NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not advocating it or saying it's practical, but I have seen multiple polls from multiple sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment#Polling_results) asserting that about half the country would support impeachment proceedings against President Bush and his veep. I think that, if such hearings occurred, there would be plenty of issues to nail them on -- warrentless wiretapping, the rationale for war, the Plame scandal, torture, etc., etc., etc. However, all of this is moot if the hearings never take place.

I know Pelosi says such hearings are "off the table", but you never know what could happen in the next few years, and if public opinion shifts much more, we'd be looking at a majority of people supporting impeachment.

So, would you support impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney? Do you think such hearings would be justifiable or practical?

You damn right I would. He has done more unconsitutional acts while president than ANY other in all of our history. Him and his admin (along with the former congress) blantanly broke the law and should be reprimanded to full extent. If bush continued to have the totall power he had before the elections then the great US democracy would've crumbled within 5 years. Most likley we'd have a police state scenario.

I'm obviously no fan of Bush/Cheney, but you can't impeach them. In order to be impeached they have to have commited a felony.

If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blowjob ... where do I go to get tickets for the hearings?

It won't happen, though, sadly, much as I'd love to see Bush and Cheney raked over the coals. The Republicans spent $40,000,000 of my tax dollars trying to get Clinton out of office and he was elected twice, too.

Yes, we should impeach Bush because then John Kerry will become president.:rolleyes:

I'm obviously no fan of Bush/Cheney, but you can't impeach them. In order to be impeached they have to have commited a felony.

"High crimes and misdemeanors." Was lying under oath about having sex a "high crime"? A stupid crime, I grant. A felony? Maybe, I don't know the applicable law.

If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blowjob ... where do I go to get tickets for the hearings?
that's not why he was impeached.

Yes, we should impeach Bush because then John Kerry will become president.:rolleyes:

Did anyone suggest that?

"High crimes and misdemeanors." Was lying under oath about having sex a "high crime"? A stupid crime, I grant. A felony? Maybe, I don't know the applicable law.

He lied under oath to Congress. "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Good case against them but oppose. Too much work to be done. If they were impeached I don't see how they could be removed from office until 2008 anyway. The process would take too long and would be a waist of precious money. (unlike Republicans that don't mind waisting money on impeaching a president for something as rediculous as a blow job)

No; they did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing unconstitutional.

I'm obviously no fan of Bush/Cheney, but you can't impeach them. In order to be impeached they have to have commited a felony.

That's false. A president can be impeached at any time given a good enough reason (or not a good enough reason depending on the state of the Congress). Basically, the Congress can decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

Can't you just wait two more years? :p

He lied under oath to Congress. "I did not have sex with that woman!"

That's what I said, he lied about having sex. Last I heard, a blowjob was sex.

Yes, we should impeach Bush because then John Kerry will become president.:rolleyes:

No, Nanci Pelosi would. See, if you're a Bush supporter you probably don't know much about how government works so I'll explain. If teh president dies or gets his nuts cut off or is impeached or whatever then the vice president becomes president. After that it's speaker of the House of Representatives.

That's false. A president can be impeached at any time given a good enough reason (or not a good enough reason depending on the state of the Congress). Basically, the Congress can decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

Exactly. The only other impeachment of a President came when Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, and Congress didn't think he should do that. So, yes, Congress does make the rules on this.

Yes, we should impeach Bush because then John Kerry will become president.:rolleyes:

you fail at civics.

That's what I said, he lied about having sex. Last I heard, a blowjob was sex.

Yes, but your post implied that that wasn't a crime. It was in fact perjury. If you lie about what yo had for lunch under oath to Congress it's a crime.

I'm obviously no fan of Bush/Cheney, but you can't impeach them. In order to be impeached they have to have commited a felony.
Illegal Spying Programme?

Well, the problem is that Bush has done nothing illegal. In order to impeach him, you're going to need to not only find something illegal but present it before the Congress and the Supreme Court (if Bush violated the Constitution). Nobody has done that, and I doubt the will.

Exactly. The only other impeachment of a President came when Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, and Congress didn't think he should do that. So, yes, Congress does make the rules on this.

