Should Cheney be impeached?

[codeorama]

If he perjured himself, then yes, he should be impeached.

BTW, does the left still believe that Clinton was impeached because he got a smoothie in the Oval Office? Or do they now realize that it was the lying under oath that was the reason?

It is understood that he lied under oath, but IMO, lying about a BJ is less of an issue than lying about selling arms. That's why I say "context" is the key.

If Bush lied about having an affair, I wouldn't care, because that is a personal matter between he and his wife. If he lies about where tax money is going or about something that actually has something to do with the job of the presidency, then that's different.

Sure, you can say lying under oath is a terrible thing to do, and I agree, but again, why was he even asked about an affair? What did that have to do with running the country?

And have you seen Hilary? Can you blame him?

[codeorama]

They go hand in hand. Should the topic ever have warranted questioning in front of a grand jury? Was the affair worth the money we the taxpayers spent to Ken Starr?

Totally agree. The money wasted is truly sad.

[Burgold]

Don't disagree with that, but there was an incredible witchhunt that went from Whitewater to Bhuddagate to assasination rumors etc. and with all this and eight years of searching they hang him on an affair? Either the guy is truly the slickest man alive or the five years to eight years of non stop investigations and independent investigations were truly, truly inept. In the end, it was about an affair. It was a question that had little relevance to national security, the economy, or his ability to function as President.

At least in the Plame Case there is an issue of Federal importance to be decided. Just my opinion.

[LegionOfDoom]

Will a Republican held Senate vote to impeach...that is the question?

[flyingtiger1013]

Just my opinion but should the Vice President be indicted, he will step down. As will Rove and Libby. However, I cannot foresee the VP getting indicted in this. Remember, indictment doesn’t mean conviction. Clinton wasn’t convicted because he made a deal with Senate Democrats. Prior to that, Lieberman was on his way to the White House to give the “It was good enough for Nixon” speech to Bubba. Clinton is a shrewd politician and was able to keep his job by making the deal to rubberstamp everything the Congressional Democrats said.

Now, is impeach the correct term for a VP in the first place? Nixon’s VP, Agnew, was indicted and resigned and then pled nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal charge of tax evasion, part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme wherein he allegedly accepted $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland. I never heard of any impeachment process that was considered against him. As far as I know, impeachment is a political process to a legal means. Once someone is indicted by a Grand Jury, impeachment (and trial) would be simply used to remove from office the indicted. However, I can’t see a political impeachment and trial happening concurrently with a Federal prosecution.

[Kilmer17]

I think if a Pres or VP perjures himself, regardless of what it was about, he should be impeached.

Lying under oath is the crime.

[Thiebear]

If he perjured himself, then yes, he should be impeached.

BTW, does the left still believe that Clinton was impeached because he got a smoothie in the Oval Office? Or do they now realize that it was the lying under oath that was the reason?

I agree.

[pez]

It is understood that he lied under oath, but IMO, lying about a BJ is less of an issue than lying about selling arms. That's why I say "context" is the key.

If Bush lied about having an affair, I wouldn't care, because that is a personal matter between he and his wife. If he lies about where tax money is going or about something that actually has something to do with the job of the presidency, then that's different.

Sure, you can say lying under oath is a terrible thing to do, and I agree, but again, why was he even asked about an affair? What did that have to do with running the country?

And have you seen Hilary? Can you blame him?

I agree... how much energy & money was thrown at JFK's affairs?

That being said I do have a big problem with the president lying under oath, but I guess we get use to it, because how many times do you think the president (in general) lies to the american public every day?

[iheartskins]

Don't disagree with that, but there was an incredible witchhunt that went from Whitewater to Bhuddagate to assasination rumors etc. and with all this and eight years of searching they hang him on an affair? Either the guy is truly the slickest man alive or the five years to eight years of non stop investigations and independent investigations were truly, truly inept. In the end, it was about an affair. It was a question that had little relevance to national security, the economy, or his ability to function as President.

At least in the Plame Case there is an issue of Federal importance to be decided. Just my opinion.

That's totally fair Burgold, I'm just saying that there are ways to justify what went on--and that lying under oath is a big deal no matter what the underlying activities are. Whether it was justified, I'm not sure. It cost a tremendous amount of money and didn't really accomplish anything but that if that wasn't clear at the outset and there was a possibility that there were a lot more shenanigans going on behind the scenes, that I don't see it as being as big of a problem.

[codeorama]

I think if a Pres or VP perjures himself, regardless of what it was about, he should be impeached.

Lying under oath is the crime.

So it's OK to you, to waste billions of dollars over a BJ?

I understand your point, but to what cost?

[flyingtiger1013]

And have you seen Hilary? Can you blame him?

Zing! :laugh:

I still have the copy of Penthouse that has Jennifer Flowers in it. Can't say I blame him a bit!

[Kilmer17]

So it's OK to you, to waste billions of dollars over a BJ?

I understand your point, but to what cost?

Not at all. Clinton should have owned up to it immediately and saved us the money.

Or better yet, just not lied about it in the first place.

Everybody in the world knew he was a womanizer. If he had said right away that he had an affair, it would have been news for a week.

