[JohnSmithXTREME]

Should Bush be impeached for inventing that cuckoo story about WMDs and going to war in Iraq for some mysterious reason? After all, Bill Clinton lied about sex and he was nearly impeached. Shouldn't Bush be impeached for lying about something much bigger? Or is it okay that he invented the story of WMDs?

[Millennium]

You'd need to show that Bush lied under oath in order for him to be impeached on the same grounds Clinton was. In particular, this means three things:

• Bush must have been under an oath to tell the truth.
• Bush must have said something untrue.
• Bush must have known that what he said was untrue at the time that he said it.

Although proving the second of these is not hard, you're going to have a hard time proving the first and third.

[bubblewrap]

Unlike Clinton.

[demograph68]

How can someone ignorant of the facts be proven guilty of lying though? I mean, their wasn't really any valid facts to support a claim that Iraq had WMDs, as in the nuclear weapons that were claimed to exist at the time.

[zizban]

Being an idiot and a liar is an not an impeachable offense.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by zizban:
Being an idiot and a liar is an not an impeachable offense.

It is if you do it under oath.

[k squared]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Should Bush be impeached for inventing that cuckoo story about WMDs and going to war in Iraq for some mysterious reason?

The United States didn't invade Iraq for "some mysterious reason." Iraq was invaded to pressure Saudi Arab into cutting funding for OBL and to gain a foothold in the Middle East. From Iraq, the U.S. can influence Iran, SA, and Syria. How do you explain this to the American public? For the above reason to be effective, you can't exactly go around telling everyone. Hence a BS story about WMD.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is if you do it under oath.

OK. So how do we get George to sit on the stand and answer the questions?

[Dimethyltrypt]

the problem is, he's never under oath.
the congress should inverstigate and put him in court.
and the senate shall judge him

[bubblewrap]

Why isn't Moveon.org "getting over it" yet?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
OK. So how do we get George to sit on the stand and answer the questions?

That's what an impeachment is: a substitute for the usual trial process. I didn't say whether or not I thought it should happen, only that I don't think much good will come of it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's what an impeachment is: a substitute for the usual trial process.

No it isn't. Impeachment only removes a person from office, it is not a criminal trial. Trials result in criminal conviction or aquittal. A trial can follow impeachment, and still not be double jeopardy.

What impeachment is is a political means to remove someone from office where there is no democratic means to do so. That's why federal judges can only be removed by impeachment. That's why the decision to impeach is left to the political branches with only the vaguest guidance. They are supposed to decide the matter politically, answering to the people.

In this case, as has been pointed out time and time again on these boards, there was an opportunity to remove Bush from office, and the people decided the contrary. All of the tired extremist leftist arguments raised here were fully discussed in the court of public opinion, and the verdict was four more years, an increased Republican majority in both houses, and further marginalization of the left.

Congress isn't going to undo the election for you. It's over.

[nath]

Surreal times we live in, when people feel justified in putting on their smug face even after being repeatedly misinformed and lied to.

I guess that depends on whether you view the lack of WMDs in Iraq as a self-evident fact or a "tired extremist leftist argument".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No it isn't. Impeachment only removes a person from office, it is not a criminal trial.

No, impeachment is the set of hearings used to decide whether or not to remove someone from office. It's a replacement for the trial process, because of the whole immunity thing.

Trials result in criminal conviction or aquittal. A trial can follow impeachment, and still not be double jeopardy.

Exactly. That's part of the point.

What impeachment is is a political means to remove someone from office where there is no democratic means to do so. That's why federal judges can only be removed by impeachment. That's why the decision to impeach is left to the political branches with only the vaguest guidance. They are supposed to decide the matter politically, answering to the people.

Only the decision to impeach is political. The decision to remove is handled much like a trial, including a need for evidence, charges, and the all-important proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Congress isn't going to undo the election for you. It's over.

When did I ever say I thought Bush should be removed? An impeachment can acquit as well as convict. I think that if Bush is impeached he will probably be acquitted.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No, impeachment is the set of hearings used to decide whether or not to remove someone from office. It's a replacement for the trial process, because of the whole immunity thing.