Sure, you're right. You can impeach a president for not wearing deoderant. But in order to actually force them from office you have to go through a trial and prove that they commited an actual crime as defined by law.

Illegal Spying Programme?

or torture.

hold a hearing, put him on the stand under oath, and ask him about the torture.

either he fesses up, and the program is ended or he lies and we nail him.

fry the bastards, wheter impeachment or not.

Yes, but your post implied that that wasn't a crime. It was in fact perjury. If you lie about what yo had for lunch under oath to Congress it's a crime.

no it isn't by itself. Perjury must be related to a material matter. In addition it's arguable whether he ever had sex with her.

Illegal Spying Programme?

You have to prove that it was illegal. Though I think it's possible to do that, I also think it's possible to spend a year and a half in trila trying to prove that while our country is at war and then losing in the end any way.

In order to be impeached they have to have commited a felony.

that is both untrue and has already been fulfilled and publicly admitted. i think there are at least 4 completely different types of felonies they've said they did, each of which has been done repeatedly.

See, if you're a Bush supporter you probably don't know much about how government works so I'll explain.
Oh, snap... :D

that is both untrue and has already been fulfilled and publicly admitted. i think there are at least 4 completely different types of felonies they've said they did, each of which has been done repeatedly.

The problem is, saying something is a felony doesn't make it so. That's something that would have to be determined through the legal process. The only way you can impeach Bush is if you first establish that there was something illegal done.

Well, more accurately the only way you can remove Bush from office is by this method. Impeachment is the process, not the action itself.

no it isn't by itself. Perjury must be related to a material matter. In addition it's arguable whether he ever had sex with her.

Which is why he was not convicted, but it was a material matter. The whole purpose of the testimony was to decide whether or not he had desecrated the office of the presidency by having sex with an intern in the oval office. The most important question in the whole hearing, then, was, "Did you have sex with Monica Lewinsky?" He replied that he did not and then it came out that he never actually dropped her the pink pony but that she did get a dress full of presidential sperm from a blow job. After that he was impeached for lying under oath and then the trial, in which he was not convicted, became the circus about whether a blow job equals sex.

Sure, you're right. You can impeach a president for not wearing deoderant. But in order to actually force them from office you have to go through a trial and prove that they commited an actual crime as defined by law.

I really don't agree with you on this. I think that a crime doesn't necessarily have to be committed for a president to be removed. If for instance it was widely felt that a president wasn't attending to his duties properly, I think that could be cause for removing him. It's a job and though the job security is stellar by any standard, he is still employed by the nation he represents.

Edit... I found out that I'm wrong about this. I'm speaking of a recall election and impeachment at the same time. This is becoming confusing.

that is both untrue and has already been fulfilled and publicly admitted. i think there are at least 4 completely different types of felonies they've said they did, each of which has been done repeatedly.

It is true, but for the sake of argument, which felonies have they admitted to that you are sure are felonies and that the US Supreme Court will agree?

No, Nanci Pelosi would. See, if you're a Bush supporter you probably don't know much about how government works so I'll explain. If teh president dies or gets his nuts cut off or is impeached or whatever then the vice president becomes president. After that it's speaker of the House of Representatives.

It was a joke. Good luck on your impeachment hearings. You'll be impeaching a lame administration and instead of focusing on other issues, you'll drain all the public favor you gained in the last election.

Yea, I don't know shit about the government

I also think it's possible to spend a year and a half in trila trying to prove that while our country is at war and then losing in the end any way.
Losing the trial or losing the war...?

that is both untrue and has already been fulfilled and publicly admitted. i think there are at least 4 completely different types of felonies they've said they did, each of which has been done repeatedly.
That's my position. The legal case against them is pretty much a given, but it's being stymied by a pervasive attitude of "It'd be a disaster, no one would support it", etc., etc. However, it looks like plenty of folks support the idea -- roundabout half.

Besides, I couldn't stand to see these bastards get away with years of deception, law-breaking, and Constitutional rape for the sake of political expediency. Like others have said: if Clinton could get impeached for a blow-job, then we'd better get the gallows ready...

I really don't agree with you on this. I think that a crime doesn't necessarily have to be committed for a president to be removed. If for instance it was widely felt that a president wasn't attending to his duties properly, I think that could be cause for removing him. It's a job and though the job security is stellar by any standard, he is still employed by the nation he represents.

Believe me when I tell you how sorry I am to say that you are wrong. As my posting history I'm sure makes clear I woudl like nothing more than to have a "no confidence" rule by which teh president can be forced from office, but it is not the case. As was pointed out, he can be impeached for anything, but all that means is "to bring charges against." In order to be forced from office you have to actual convict him of a crime as defined by law in front of the Supreme Court.

I love how everyone says how bad my civics are after a sarcastic comment and then everyone else parrots the lie about Clinton being impeached over a blowjob.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

It would be a divisive waste of time, money, and attention. Bush is a lame duck president who just got handed a big defeat, and he at least appears to have recognized that he's not the King of the USA.

I predict that any Democrat who successfully brings an impeachment proceeding against Bush will effective kill his/her career in politics, by becoming a one-issue whiner. Furthermore, such an act would drive away all the Independants and Republicans who voted Dem in this election, which would be a foolish waste of political capital.

If the Dems want to make the most of Bush's apparent missteps, they should take the high road and blow it off (or try to reverse some of the more egregious liberty-erasing policies). After six years of Bush arrogance, nothing could do more to impress me than someone who doesn't act arrogant while on top of the heap.

Believe me when I tell you how sorry I am to say that you are wrong. As my posting history I'm sure makes clear I woudl like nothing more than to have a "no confidence" rule by which teh president can be forced from office, but it is not the case. As was pointed out, he can be impeached for anything, but all that means is "to bring charges against." In order to be forced from office you have to actual convict him of a crime as defined by law in front of the Supreme Court.

You're right. Damn.

But what about recall election... wiki is being vague with me and it seems that recall elections are only legal in certain states and I can't find anything that would make it a legal procedure against the president.

If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blowjob ... where do I go to get tickets for the hearings?

It won't happen, though, sadly, much as I'd love to see Bush and Cheney raked over the coals. The Republicans spent $40,000,000 of my tax dollars trying to get Clinton out of office and he was elected twice, too.

Clinton broke a law by lying before a congressional grand jury, that is a felony, I do not believe that Bush has commited a felony. I'm sorry to say that there is no case against him.

It was a joke. Good luck on your impeachment hearings. You'll be impeaching a lame administration and instead of focusing on other issues, you'll drain all the public favor you gained in the last election.I don't favor impeachment as is very clear in this thread. I prefer to get on with trying to save this country from the disasterous decisions of the last six years - and I'm conservative. I'm afraid of the mess that some of the Democratic leadership will make, I just hope that all of this will staunch the arrogance of the Bush admin and force them to step aside for the rest of their term and let intelligent people, Like James Baker, run the rest of the presidency while they sit on the side lines and shut up. What I'm concerned about is Iraq. After that we can get concerned about the border and hopefully the moderate and conservative Dems will join with the House Reps and make sure that whatever amnesty program Bush gets out of this Congress includes real border security.

Yea, I don't know shit about the government

Maybe you need to learn to use smilies when you are being sarcastic because it didn't come off that way.

As I said before. Impeachment procedings would be a luxury we cannot afford but if there is proof of Bush's friends and business cronies, profiteering off the Iraqi war, then he and his cronies MUST be brought to justice.

You're right. Damn.

But what about recall election... wiki is being vague with me and it seems that recall elections are only legal in certain states and I can't find anything that would make it a legal procedure against the president.

Some states have recalls, CA is one of them, but not the Fed.

Yes, but your post implied that that wasn't a crime. It was in fact perjury. If you lie about what yo had for lunch under oath to Congress it's a crime.

It's only a crime if it's related to the matter they are under investigation for. Clinton did not actually commit perjury, because Monica Lewinsky sucking him off did not relate to Whitewater.

"High crimes and misdemeanors." Was lying under oath about having sex a "high crime"? A stupid crime, I grant. A felony? Maybe, I don't know the applicable law.

