote, who are too busy trying to earn a living to question the inadequate, information they're getting from the corporate media and, propagandized, appear to believe that Americans don't torture prisoners, even though the CIA manuals have been teaching such techniques for at least 40 years, including the time Bush's father ran the CIA, or don't really care if we do.
THAT IS WHY he hasn't been impeached yet.

Deriliction of duty...
So can we blame the democrats for dragging their feet for the first 90 days while (Bush term) we recounted hanging chads?
Perhaps in that time more policy revievs could have been done.

At that level of play, you do realize the size of the slow moving burocracy? I agree that matters of life/death should gravitate higher up on the list than economics or forign relations, but we had been getting this kind of "threat info" all thru Clinton's time, and even before then our gov knew that once the USSR fell, the threat of rouge states/terrorism, and WMD's would be an increasing concern....BUT NO ONE HAD ACTIONABL INTELLIGENCE!

At what point in the timeline of the USA dealing with terrorism would you cite the Bush infraction?
What does this imply for the administration immediatly preceeding Bush? (that also had the same info)

Im all for accounting CORPORATIONS recieving gov funds....They should be held accountable for the $$.

Do you really think that people in politics have NO connections to influential people/companies? OF COURSE THEY DO or they wouldnt be able to get elected...How many average citizens are politicans?
If were gonna draw a line for politicians and say who they can and cant do business with, who will decide this and then, who will be left to serve in office?

IMPEACH
The general use of this term implies to most that the person will be accused of wrong doing, and then would be removed (resign) from the position.
If removal of the official is not done, then this is an exersize in wasted hot air. If your calling for it, take them out as well.

TEFLON PREZ
The Gotti syndrome you mention involves needing ACTIONABLE information that can be used....it took cops how long to peice together that gotti case?

The big difference between being accused of criminal activity and actual evidence of this alledged crime...is what seperates getting a conviction and the suspect walking free.

Thats my point, if your gunning for impeachment, then you need to have simple and concrete things that the average couch potato can understand in order to garner the nessisary public preassure that will lead to impeachment.....

Ill agree that partisan politics often influences the public in non productive ways, this is also why your reasons for impeachment need to be clear, consice, and actionable. A vauge "ethical" base for impeachment is too subjective.

Im sorry, but the rest of your obviously anti-bush hyperboly was amusing, but rhetorical.

Bush impeachment will never happen, even after he gets re elected

Again, you are blind to the fact that you're blind. You offered up several falsehoods that have been the cornerstone of the Bush Syncophant argument.

"but we had been getting this kind of "threat info" all thru Clinton's time" - False

Actions, such as the Hart/Rudman findings & the Gore Commision speak to the veracity & focus the Clinton administration had towards the problem, as well as the cause/response immediacey they saw. It's also worthy of note that much more was done against much less of actionable intelligence than the Bush team received.

"If were gonna draw a line for politicians and say who they can and cant do business with, who will decide this and then, who will be left to serve in office?" Wrong Question

We have for the first time in history executives or lobbyists running every branch of federal government that they interacted with in the while private sector. In almost all cases, there was no gap - straight from Bechtel to Sec. of Defense, straight from Halliburton to Sec. of Army-VP-C of Staff. The top 100 positions in this White House each have a net worth over $10M. Is that representative government to you? Is that taking the best & brightest from Washington who were expereinced in administering government?
The failure shows in every aspect of our economy & social programs.

"If removal of the official is not done, then this is an exersize in wasted hot air. If your calling for it, take them out as well." False

In investigating affairs between consenting adults, I would agree. In investigating lying to Congress, misappropriation of $700 million dollars earmarked for Afganistan & using it for Iraq, in $billions$ awarded in no bid contracts to the compaines chaired by your VP & Se. of Defense immediately before they joing the government, in forming an energy policy written soley for the benefit of the energy companies involved........no, it's far from a wasted exercise. It's also the formal inquiry & research needed to put the meat behind things. To quote a Bush syncophant rote response to the loss of freedoms: "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

"The Gotti syndrome you mention involves needing ACTIONABLE information that can be used" See above.

There have been numerous issues brought to the floors of both Houses of Congress......our parlimentary majority standards have been the only thing being the stop gap. Wonder which party is in majority, huh?
Wonder where the Charles Rangle letters of Impeachment for Rumsfield will end up on the vote tally?

Originally posted by Ycon
I would say that Cheney as Vice President would take over and not have a chance against Kerry.

Let's say Bush were to be impeached, do you think he would take the fall himself, or drag others down with him?

honestly, i think that if bush were impeached, it would cause a sort of domino effect, possibly resulting in some sort of emergency election (unless they don't end up going ALL the way through the chain of sucession)

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by negativenihil]

Just a little reminder.....

Just because a president is impeached does not automatically remove him from office. See Clinton. Nixon resigned of his own volition.

Clinton was impeached for far more than a blow job, he was up to no good on alot of other things. But the blow job was the one thing he failed to cover up succesfully, unlike filegate, Chinagate, ect.

Impeaching Bush will not automatically remove him. That would be up to either a prosecution and a federal case, which would take too long, given the time needed to collect the evidence both for defenbse and prosecution. It would also be up to the republicans, on whether or not they would want to elect as thier running man, a dishionored man who has been impeached. Since congress is mostly republicans, and they are the ones who impeach, it is unlikely all those republicans will vote yes to impeach him.

Of course, lets just say, he was succesfully impeached and for once, did the smart thing, gathered what was left of his dignity, and resign. Cheney would become the president. It always happens when a president is either removed from office, or killed. the Vice prez automatically takes over. As for the election, the republicans would be in chaos. Would they back Cheney? Good question. Seeing how Cheney in reality is the prez, and Bush is simply a simian faced puppet, id imagine they would back him.

Would he get elected? thats a different story. I think such an incident would automatically give the election to the Kerry.

Because history has shown, vice presidents who take over after the death or removal of a president, dont get re elected or are very popular. the only exception i can think of is Harry Truman, and we had interesting circumstances back then.

When was Clinton Impeached....
there was the star investigation, but that was never enough to get the impeachment process going.

Impeach Bush?

You better focus on how to elect Kerry instead,
otherwise im predicting 4 more years...

Next instalment of my small assignment on the Bush impeachment lawyers:

Bush Impeachment Movement

Some good bedtime reading - where the groundwork has been laid, with Articles of Impeachment galore.



[Edited on 17-5-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

And the prequel to this very thread we are on now:

Watergate II: Bush Impeachment Process

Interesting (and same old) discussions.

SamaraMorgueAnn was having an interesting day by page 3...

Next, who has taken it forward...


[Edited on 17-5-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Well, Bushes dady only did 1 official term, he could come back

You pose a highly unlikely scenario. One might be safe to say impossible. But since you asked.........

If Bush was just impeached there would be no problem or issue; he still would be President and still could run at the top of the Republican Ticket.

If Bush was impeached and convicted by the Senate Cheney would become President. The timing of this event might provide a problem for the Republican Party but NO CONSTITUTIONAL problem occurs.

AND Bush could be impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office and still run for President again. The Constitution is silent on that issue. The only limit on a Presidential run is age, country of birth, and term limit.............. Impeachment is not a criminal pronouncement; it is a political affair. Since the House has a Republican majority����..impeachment is out of the question unless Bush pulls the equivalent of a Nixon-like stunt.

As a matter of fact, Kerry could choose Clinton as VP and if the ticket won and Kerry died/removed from office Clinton could constitutionally assume the Presidency AGAIN. A nightmare thought to most all our Republican/Conservative colleagues............fersure