You still aren't getting it. Impeachment (while trial like) isn't a "replacement" for a trial. If it were, an impeached person couldn't be tried criminally for the same offense after impeachment because of the double jeopardy clause.

Impeached officials can be tried in a criminal court after impeachment. Impeachment is not a substitute for the trial. It is just the process used to remove an official from office.

The leading case is probably Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). That is Judge Nixon, not president Nixon. Although the case actually decided not to hear the issue, its language discussing the petitioner's argument that he had been denied a trial is pretty clear. A "trial" in impeachment isn't a trial in the judicial sense.

Petitioner argues that the word "try" in the first sentence imposes by implication an additional requirement on the Senate, in that the proceedings must be in the nature of a judicial trial. From there petitioner goes on to argue that this limitation precludes the Senate from delegating to a select committee the task of hearing the testimony of witnesses, as was done pursuant to Senate Rule XI. "[T]ry" means more than simply "vote on" or "review" or "judge." In 1787 and today, trying a case means hearing the evidence, not scanning a cold record. Brief for Petitioner 25. Petitioner concludes from this that courts may review whether or not the Senate "tried" him before convicting him.

There are several difficulties with this position which lead us ultimately to reject it. The word "try," both in 1787 and later, has considerably broader meanings than those to which petitioner would limit it. Older dictionaries define try as [506 U.S. 224, 230] _ "[t]o examine" or "[t]o examine as a judge." See 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1785). In more modern usage, the term has various meanings. For example, try can mean "to examine or investigate judicially," "to conduct the trial of," or "to put to the test by experiment, investigation, or trial." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2457 (1971). Petitioner submits that "try," as contained in T. Sheridan, Dictionary of the English Language (1796), means "to examine as a judge; to bring before a judicial tribunal." Based on the variety of definitions, however, we cannot say that the Framers used the word "try" as an implied limitation on the method by which the Senate might proceed in trying impeachments. "As a rule the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require. . . ." Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921).

The conclusion that the use of the word "try" in the first sentence of the Impeachment Trial Clause lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senate's actions is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments: The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings by the use of the word "try" in the first sentence.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
OK. So how do we get George to sit on the stand and answer the questions?

we won't

[bubblewrap]

Move on. Get over it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You still aren't getting it. Impeachment (while trial like) isn't a "replacement" for a trial.

Not according to the official language, but in practice that's exactly what it is. Sitting government officers cannot be arrested and put on trial, but there was a need for some means to address serious crimes committed while in office. This is where the impeachment process came from. It is different from a trial, but has all the trappings thereof, except that the most serious sentence which can be given is removal from office. At that point, a real trial can begin without violating double jepoardy.

In many ways, the differences between impeachment and trial are little more than legal semantics. That is, however, the point.

If it were, an impeached person couldn't be tried criminally for the same offense after impeachment because of the double jeopardy clause.

Yes, yes they can. I have said this same thing multiple times in this thread. Why are you trying to convince me of something which I have already stated I believe?

Impeached officials can be tried in a criminal court after impeachment. Impeachment is not a substitute for the trial. It is just the process used to remove an official from office.

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck. It's not called a duck, of course, and there are legal reasons for that. But to say that it has any major differences from a duck other than name ignores most of the facts.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Move on. Get over it.

Tell that to the soldier's families.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not according to the official language, but in practice that's exactly what it is. Sitting government officers cannot be arrested and put on trial, but there was a need for some means to address serious crimes committed while in office. This is where the impeachment process came from. It is different from a trial, but has all the trappings thereof, except that the most serious sentence which can be given is removal from office. At that point, a real trial can begin without violating double jepoardy.

In many ways, the differences between impeachment and trial are little more than legal semantics. That is, however, the point.

Yes, yes they can. I have said this same thing multiple times in this thread. Why are you trying to convince me of something which I have already stated I believe?

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck. It's not called a duck, of course, and there are legal reasons for that. But to say that it has any major differences from a duck other than name ignores most of the facts.

I keep correcting you because you keep making mistatements about what impeachment is. What you dismiss as "legal semantics" is very important. Impeachment isn't a criminal trial. This is a Constitutional law issue, not garden variety "looks like a duck" analysis. Read the opinion I gave you the link to. That's the Supreme Court construing the Constitution.