Clinton was in trouble for tax evasion or something like that. I know it's to do with taxes rather than sleeping with an intern.

I love how everyone says how bad my civics are after a sarcastic comment and then everyone else parrots the lie about Clinton being impeached over a blowjob.

This place never ceases to amaze me.

It's difficult to spot sarcasm in text.

Some states have recalls, CA is one of them, but not the Fed.

Shouldn't that change? Where do I go to start up the paperwork on this?

Shouldn't that change? Where do I go to start up the paperwork on this?

You'd have to amend the Constitution.

You'd have to amend the Constitution.

I'll need white-out.


Seriously, I still believe there is suitable evidence of criminal charges but a Bush impeachment won't happen in this life. I hope anyway. Maybe Jeb will lose interest in politics.

I heard that the germans wanted to take rummy to war crimes trial, so why not impeach the bush admin to get all this shit over?

I heard that the germans wanted to take rummy to war crimes trial, so why not impeach the bush admin to get all this shit over?

Because life is a...

Well, the problem is that Bush has done nothing illegal. In order to impeach him, you're going to need to not only find something illegal but present it before the Congress and the Supreme Court (if Bush violated the Constitution). Nobody has done that, and I doubt the will.
Vetalia! 10,000th post! :cool:

The problem is, saying something is a felony doesn't make it so. That's something that would have to be determined through the legal process. The only way you can impeach Bush is if you first establish that there was something illegal done.

Well, more accurately the only way you can remove Bush from office is by this method. Impeachment is the process, not the action itself.

Of course he can be removed without an official crime. Just cite him for "abuse of power". Which he has very arguable done.

Clinton was in trouble for tax evasion or something like that. I know it's to do with taxes rather than sleeping with an intern.

incorrect. The investigation did not reveal any wrongdoing on his part. He was investigated for it, but the investigation did not reveal anything.

I do not believe that Bush has commited a felony. I'm sorry to say that there is no case against him.

It would depend on whether those wiretaps were legal or not.

If not, then invasion of privacy is most definitly a crime.

the problem lies in SCOTUS. even if you get to it, bush appointed two of them and it has a conservative slant.

as much as I want him to be impeached and removed, it aint happening.

It would depend on whether those wiretaps were legal or not.

If not, then invasion of privacy is most definitly a crime.

But then you'd have to prove that wiretaps where no actual person is listening is an invasion of privacy - something there is no legal precedence for.

President Bush & Company clearly misled Congress and the American public regarding the intelligence surrounding Iraq's alleged WMD and nuclear "programs." Impeachment, however, is a distraction from fixing the mess they've gotten us into. We're better served repairing the serious damage done to our international alliances and working on getting our troops home than we are spending valuable time and milliions of dollars investigating and prosecuting the obvious.

Americans get precisely the government we deserve. We earned Bush & Co. by blindly following party alliegances rather than our individual good judgment and consciences. We knew Bush was underqualified for the presidency, and that the results of the 2000 presidential election were questionable (to put the best possible spin on it.)

And yet we looked the other way and allowed the Neo-Cons and ultra-right wing Christian conservatives to hijack the presidency and US Congress. And thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians paid the price.

Now we have a chance to fix what's broken. We can't repair the lives of those soldiers and civilians killed and maimed in Iraq, nor can we return to their families what they've lost. We can, however, remember to never repeat the mistakes we've made regarding the important exercise of our vote.

"High crimes and misdemeanors." Was lying under oath about having sex a "high crime"? A stupid crime, I grant. A felony? Maybe, I don't know the applicable law.

He lied in a courtroom. I believe that was the felony part. It was a stupid lie too. I've never understood why the hell he did. He'd have weathered that just fine if he had just stood there and admitted that, Yeah, Monica sucked me dry, and yeah, I banged her on my desk and showed her a whole new use for a cigar, your point?

President Bush & Company clearly misled Congress and the American public regarding the intelligence surrounding Iraq's alleged WMD and nuclear "programs." Impeachment, however, is a distraction from fixing the mess they've gotten us into. We're better served repairing the serious damage done to our international alliances and working on getting our troops home than we are spending valuable time and milliions of dollars investigating and prosecuting the obvious.

