MSNBC Poll: Should President Bush be impeached?

[Duddy]

Vote here!

Personally, I voted yes.

 

[Harvey]

Thanks. I voted. :thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

616,418 responses, 89% for impeachment! :thumbsup:

 

[halik]

I believe so.

Even though I fall on the right side of the line, no punishment for all these fuckups will only empower other presidents for pulling the same stunts. The office is bound by our constitution. Period.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Perknose
616,418 responses, 89% for impeachment! :thumbsup:

Check the date of the article it's attached to... 2 1/2 year old poll, but I agree with the results

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: Perknose
616,418 responses, 89% for impeachment! :thumbsup:

Check the date of the article it's attached to... 2 1/2 year old poll, but I agree with the results

Me too, but I think that link is a related story. Because when you click the story it links to the poll as related content.

This poll was started in response to Dennis Kucinich introducing the articles of impeachment this morning.

 

[eits]

absolutely!

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

You don't consider the warrantless wiretapping program a high crime and/or misdemeanor? He secretly and deliberately violated federal wiretapping laws to spy on American citizens without warrants in direct violation of both statutory authority and the 4th Amendment. What would he have to do in order to meet your standard?

 

[Lemon law]

Wow 89% of the respondents say yes, does it really matter how old the poll is, those that bothered to vote say yes about 10 to 1.

Tell me, someone anyone, has GWB gotten any more rational lately? With some five months and 20 days left to his full term, who knows how many more pooches he will screw
before his term ends. Somehow a clear and ever present danger is the only words to describe GWB&co with.

But we must always remember tossing just GWB gets us in worse shape if we don't get Cheney at the same time.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Me too, but I think that link is a related story. Because when you click the story it links to the poll as related content.

This poll was started in response to Dennis Kucinich introducing the articles of impeachment this morning.

I can't find a news item on MSNBC related to this recent round of impeachment stuff from Kucinich... the silence from the MSM in general on this is deafening.

The "back to story" link on that poll takes you to a Dec. '05 Fineman column.

I think Kucinich is pissing in the wind, really - it's too late for this now - but I agree with him in spirit.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

You don't consider the warrantless wiretapping program a high crime and/or misdemeanor? He secretly and deliberately violated federal wiretapping laws to spy on American citizens without warrants in direct violation of both statutory authority and the 4th Amendment. What would he have to do in order to meet your standard?

If that was all that was needed to impeach a president, we would have had plenty of impeached presidents.

John Adams - Alien and Sedition Acts

Wilson- Sedition Acts

Roosevelt- Executive Order 9066

Johnson - Tonkin Gulf Resolution

In times of war, rights are sacrificed routinely

And no, I don't consider warrantless wiretapping high crime and misdemeanor. I consider a criminal cover up like Watergate impeachable. I consider perjury impeachable.

 

[Linux23]

How many times can I vote yes?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
In times of war, rights are sacrificed routinely

And as we have given them that excuse, they now have given us unending war.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

You don't consider the warrantless wiretapping program a high crime and/or misdemeanor? He secretly and deliberately violated federal wiretapping laws to spy on American citizens without warrants in direct violation of both statutory authority and the 4th Amendment. What would he have to do in order to meet your standard?

If that was all that was needed to impeach a president, we would have had plenty of impeached presidents.

John Adams - Alien and Sedition Acts

Wilson- Sedition Acts

Roosevelt- Executive Order 9066

Johnson - Tonkin Gulf Resolution

In times of war, rights are sacrificed routinely

And no, I don't consider warrantless wiretapping high crime and misdemeanor. I consider a criminal cover up like Watergate impeachable. I consider perjury impeachable.

I'm not sure if you understand what we're talking about.

All of those things you mentioned (with the exception of Roosevelt) were statutes passed by congress that the president signed. That's not illegal. It may be found later that those statues passed were unconstitutional, but it's not impeachable to pass dumb laws.

What IS impeachable is violating the express letter of the law already on the books. Bush freely admits that he broke the law by ignoring FISA. That is a federal crime, a felony to be exact. In fact, the federal penalties for violating FISA ($10,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail) are much harsher then the penalties for perjury. (3 years max) Federal law obviously considers a violation of FISA as worse then perjury, can you explain why you do not? Do you support the president's ability to unilaterally declare himself exempt from lawfully enacted statutes? If so, why? If not, why is that not impeachable?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That strikes me as a mighty thin cop out. First GWB chooses an idiot advisers who leads him astray, everyone and their brother and law tells GWB his adviser is wrong, and GWB cheerfully continues to violate the law even after his idiot adviser is forced to resign.

Hate to tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Its just like asking some criminal, is it OK for me to rob the bank at gun point, and when the criminal says yes, and the person robs the bank at gun point, he can say the devil made me do it? Do you realize how long that would last in a court of law, they would still be laughing
after they sent him to jail.

