Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just Do It (4.00)
    They should do it anyway. It's like tracking down the killers of civil-rights workers and children near the end of their lives as we've seen happen in the South. Sure, they committed their crimes 40 years ago. Sure, if they spend the rest of their days in prison, that's only a few years. But the respect to the institution and the victims is paid, if belatedly.

    Not prosecuting these people for what they've done would -- if anything -- only harm the Democrats further. If people think they're spineless and ineffectual and sucking off the same teat as the Republicans now, how will they look when they lay back and say: "Well played, Mr. Bush! Perhaps another set?" If they're going to go down, at least they can go down fighting.

    Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

    by darrelplant on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:04:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I am sick of the cool political analysis. (4.00)
      If the President of the United States is a War Criminal and is responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of women and children, would it be smart politics to say anything about it?

      Hmmmmm. Probably not, since it doesn't seem to involve sex.

      This kind of ass-backwards shit makes me absolutely furious.

      •  Sorry for the cool political analysis (none)
        Didn't mean to make you sick.

        So, let me ask you this- if the Democrats were able to retake the House in 2006, and then failed to impeach Bush, would it be fair to say that you would be washing your hands of them, disowning them, and voting 3rd party from here on out?

        Given your rage?

        A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

        by JakeC on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:11:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well put (none)
          I agree - just because of course of action may be viscerally satisfying or even morally righteous, that doesn't make it politically wise or expedient in the long term.  Impeaching Bush will do nothing to heal divisions in the US and will just make a martyr out of the man.  Better to let him limp into inconsequentiality.

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:37:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Party over Country? (4.00)
            My reasons for wanting Bush impeached(or resigning) is that I loathe the guy and I can not stand what he and his ship of fools are doing to this country and the world.

            So I heartily disagree with the people who argue that impeachment wouldn't be good for the Democrats whether they come out and say it or call it "not politically wise or expedient".  I'll defend my country over any political party.

            •  AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!! n/t (none)
            •  Fine and well (none)
              In fact, I agree.  I just disagree that impeaching him is better for the United States than not impeaching him.  Recall, this impeachment scenario is only possible if the Democrats retake Congress.  Therefore, Bush's agenda and the nominees he considers are seriously compromised by that political reality.  Meanwhile, the country avoids a divisive impeachment battle, and the GOP avoids the gift of Bush the Martyr.

              Now, if he resigns, that's a different kettle of fish.  

              "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

              by fishhead on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:20:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Have any impeached been martyrs? (none)
                Nixon's reputation never recovered.  Perhaps Reagan would have become a martyr if impeached but Bush, yeesh, he can barely keep it together under the least pressure anymore.  He might become a victim in some eyes but a martyr would have to have the courage to stand for his convictions.
            •  Okay then (none)
              Let's try this again:

              Let's assume that somehow the Democrats gain enough seats in the House and Senate to impeach and remove Bush (which is a laughable scenario, since it would take 67 votes to remove, but I digress).

              I am now giving you the decision to control- should the Democrats impeach Bush?

              But, in my hypothetical, I am telling you this- that there will be a negative back lash against the Democrats for this, and that in 2008 they will again lose both chamber of Congress and the Presidency, if they go down this road (without telling you what the results will be if you choose not to impeach).

              So- do you impeach?  And, if not, what has changed since your original rant?

              A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

              by JakeC on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:35:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, would anything change your mind? (none)
                Do you care if the Republicans decide to jettison Bush?  What if Bush is bogged down in scandal and digs in his heels, refuses to resign and continues to fight for his loyal (appointed not elected)neo-cronies.  The Republicans can stand shoulder to shoulder with him and share the stain of corruption and risk their reelections.  Maybe the Republicans can give him an ultimatum to denounce his toadies and clean house or they will move to impeach to save their own political careers.

                The future is not written yet.  Many things can change.  Democrats don't have to be the ones to lead the move to impeach.  

                •  Different scenario (none)
                  When talking about Republicans impeaching Bush.

                  Not going to happen, unless much, much bigger stuff comes out, and not about his appointees, but him personally.

                  Of course, that changes everything.

                  But, from your answer to my question, I take it you would not have the Democrats impeach Bush in my scenario, since it would imperil there electoral chances.

                  A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

                  by JakeC on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:12:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Let me ask you a question, Jake. (none)
          If you condone murder by opposing accountability on the grounds of expediency, does that not make you complicit in the future murders that could have been prevented?

          You see, Jake, I oppose the concept of wars of aggression. Besides being unnecessary and really bad, bad policy, wars of aggression are contrary to established principles of international law and all recognized notions of humanity.

          Moral clarity, Jake.

          And since you are so incredibly astute and have the capacity to predict the future, why are you not already a billionaire?

          •  Couple of points (none)
            1.  Where did I condone murder?  I passed no moral judgements at all, I simply stated what I believe to be obvious- Bush is not getting impeached.  So, I am not sure how I am implicit in anything.

            2.  As for my being incredibly astute- as I said, I make no such claim, as all I wrote was the completely obvious.

            A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

            by JakeC on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 12:32:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  respect for the law... (none)
      IMHO, vengenace, revenge, and similar words with "-veng-" in them are barbarities left over from our days as chimpanzees.

      On the other hand, we cannot, cannot, cannot allow monstrous lawbreaking to be gotten away with, because if we do, we've set a precedent and the laws erode to the point where they become meaningless.  

      Equal justice under law positively requires that lawbreakers be prosecuted and tried.  One burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt.  But the other burden of proof is upon those who call for selective exceptions to the general rule of prosecuting and trying criminals.  

      The place for compassion is in sentencing.  

      If you convict the 80-something KKK terrorist of murdering children, then, having duly convicted him, you have room to adjust the sentence if compassion calls for it.  If he would have been sentenced to life for that particular crime, then he would have died in prison as a frail old man anyway, and in that case the sentence of life behind bars could still apply.  If the sentence would have been 20 years, he would have been released to spend his last years and die in his own home; so it might be reasonable to sentence him to 20 and suspend all but 3 to 5 on that basis: give him the chance to die at home.

      But having done so, justice is still served, as the guilty party has been identified, and convicted, and his penalty has been determined by the legal process.  As well, the spirit of civilized society has prevailed by demonstrating that compassion ultimately wins out over hatred: whether the criminal's hatred that impelled his crime, or society's hatred of -or at least disgust for- the crime itself.  And most importantly, the strength of the law has not been diminished, and those who would commit similar crimes are deterred by the knowledge that the long arm of the law will reach out and catch them, no matter how long it takes.  

      Similar values obtain where the death penalty can be applied but a jury and judge choose not to.  This says that we are better than the criminal, we will not kill another person except in defense against physical attack, and we will consider the public amply protected by the simple fact of confining the murderer where he can no longer do harm.

      And so it goes for impeachment.  If the allegations are serious enough to qualify, and the evidence meets the standard equivalent to indictment, then the crime must be prosecuted and the trial -impeachment- must occur.  Upon conviction we can demonstrate compassion, by letting the removal from office stand as the only penalty needed: to protect the public from further crimes by that individual, and to deter others from following in his footsteps.  

      As well there is a difference between danger and evil.  The evil man acts with malice aforethought.  The dangerous man acts with a subtly different intent, very often only the blindness of his own ego or false certainty of his rightness.  However we need not determine a person's intent in order to speak definitively about the impact of their behavior.  Whether Bush is evil is a subject of much debate even here.  Whether he has acted in a manner that has created danger -to our national security, to the vigor of our military, to the safety of our citizens, and to law and order among nations- is hardly in question.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site