Question:
There was a poll to record yes or no votes with this article and I was
very amazed that here in this strongly Republican state, the yes vote
for impeachment as an option was 57%.
GOP Senator: Impeachment An Option For Bush
POSTED: 4:35 pm EDT March 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President George W. Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.
Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.
"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.
"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed -- if a president really believes that, then there are -- what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.
The White House had no immediate reaction Sunday to Hagel's comments.
The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.
That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 -- or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.
On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.
In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.
In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.
"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."
"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."
Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.
"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.
"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.
"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."


Answer:
Regrettably, no. I don't think there is enough time. The country is already focusing on W's replacement....I just can't see enough time to get the momentum to get it through. And then what??? ...Cheney ....an even more horrid nightmare.


Answer:
It would be interesting, because you would need grounds for impeachment. Going against the will of congress by using veto powers isn't an impeachable offense.
If, however they did try to impeach the President over the CONDUCT of the war, it would create a Constitutional crisis, as Congress would be trying to grab powers granted to the executive branch.


Answer:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
If, however they did try to impeach the President over the CONDUCT of the war, it would create a Constitutional crisis, as Congress would be trying to grab powers granted to the executive branch.
Indeed - thus illuminating a critical imbalance and knocking the dispute into the court of a heavily stacked third branch. A lot of foresight went into this particular flouting of the Constitution.
At this point, the aim of impeachment wouldn't be to spare America another year of Presidential lawlessness, but rather to set a precedent in the hope of deterring it in the future. Were it not for the fact that the Vice-President had as much to do with the crime as the President, it would still be a good idea.
Love, Columbine


Answer:
Heavily stacked?
The USSC is about dead even. There's no clear cut majority on the court at the moment. Look at the recent decisions they have come down with. If the President wanted to stack the court, he could take the same path as FDR and attempt to get congress to change the number of seats on the court.
Flouting the Constitution? If any branch of government is flouting the Constitution at the moment, it is Congress, as the Constitution CLEARLY puts conduct of military operations in the hands of the executive branch. The appropriations bill currently in Congress would be a fiasco even if it passed and they could override a Presidential veto. It would be in the hands of the Supreme Court before you could say "Nancy Pelosi".
Congress could cut off funding for the military, but they know it would ultimately be political suicide to do so.


Answer:
I don't have a lot of specific knowledge on this just general ideas.
We fought in Korea, without Congress declaring war, and people followed because they were still riding the tide of WW II.
We fought in Vietnam without Congress declarng war, and people learned from the past and started protesting.
Now we are again in a war that was NOT declared by Congress; but now we have all those from the Vietnam era of the age which puts then in the political trenches, and they are NOT going to let that happen AGAIN.
Impeachment - would not solve this particular problem because of the term of office coming to an end; as mentioned already, the process could not easily be completed before then. So to go that route would be more of a political manuever. Can the people of the Vietnam era generation NOT start the process? They may feel they owe it to themselves.


Answer:
But lying about your sex life...now THAT'S an impeachable offense....hmmmm...maybe that is why a woman has never been president.


Answer:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
But lying about your sex life...now THAT'S an impeachable offense....hmmmm...maybe that is why a woman has never been president.
Lying under oath about anything is an impeachable offense. That it was his "sex life" just made it more sensational.
I don't think impeachment is a viable alternative right now, nor do I think it is what the country needs. As much as I disrespect our current President, we need ALL branches of goverment to work as they should, bring balance into the power structure, move forward and work for the common good of the country and the world.


Answer:
What ARE you all going on about ???
Georgy boy is your elected president.....leave him be....he's doing a great job.
Wom


Answer:
[QUOTE]"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."[QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better!!! Bush has run this country and it's reputation into the ground. Impeaching him at this point is a moot issue, since his term is almost over.
Wombat,
Doing a great job??? Oh PUHLEEEEEZE!!! For the record, I DIDN'T vote for him in either election, so count me out.


Answer:
Originally Posted by Karen
Lying under oath about anything is an impeachable offense.
Which is, I suppose, why Bush doesn't want Rove and Maier to testify under oath.....
When Clinton lied.....no one died.....


Answer:
[QUOTE=moosmom] "People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."[QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better!!! Bush has run this country and it's reputation into the ground. Impeaching him at this point is a moot issue, since his term is almost over.
Wombat,
Doing a great job??? Oh PUHLEEEEEZE!!! For the record, I DIDN'T vote for him in either election, so count me out.
Hmmmmmm.....I never do count "the vocal few" in.
Wom


Answer:
Wombat, you want 'im? You got 'im. Fair trade, President Bush for PM Howard.


Answer:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Wombat, you want 'im? You got 'im. Fair trade, President Bush for PM Howard.
Well....we've already got 'im !!!!! Bush is right where we need him, and so is Howard.
The vocal few who would exhibit "self destruct mode" to the world are just a laughing point to us here.
If you're not happy with your president, then get another when his time is up.
Until then, live with your last vote.
Simple Simons law !!!!
Wombat


Answer:
Self destruct mode?
You've got the wrong guy.
Gotta love bumper sticker politics.