Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Promising to impeach Bush will lead to gains.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
V. Kid Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 02:53 AM
Original message
Promising to impeach Bush will lead to gains.
Edited on Sat Aug-12-06 03:13 AM by V. Kid
It's a simple as that.

Why?

Because if the Democrats say why he needs to be impeached, because he lied about Iraq, and lead the war poorly, and therefore is unfit to govern, it will force those who disagree, mainly Republicans, to defend him. The more they're tied to him, the more unpopular they'll be. The more unpopular they'll be, the more likely they'll loose. Now of course the Republicans will steal a few lines out of the Lieberman playbook, and claim that the Democratic Party is being "narrowly partisan".

But look-y here.

The fact of the matter is this: Bush is politically toxic. As we know the main reason, other than possible voting related "shenanigans", that endangered Republican incumbents will survive is because of their personal appeal to their constituents, and their ability to run away from Bush as fast as possible. Now of course this strategy won't work very well if certain Democrats, unfortunately most of them, argue that the President shouldn't face Impeachment hearings. And, umm, thus defend him. But if they leave the possibility for impeachment open, at the least, then they'll force their opponents to defend him and put them on the wrong side of an unpopular issue (the war!) and tie them to a symbol of that issue (Bush!). The Republicans, and other Bush defenders, will be relegated to whining like babies will the grown ups talk about the real issues.

One of the reasons the Republicans are so successful is because they create divisive hot-button issues that place the Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion. With the Iraq war going the way it is, this is a chance for the Democratic Party to make big gains. It focuses political attention on the "culture of corruption" and "abuse of power" allegations, nay observations, that the Democratic Party is making with good reason against the Republicans and Bush. And with ballot measures like increasing minimum wage on various states, that favour the Democrats, I think they're starting to learn how to play the game better. Adopting this strategy would confirm that they are learning how to play the game better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ERF Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have a link to the actual legal case for impeachment?
Wanting to impeach and President and having the legal grounds to do so are obviously two different things.

Anyone who pays attention clearly knows that he is a criminal in the moral sense, but what are the specific laws on which we would try him for high crimes and misdemeanors? He lied, but not necessarily under oath. The Guppies are fast working to fix that little old espionage law he broke. Do you have a link to help me out on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Re: "Do you have a link to the actual legal case for impeachment?"
Edited on Sat Aug-12-06 03:15 AM by anotheryellowdog
Google "Legal case for impeachment of George W. Bush" (no quotes). I didn't have time to sift through all the results (about 1,550,000), but you should be able to find enough ammunition without too much trouble.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes, but the fall elections are critical for subpoena powers
Conyers would be in-charge and he knows the score as do we.


http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
V. Kid Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Unfortunatley, or maybe fortunatley, I'm not a lawyer...
...but I'd say that the Downing Street Memo would be a good indication of previous knowledge of "saying one thing" and "doing another", ie: the Bush Administration was saying that they wanted a peaceful solution to the WMD "crisis", but knew full well that they intended to invade Iraq. I'm not sure the exact legal precedents for bringing up charges, but I'm sure someone more well versed on that could think about the consequences.

I think this all leads back to the old cliche about Bill Clinton's impeachment being based on his lie. If Bill Clinton could be legally brought up on charges because he lied about a oral sex, then surely George W. Bush can be brought up on charges because he lied about a war. I don't know, hopefully there are some DU lawyers around here, because if impeachment itself isn't the right word (although I'd like it to be since it's so powerful), then investigations that could lead to impeachment could be the series of right words.

The reason I bring this up now is because I think the Connecticut Primary is somewhat of a microcosm of the wider political climate in the country as it relates to Bush and the Iraq war. There was a strong, well financed, well backed incumbent, toting a strongly pro-War record, and was actually somewhat harder to pin to Bush on other issues, than the average Republican. And yet, he still managed to be defeated. Granted that electorate was more liberal than the average electorate, but still, the Democratic Party's candidates in other races will be better positioned than Lamont was in taking on Lieberman, so I still think the comparison stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ERF Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. What I am fairly sure of is that "lying" itself is not
a grounds for impeachment. Bush didn't lie under oath, Clinton did. Why he did and for what reasons and the subject of that lie is what made the impeachment absurd.

Thus lying itself, and of that I am certain, is not the crime.

My guess is that there are probably some things hidden out there that would require subpoena power. Which, as the original post rightly said is the primary focus at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. he lied under oath giving the State of the Union which is
applicable.

Also the Ricco Act is applicable.

He has broken more laws than Nixon ever did
believe me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ERF Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Is he State of Union considered "under oath" really?
I certainly believe you that he broke laws, don't worry. I just want to know the exact legal basis so that it can be solid and not simply sound like a desire for vengeance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. One case can be made
for "conspiring to wage war". This is not part of the US code but of international law as per Nuremburg and therefore has a special dispensation.

And by all lights he is guilty as sin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Conyers Report on Potential Bush Crimes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. Damn! A strategist!
Don't take this the wrong way, but you could be our Karl Rove!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
V. Kid Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Cheers...
...I just think the Democrats need to start fighting fire with fire, read Sun Tzu, and all that jazz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Re: Sun Tzu
Thanks for the tip. I will check it out. B-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
V. Kid Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Shhh...
...I need to read it too, I just know some of the quotes from it. Including the one about war being an extention of politics, and something about enemies needing to be studied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
V. Kid Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-12-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bump...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC