Impeachment Coverage - Mixx "Breaking" Got the News to the Front Page First

Comments (11)

1. • phubrain

   What's taking so long to impeach this anti-american known as George Bush.

   He has almost singled-handedly bankrupt america and has killed off some of our brightest young men and women of the furture. Plus causing the next four to five generations of our kids to have to pay for his lack of knowledge for running our country.

   I think that the members of congress we elected has not done what we elected them to do. And everyone of them has some weak excuse as to why it hasn't happened.

   • (0 Kudos received)
2. • spuds

   George Bush should be locked up in Guantamano (spelling) Bay!

   • (0 Kudos received)
3. • cmcgill

   This is exactly why we invented the breaking news approach- to solve the timeliness issue in social media- great article.

   • (0 Kudos received)
4. • sheseltine

   Good to see stuff like this, when more people here about which social media sites are relevant and timely those are the ones they'll flock / drift to.

   • (0 Kudos received)
5. • jasmine

   @phubrain
   I can't understand the same.... Why can't this stupid be held Accountable for what he's doing...

   @spuds
   should be given that "WaterBoarding" thing....

   • (0 Kudos received)
6. • FatLester

   @spuds AND @phubrain AND @jasmine

   The political reality here is that this has more to do with revenge for the Clinton impeachment than anything Bush has done in office.

   If you people had your way the country would be waist-deep in civil war right now.

   The president is hired to make difficult decisions, and the country is best served when the parties don't use for political gain the threats of impeachment and indictments for what ultimately amount to the policy decisions every president makes while in office.

   • (0 Kudos received)
7. • yoda

   @FatLester hired? policy decisions? creating propaganda is a policy decision? blocking an investigation of a so-called terrorist attack that his own friends might have been involved in (the Bush family and the bin Laden family are friends, for starters)...those are policy decisions?

   murder? lying to Congress? torture?

   i think you are out of the loop here...what country do you live in anyways?

   • (0 Kudos received)
8. • FatLester

   @yoda

   That's just it. "murder? lying to Congress? torture?" Those are opinions, the merits of which are irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. The fact is they are debatable.

   Policy decisions include such things as anything pertaining to Iraq, including the buildup, actual war and subsequent occupation.

   Mature people are cognizant of the fact that two different people can reach two different conclusions about topics such as waterboarding, justification for war, etc. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who agree with Bush's decisions on such issues. Simply writing them off as out-of-touch or stupid does nothing but destroy your own credibility in the argument.

   Again, the actual merits over the issues here are irrelevant. The very fact that they are debatable is reason enough not to set the precedent of indicting a U.S. president for policy decisions that were popular at the time.

   The Republicans should never have indicted or impeached Clinton, and the Democrats are just as wrong for stooping to that level a decade later. What we need is some clear-headed, independent, moderate thinking. All this extremist rhetoric is bad for the country, the parties and the elected officials.

   FWIW, I am from the United States, and I am old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment hearings.

   • (0 Kudos received)
9. • FatLester

   @yoda

   I'm not arguing that Bush was or wasn't justified in making those or any decisions. I'm looking at this 50 years from now and asking myself if it will be a good thing for the country if the political parties resort to trying to impeach and indict each other every time the White House changes hands.

   No matter who is president, something will be done over the course of 4 or 8 years where the other side can raise a stink and accuse them of all types of malfeasances. This is fine, so long as the only recourse is being voted out-of-office. If we start bringing criminal charges into it, nobody worth having will want the job and bitter partisan tensions will only get worse.

   If we can all agree to play by some basic rules of civility, everyone wins.

   • (0 Kudos received)
10. • yoda

    @FatLester Your point completely backs up Kucinich's....they ARE debatable. exactly. precisely.

    Congress's job is to debate these things. You admit it's debatable whether Bush has violated his Oath of Office and that is what an impeachment process is for.

    If it was not debatable, then there would be no need. But they are debatable, in fact, they are proven beyond any reasonable doubt to pretty much anyone that looks at them. Have you looked at the 35 Articles? And to your mind, they are all "not proven"? Come on, man. They are so obviously true, most of them..Congress has a job to do, don't they?

    Or don't you think the Constitution is what defines the jobs of the Government? If not that, than what?

    I remember the Clinton thing..what "high crimes and misdemeanors" did he do that compared to even one of the 35 Bush is accused of? Just give me that?

    These are not comparable events.

    Are you implying that George Bush is "worth having" as president? If so, then you are the one who is losing credibility here, at least with me.

    • (0 Kudos received)
11. • FatLester

    @yoda

    Please don't try to put words in my mouth... er, on my fingers. I stand by that which I said and nothing more.

    Everything is debatable. The point I'm trying to make is that very fact that the hearings were scheduled (in reality, rhetoric aside) is that: A) Democrats wanted revenge for Clinton, which the GOP saw as getting even for Nixon. B) Democrats control the House, so they can actually schedule such measures. C) There is a Rebpublican president who is unpopular enough that they can pull it off without angering the general electorate. D) It makes for effective pandering in an election year (again, they have no intention of actually going through with it).

    This is just how politics works. When Clinton was impeached, the Republicans were just as guilty of seeking vengeance for the Nixon impeachments. If you're wondering why there was such a long time gap, the second year of Clinton's first term (1994) was the first time the GOP controlled the house in 40 years, and thus the first time they had the power required to enact revenge since the Nixon impeachments.

    My other point is that this kind of politics is destructive to the country as a whole no matter who's doing it or who the president is, and voters from both parties and everything in between would be better served if we collectively demanded our country's political organizations adhere to a higher standard.

    You may not remember all the bombings ordered by Clinton throughout his two terms, but the same arguments being used against Bush could just as easily be used to indict Clinton and formally charge him with war crimes and human rights violations. You can bet if hypothetically the Democrats actually proceeded with charges against Bush, the next time Republicans gained the power necessary, there would be an array of similar charges pursued against Clinton.

    This benefits no one. Our system is set up so that unpopular candidates can be removed from office. There is no need to scare off any potentially good candidates with the threat of going to jail as a pawn in a decades-long partisan pissing contest.

    I don't know how I can be any more clear than that about what I'm arguing here. If you're still drawing unrelated assumptions, you're not participating in the same conversation as I am.

    To answer your question, Clinton was impeached because he committed a felony while in office (perjury).

    • (0 Kudos received)

Add Your Comment Impeachment Coverage - Mixx "Breaking" Got the News to the Front Page First

Login now to post your comment.