Americans get precisely the government we deserve. We earned Bush & Co. by blindly following party alliegances rather than our individual good judgment and consciences. We knew Bush was underqualified for the presidency, and that the results of the 2000 presidential election were questionable (to put the best possible spin on it.)

And yet we looked the other way and allowed the Neo-Cons and ultra-right wing Christian conservatives to hijack the presidency and US Congress. And thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians paid the price.

Now we have a chance to fix what's broken. We can't repair the lives of those soldiers and civilians killed and maimed in Iraq, nor can we return to their families what they've lost. We can, however, remember to never repeat the mistakes we've made regarding the important exercise of our vote.

I don't usually post hump, but that was very well put.

**humps your leg**

You're a girl, I hope? :confused:

He lied in a courtroom. [/I]

It was in front of Congress not in a courtroom. And moreover, did he lie? Really, truly, did he lie.

He said he did not have sex with Monica, that was the supposedly lie.

Now, please provide me a universal definition of sex. There is none. In fact, the only definition which MIGHT be considered "universal" is intercourse, and it's never been demonstrated he had intercourse with her.

He engaged in oral with her, is that sex? Impossible to say, there's no universal definition of it. To say "he lied about having sex" is overly simplistic, he said he did not have sex with her. Did he, in fact, have SEX with her?

It was in front of Congress not in a courtroom.It's just as much of a crime to lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. And moreover, did he lie? Really, truly, did he lie.

He said he did not have sex with Monica, that was the supposedly lie.

Now, please provide me a universal definition of sex. There is none. In fact, the only definition which MIGHT be considered "universal" is intercourse, and it's never been demonstrated he had intercourse with her.

He engaged in oral with her, is that sex? Impossible to say, there's no universal definition of it. To say "he lied about having sex" is overly simplistic, he said he did not have sex with her. Did he, in fact, have SEX with her?

And therein is why he wasn't ever convicted. That was exactly the controversy and that was his defense tactic. Is sucking his dick the same as screwing him. While I'm sure his wife would have her own opinion, this came down to legal definitions.

If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blowjob ... where do I go to get tickets for the hearings?

It won't happen, though, sadly, much as I'd love to see Bush and Cheney raked over the coals. The Republicans spent $40,000,000 of my tax dollars trying to get Clinton out of office and he was elected twice, too.

:eek: Wow, you paid $40,000,000 in taxes for those 8 years of Clinton presidency? :rolleyes:

It's just as much of a crime to lie under oath at a Congressional hearing.

Didn't say it wasn't. I merely clarified a factual error

And therein is why he wasn't ever convicted. That was exactly the controversy and that was his defense tactic. Is sucking his dick the same as screwing him. While I'm sure his wife would have her own opinion, this came down to legal definitions.

Exactly, that's the problem. People say he lied under oath, but did he? It's a question that you can't answer. He said he didn't have SEX with her...well, did he have SEX with her? That's an impossible question to answer objectively, as the definition of sex is entirely subjective. It's absolutly possible he as an individual does not consider oral to be sex (I don't either, for instance).

Therefore it's grossly insufficient to say he lied, we can't know that for certain. We know two facts. He said he didn't have sexual relations with her, and we know she did engage in oral with him.

The question we don't know is, if in his own mind, whether that oral constituted sexual relations. If not, then he didn't lie. He said he didn't have sex with her and, as far as he believed, he did not.

A niggly technical detail to be sure, but law is all about technicalities.

:eek: Wow, you paid $40,000,000 in taxes for those 8 years of Clinton presidency? :rolleyes:

What can I say? We Americans are swimming in fiat currency.

Didn't say it wasn't. I merely clarified a factual error



Exactly, that's the problem. People say he lied under oath, but did he? It's a question that you can't answer. He said he didn't have SEX with her...well, did he have SEX with her? That's an impossible question to answer objectively, as the definition of sex is entirely subjective. It's absolutly possible he as an individual does not consider oral to be sex (I don't either, for instance).

Therefore it's grossly insufficient to say he lied, we can't know that for certain. We know two facts. He said he didn't have sexual relations with her, and we know she did engage in oral with him.