[NavyDave]

It wasnt billions of dollars and it was a big deal to us abroad that the office of the white house was sullied by him.

First he tries to get open gays in the military, uses scare tactics to shut up the women, have basically orgies in the Lincoln bedroon and its not that they were innocent during the Rose law firm, whitewater scandals its just that they were not guilty after saying I dont recall, recollect or remember a thousand times.

Its obvious that everyone assumes that Clinton is a liar as he is to this day trying to revise his legacy.

[NavyDave]

The bottom line is even if the democrats effort succeed, the fact is that they are still losers, having no agenda people will embrace, wont take over the Hoouse or Senate in 06, President Bush will still be in charge and will have another supreme court nominee before 2008 who will be conservative to stabilize the voting base.

[jbooma]

Getting a BJ is a crime?

in same states, dc i do not know about but here in va it is, the "blue laws" :doh:

[pez]

in same states, dc i do not know about but here in va it is, the "blue laws" :doh:

yeah, but who ever pays attention to them.... IT is kinda like those laws where you aren't allowed to place a pumpkin on your front step on a full moon, if you own a cat.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[codeorama]

It wasnt billions of dollars and it was a big deal to us abroad that the office of the white house was sullied by him.

First he tries to get open gays in the military, uses scare tactics to shut up the women, have basically orgies in the Lincoln bedroon and its not that they were innocent during the Rose law firm, whitewater scandals its just that they were not guilty after saying I dont recall, recollect or remember a thousand times.

Its obvious that everyone assumes that Clinton is a liar as he is to this day trying to revise his legacy.

Sure, Clinton was the first to "sully" the white house... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Best joke of the year.

[codeorama]

The bottom line is even if the democrats effort succeed, the fact is that they are still losers, having no agenda people will embrace, wont take over the Hoouse or Senate in 06, President Bush will still be in charge and will have another supreme court nominee before 2008 who will be conservative to stabilize the voting base.

Maybe, maybe not...

Mood is sour on Bush, Congress

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Americans are increasingly critical of President Bush and dissatisfied with the Republicans who have controlled Congress for a decade, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Complete poll results)

But congressional Democrats — while favored when it comes to the economy, the war in Iraq and even taxes — have problems, too. They get a rating only somewhat less negative than the GOP. (Related: Americans give Democrats an edge)

The public's sour outlook raises the prospect that the elections next year could be more problematic for incumbents than any since Republicans swept to control of Congress in 1994.

"If a year from now the public mood is similar to what it is now, Republicans will be in trouble," says political scientist Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego. He calls predictions of a Democratic takeover of the House "a bit premature, but not crazy."

At the moment, Bush is in no position to boost Republicans. By 54%-39%, those polled say they are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who opposes the president than one who supports him. (Related: Bush poll results)

Just 46% say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest level of support since 1994. But 65% say their own representative deserves re-election. (Related: Congress poll results)

In the poll, taken Friday through Sunday:

• By 50%-49%, those surveyed say Bush doesn't have the personality and leadership qualities a president should have — the first time in his tenure a majority hasn't viewed him positively. His job approval is 42%, up from a historic low of 39% one week earlier.

• Support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has ebbed. By 43%-42%, those surveyed say the Senate shouldn't confirm her. That's the first time a plurality, albeit narrow, has opposed the confirmation of any high court nominee over the past two decades.

• Nearly four in 10 say they believe Bush aides broke the law in the leak of a CIA agent's name to reporters; another four in 10 say administration officials acted unethically but not illegally.

• Americans split 49%-49% on whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq; last month, they said it was a mistake by 59%-39%. But there isn't more optimism about the war's progress; 57% say it is going badly.

• If Bush were running for re-election this year, 55% say they would vote for an unnamed Democratic candidate; 40% for Bush. Last year, Bush beat Democrat John Kerry 51%-48%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-25-poll_x.htm

[pez]

Sure, Clinton was the first to "sully" the white house... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Best joke of the year.

\

Exactly... anybody remember this guy? They are probably still trying to get the stains out of the sheets, drapes, carpet..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[NavyDave]

He wasn't the first and that doesnt dismiss what he did.

Sorry your effort to downplay it didnt work

[Kilmer17]

Just 46% say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest level of support since 1994. But 65% say their own representative deserves re-election.

This is the point I keep making when chom et al try and say the GOP is self destructing. It's simply not true.

We wont have anything more than a typical 2nd midterm election. In fact, I still think the GOP may actually gain a seat or two in the senate.

[codeorama]

Not at all. Clinton should have owned up to it immediately and saved us the money.

Or better yet, just not lied about it in the first place.

Everybody in the world knew he was a womanizer. If he had said right away that he had an affair, it would have been news for a week.

Again, I totally understand, but again, the circumstances were that the right was trying anything to get him for anything and that's the best they could do? What a waste of my money.The question should have never been asked. That was a personal issue.

[NavyDave]

It wasnt a personal issue especially since it happened in the white house.

In the military you are courtmartialed for adultery and the President is in the chain of command

[Burgold]

Wouldn't it be a national disgrace if in the same year Cheney, Rove, Frist, and Delay were all indicted. It could very well happen. What does that say about modern politicians?

[Kilmer17]

Meet the new bass, same as the old boss.