AHC: Impeach Bush in 2003

Killer300

As I said, no room for impeachment.

But actually, there was a general belief of blowback. Now, does that mean planes crashing into towers? Of course not, it could've been anything. The only point I'm making there is that the CIA knew America would probably face terrorism for actions done earlier in the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) (Just definition of blowback.)

Again, all I'm saying here is that while the attack itself was unexpected probably, terrorists attacking the United States for actions done in the Middle was not.
 

Killer300

Anyway, a time he could've been impeached is 2005, but it would've required Iraq to get WAY worse far faster. True, he could have, in theory, been impeached for declaring war without proper provocation. After all, what's needed for impeachment is rather vague, to say the least.
 

Chengar Qordath

Derek Jackson said:
Any possibility of his being more deeply linked to Enron than came out?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that could be a possibility, but it would probably require a 9/11-less world. Certainly, his ties to Enron would've been a much, much bigger deal without the War on Terror overshadowing everything.
 

Killer300

And the only way to prevent something like 9/11 from eventually happening would've been to change US foreign policy during the Cold War. A lot.
 

arrowiv

I recall Bush was actually quite popular in Texas, the South and Southwestern states. Is this a complication as well?
 

MerryPrankster

arrowiv said:
I recall Bush was actually quite popular in Texas, the South and Southwestern states. Is this a complication as well?
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that their representatives aren't likely to vote to impeach him and their senators aren't likely to vote to remove him.
 

miketr

Lets get real here


The fact that just 2 presidents have been actually impeached, 3 if you count Nixon as the house was about to do it. Even then no senate has convicted yet. This is a rather hard bar to jump over.


CONGRESS passed the patriot act and Bush signed it into law. So USSC strikes down the patriot act and that 'mostly the' same congress that passed the law in the first place now moves to impeach the president? What is the logic of this exact? Laws and executive orders get struck down by USSC from time to time without impeachments. Its part of the political process.

Yes impeaching a sitting president is a political act and congress can do so for any reason that enough of them agree to. Most ideas to put it kindly are weak. For example using the patriot act as a lever IS the type of fantasy idea you find on Daily Kos or the like. For that matter a number of other ideas in here are tinfoil hat conspiracy fantasy land stuff. Karl Rove and Bush letting the attack happen for political points?!?! Whats next a thread on making 9/11 a jewish plot all along? Considering the date this has to be one of the more taste less threads I have seen lately.


Michael
 

lloyd007

Bush isn't going to be impeached for the Patriot Act. He's not going to be impeached for the Iraq War barring something really bad that doesn't involve WMD's (which would prove he was right). He's certainly not going to be impeached over Afghanistan.

He might get impeached if he really had his hands in Enron or some other economic scandal (like if he packed Fannie and Freddy with friends and family members).

He probably would be impeached and removed, or resign beforehand, if 20k died in Katrina.

But as we've seen with Obama and stuff like Gitmo, once Americans find out those detained are either a) coming here to the US, and/or b) cannot be successfully prosecuted in anything other than a military tribunal due to classified evidence, there's a paradigm shift in their attitudes aka "No way in fucking hell am I ever letting those bastards within 100 miles of me!" and "What do you mean they'll be released!? They are terrorists!"
 

ChucK Y

I read a timeline once where Bush was forced to resign because of his actions that prevented 9/11, arresting and imprisoning/deporting terrorist suspects and launching an attack on Al Queda camps in Afghanistan that killed Osama bin Laden. With no actual attack occurring, his actions were heavily criticised as heavy-handed and provocative.
 

phx1138

A law being unconstitutional isn't grounds for impeachment anyhow.

What would be is lying to Congress. Which W. did before he started the Iraq invasion...:rolleyes: The claims of nukes were totally fraudulent (& let's not even mention the claims of an Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda:rolleyes:). What you need is for somebody to know he lied to Congress & be willing to tell Congress, & then, for Congress to have the stones to do something about it. I don't recall if Powell actually knew it was all lies...

Then, of course, there's the trial, & the vote to remove. Wasn't Congress majority Republican at the time? So even if there's a conviction, there won't be a vote to remove him, & you've accomplished damn all, & wasted an enormous amount of time & effort. Not unlike the Clinton show trial...which had far less justification, & far less serious implications.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Apollo 20

This really is ASB barring credible evidence of falsification in the presentment of the evidence in the lead-up to the war or evidence of gross malfeasance in the handling of pre-9/11 intelligence or some sort of major scandal involving Bush, such as Enron. Even then, you have to change the outcome of the 2002 midterms and come up with a Dem House and Senate; I can't see the GOP slitting its own throat for 2004 by impeaching and removing its own President.

The biggest problem here is that impeachment and removal gives you President Cheney. Even the most ardent opponents of the war back then would hardly consider that to be an improvement, so I have some difficulty figuring out who exactly would find a political incentive for this. I'd think Democrats would just as soon avoid impeachment and use whatever they have against Bush in 2004. If there had been credible evidence of falsification of evidence supporting the war, I should think that public support for it would have collapsed, so you don't need impeachment to stop the war.
 
MonsooN

MonsooN

How about some evidence coming to light that he was actively involved in, or had knowledge of, the missing votes in Florida in the election?
 

Duke 4

Bush was a very bad President. He ranks up there with Pierce and Buchanan . But you don't get impeached for being stupid and or having bad policies. I can't see it happening unless you are able to prove he was a traitor. That I don't believe he was. Plus if he is impeached, guess what? Dick Cheney is the new president and Cheney picks Rumsfeld to be the new VEEP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top