Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

Please answer the poll and give a very succinct explanation below, including the specific charge you'd like to see leveled against him if you believe he should be impeached.

I'll go first: there is insufficient evidence to impeach W. Bush at the moment, on any charge, even though he is a terrible president.

[Edited to account for the reality of the neverending political bickering that takes place on this board.]

[Wangja]

Much as I find him an incompetent nincompoop who has made the world a far more dangerous place and set back American's former high moral standing back generations, it is tough to see an impeachable offence.

Mind you, I never really understood how Clinton came to be impeached either, so really, I know nuzzing.

[Pligganease]

I voted "Other."

I think that probably is sufficient evidence to impeach him, but that the administration is sneaky enough that we will never see or hear of it.

As it stands now, though, there isn't.

[Hater Depot]

Depends on what you think an impeachable offense is. Personally I think authorizing illegal actions (torture and wiretapping, for example) might rise to this level. But by that standard probably every president could have been impeached.

Lincoln was the most impeachable of all Presidents.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'd like to see him strung up by his thumbs and used for target practice. Unfortunately, that is more likely to happen than him getting impeached. I thought there would be sufficient evidence in the Plame thing, but nothing has shown up yet.

[EFLtrainer]

Wrong question: Is there enough evidence to begin investigations to determine if there is sufficient evidence to impeach him?

Beyond that, there is likely little evidence to be found, but almost certainly he has committed impeachable offenses. He has already admitted needlessly authorizing illegal wiretaps. If lying about a blowjob is impeachable, that certainly is. Precedent IS important in law, after all.

[Hollywoodaction]

It's okay to spy on American citizens, torture prisoners, kidnap citizens and foreigners, lie about a war, and be responsible for the reputation of an entire nation to be dragged through the mud, but it's not to get a BJ in the Oval Office?

[Hollywoodaction]

[Gopher]

Please stay on point and discuss the issue at hand on its own merits: this thread has nothing to do with the Clinton Administration; whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach W. Bush has nothing to do with Clinton. I strongly disagree with anyone who wants to impeach W. Bush because they are angry about Clinton's impeachment. This is nonsense.

(And for the record, I think that most people here, myself included, would agree that Clinton's impeachment was probably one of the most ridiculous political acts of the twentieth century.)

My question, again, is whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach W. Bush today, and, if so, what exactly for, and what is your evidence? (Succinct answers only, please.)

So far, we're seeing something akin to a hung jury: a conviction would be impossible, then, even on this extremely anti-Bush posting board.

[EFLtrainer]

[Gopher]

[Hollywoodaction]

[Gopher]

This thread is going nowhere, or, better yet, it is only going to the usual EFL Trainer place.

So I'll thank Wangja, Plig, Hater Depot, and Ya-ta for the thoughtful responses. Cheers to all who voted and Happy New Year.

[Hollywoodaction]

Started going nowhere 5 posts back.

[Summer Wine]

As an outside observer, I would have to say I haven't been provided enough evidence to support an impeachment.

I understand the arguments made against/for the choices that have been made in his Presidency. I am not sure they were any more likely planned by him, than rather by his associates and I am not sure that ignorance/stupidity by a US President is an impeachable offence in the US yet.

Please enlighten me. I do not believe that he personally intended to decieve the American people. We all know where Clinton stood, so they are not comparative arguments.