The political nature of impeachment has a practical upshot. The standards for impeachment are extremely fluid, and overtly political. Johnson was impeached basically because the Congress didn't like him vetoing Reconstruction. Clinton was impeached basically because the GOP was out to get him. Both impeachments cited other excuses, but those were the substantive reasons. In a trial it would be unconstitutional to prosecute on the basis of political disagreements. but in impeachment it is perfectly permissible.

Conversely, a president with broad public support and who has been endorsed by a reelection on precisely the wild allegations presented in this thread will never be impeached unless some really damning new evidence arose. There would have to be proof that Bush knew there were no WMD and decided to invade anyway. Suffice to say there is no such evidence. At worst, he might have decided to err on the side of caution and defending the US -- which most Americans would probably call a good trait in a president. I certainly would. And of course, WMD was never the sole reason for going in.

An impeachment is a substitute not for a trial, but for an election. Bush was reelected largely on his handling of foreign policy and after all of these wild accusations were fully aired before the voting public. Having the support of the American people is never going to lead to impeachment, especially not when his party ran on his coattails to a larger majority in both houses. In fact, even Democrats would recognize that a vote for impeachment would be political suicide. It would be going against the wishes of the American people on a matter that they voted on and decided in 2004. As I said before, Congress isn't going to try to undo the 2004 election. Bush won, the "Bush lieeeed!" crowd lost. Get over it.

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Should Bush be impeached for inventing that cuckoo story about WMDs and going to war in Iraq for some mysterious reason? After all, Bill Clinton lied about sex and he was nearly impeached. Shouldn't Bush be impeached for lying about something much bigger? Or is it okay that he invented the story of WMDs?

If I recall Kligon, oops, I meant Clinton and almost everyone in Washington believed he was building WMD for the past 10 years.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
If I recall Kligon, oops, I meant Clinton and almost everyone in Washington believed he was building WMD for the past 10 years.

Try HERE and HERE for start.

Sen. Kennedy: "No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Sen. Kerry: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

There are many more quotes. The question is how can Bush be impeached for "making things up" when there were a lot of people who genuingly believed there were WMD?

[JohnSmithXTREME]

So American politicians on both sides of the political aisle were wrong? Does this mean that American policy in general cannnot be trusted?

Or is that being too harsh on an empire that has otherwise been beneficial to the world? I mean, somebody has to clean up the mess left by european decolonisation in the 20th century, and the American empire is up to the task.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
OK. So how do we get George to sit on the stand and answer the questions?

Not gonna happen. When Rice was testifying to this issue, the Administration made sure she wouldn't be under oath. Clinton's biggest fault wasn't lying, it was not making sure that he wouldn't me under oath when doing so.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zizban:
Being an idiot and a liar is an not an impeachable offense.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
If I recall Kligon, oops, I meant Clinton and almost everyone in Washington believed he was building WMD for the past 10 years.

Yup, he was just following the work that already had been done.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
So American politicians on both sides of the political aisle were wrong? Does this mean that American policy in general cannnot be trusted?

Or is that being too harsh on an empire that has otherwise been beneficial to the world? I mean, somebody has to clean up the mess left by european decolonisation in the 20th century, and the American empire is up to the task.

Not just American bub.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Clinton's biggest fault wasn't lying, it was not making sure that he wouldn't me under oath when doing so.

No, I am pretty sure it was the lying.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Clinton's biggest fault wasn't lying, it was not making sure that he wouldn't me under oath when doing so.

Clinton's biggest fault was getting in to that situation.

Most people didn't care about all of Clinton's shortcomings... because the economy was booming.

[budster101]

It's "Should PRESIDENT Bush be impeached?" moron. And the answer to your stupid question is no.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by budster101:
It's "Should PRESIDENT Bush be impeached?" moron. And the answer to your stupid question is no.

Eh, no. Foreign heads of state are properly addressed as Mr or Mrs. When I speak of the president of France, I say "Messr Chirac". When I speak of the president of the US, I say "Mr Bush". Also, if you like Mr Bush as much as I suspect, perhaps you should act more like him. He is a gentleman after all, and it's doubtful that he runs around calling people names.