Hitler enablers created the same cushy deal for themselves, but when they got to Neuremberg,
all their artificial defenses did not last five milliseconds.

 

[ericlp]

632268 responses 89% Yes...

Of course I voted.... A resounding "YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - as if it mattered ...

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

Of course you did... I guess having an illegal war over a big lie to the American public to kill over 4,000 service men and woman isn't "high" enough for you ... Let's not even bring up the $$ figure...

Sigh...

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

His legal council, AG Alberto Gonzales, wasn't so much incompetent as he was a rubber stamping lap dog that Bush and Cheney used ad nauseum to sidestep the constitution and the bill of rights.

Whatever laws on the books that got in the way of their agenda, good 'ol AG Gonzales was there to sweep it aside for them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

He admitted he was breaking the law. He was also advised by his legal counsel (that he chose of course) that Congress was unable to constrain him. He then took this (completely unprecedented) legal advice and decided to proceed in secret while publicly continuing to support the current law.

The legal opinion that has actually ruled on the merits of the cases as opposed to a standing issue has declared Bush's program massively illegal on any number of fronts. And just to be clear, Nixon acted in similar ways on similar 'bad advice'. Remember, "if the president does it, then it's not illegal".

The fact that he got bad legal advice does not absolve him of guilt for breaking federal laws for years and lying about it to the public. I don't think you can reasonably impeach Bush for misleading the country about the war, but I do think you can easily impeach him over this.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Linux23
How many times can I vote yes?

How many PC's you got with different IP's?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

He admitted he was breaking the law. He was also advised by his legal counsel (that he chose of course) that Congress was unable to constrain him. He then took this (completely unprecedented) legal advice and decided to proceed in secret while publicly continuing to support the current law.

The legal opinion that has actually ruled on the merits of the cases as opposed to a standing issue has declared Bush's program massively illegal on any number of fronts. And just to be clear, Nixon acted in similar ways on similar 'bad advice'. Remember, "if the president does it, then it's not illegal".

The fact that he got bad legal advice does not absolve him of guilt for breaking federal laws for years and lying about it to the public. I don't think you can reasonably impeach Bush for misleading the country about the war, but I do think you can easily impeach him over this.

It still shocks and awes me that so many are rushing to defend what this "President" has done during both his terms in office...

and even now, we haven't hit the tip of the iceberg of what has transpired in his administration...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

He admitted he was breaking the law. He was also advised by his legal counsel (that he chose of course) that Congress was unable to constrain him. He then took this (completely unprecedented) legal advice and decided to proceed in secret while publicly continuing to support the current law.

The legal opinion that has actually ruled on the merits of the cases as opposed to a standing issue has declared Bush's program massively illegal on any number of fronts. And just to be clear, Nixon acted in similar ways on similar 'bad advice'. Remember, "if the president does it, then it's not illegal".

The fact that he got bad legal advice does not absolve him of guilt for breaking federal laws for years and lying about it to the public. I don't think you can reasonably impeach Bush for misleading the country about the war, but I do think you can easily impeach him over this.

It still shocks and awes me that so many are rushing to defend what this "President" has done during both his terms in office...

and even now, we haven't hit the tip of the iceberg of what has transpired in his administration...

That's the thing to recognize: Bush can get all the legal advice he wants from legal people he selects, and he can say anything he wants in signing statements, and it's irrelevant.

The man is responsible for following the law and accountable if he does not.

Signing statements have zero legal weight, whatever theory like the Unitary Executive he wants to fantasize about in them. They're just another form of him saying his opinion.

 

[sandorski]

This shouldn't even need to be asked. "Impeached" should already be tagged to "President Bush".

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I said No. Bush hasn't committed what I consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" Presidents generally considered great have done bad things in times of war too. The idea that war can set back rights has existed since the founding father days.

You don't consider the warrantless wiretapping program a high crime and/or misdemeanor? He secretly and deliberately violated federal wiretapping laws to spy on American citizens without warrants in direct violation of both statutory authority and the 4th Amendment. What would he have to do in order to meet your standard?

If that was all that was needed to impeach a president, we would have had plenty of impeached presidents.

John Adams - Alien and Sedition Acts

Wilson- Sedition Acts

Roosevelt- Executive Order 9066

Johnson - Tonkin Gulf Resolution

In times of war, rights are sacrificed routinely

And no, I don't consider warrantless wiretapping high crime and misdemeanor. I consider a criminal cover up like Watergate impeachable. I consider perjury impeachable.

I'd consider these impeachable offenses. However, I do realize that times of war do allow the gvt a little more leeway. However, I refuse to let ANY president to claim war powers or any privileges thereof without an actual declaration of war by congress. President Bush has had no such thing.

BTW, I voted as well.