The question we don't know is, if in his own mind, whether that oral constituted sexual relations. If not, then he didn't lie. He said he didn't have sex with her and, as far as he believed, he did not.

A niggly technical detail to be sure, but law is all about technicalities.

I think we would have been infinately better off if he had been able to remain president. Having said that, don't you think that's a bit slippery? If Bush had done the same thing and used the same excuse...

Yes, we should impeach Bush because then John Kerry will become president.:rolleyes:

don't tell me you are one of those racist, homophobic bigoted christians who always vote republican, regardless of their platform.

don't tell me you are one of those racist, homophobic bigoted christians who always vote republican, regardless of their platform.

Yes, and I also drink the blood of innocent Iraqis when I'm not beating a fag to death with an picture book of the Good Book because I can't read because I'm too busy watching NASCAR which I like because I can get up during the yellow flags to go get a beer and beat my wife who's currently having our 9th child who I plan on calling Billy-Bob because that's my grandpa/uncle's name.

He engaged in oral with her, is that sex? Impossible to say, there's no universal definition of it. To say "he lied about having sex" is overly simplistic, he said he did not have sex with her. Did he, in fact, have SEX with her?
Technically it wasn;t even 'oral' sex, cause oral means from the mouth.
It should really be classified as 'buccal' sex, buccal of course meaning the mouth cavity.

Yes, and I also drink the blood of innocent Iraqis when I'm not beating a fag to death with an picture book of the Good Book because I can't read because I'm too busy watching NASCAR which I like because I can get up during the yellow flags to go get a beer and beat my wife who's currently having our 9th child who I plan on calling Billy-Bob because that's my grandpa/uncle's name.

wow. just abso-fucking-lutely hilarious.

all in one sentence too.

Yes, and I also drink the blood of innocent Iraqis when I'm not beating a fag to death with an picture book of the Good Book because I can't read because I'm too busy watching NASCAR which I like because I can get up during the yellow flags to go get a beer and beat my wife who's currently having our 9th child who I plan on calling Billy-Bob because that's my grandpa/uncle's name.
Reminds me of Colbert's characterization of a Democratic victory:

"Tomorrow, you're all gonna wake up in a brave new world, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorists clones created in a stem-cell research lab run by homosexual doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags, and where tax-and-spend Democrats take all your hard-earned money and use it to buy electric cars for National Public Radio and teach evolution to illegal immigrants. Oh, and everybody's high!"

No, Nanci Pelosi would. See, if you're a Bush supporter you probably don't know much about how government works so I'll explain. If teh president dies or gets his nuts cut off or is impeached or whatever then the vice president becomes president. After that it's speaker of the House of Representatives.
You (and a lot of people) are missing something important, the 25th Amendment gives the President power to appoint a VP should the Vice Presidency be vacant. Nixon did it with Ford (he didn't ascend directly from Speaker) and Ford did it with Rockefeller, both times with Democrats in firm control of both houses of Congress. Whether they'd deny Bush the ability to do so in hope of a power grab is debateable... the American public would probably react rather unfavorably. If both Bush and Cheney were headed for certain removal of office (extremely unlikely, as 2/3 Senate majority is needed), Cheney could resign and Bush could attempt to appoint a new VP.

I think we would have been infinately better off if he had been able to remain president. Having said that, don't you think that's a bit slippery? If Bush had done the same thing and used the same excuse...

the bolded part is where I go "wtf"?

Clinton was never removed from office, what the hell are you talking about? He was given an official censure by Congress, and returned to work.

He served two full terms, and was thus constitutionally barred from remaining president.

He was never removed from office, he served his time, completed his presidency and...that was it. I have no idea what you mean 'better off if he had been able to remain president"...he was. No president in the history of this country has ever been removed from office. Jackson and Clinton were impeached, but not removed. Nixon resigned before he could be removed.

And I don't care about slippery. Either he lied, or he did not. It can not be demonstrated that he lied.

I'm not advocating it or saying it's practical, but I have seen multiple polls from multiple sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_impeachment#Polling_results) asserting that about half the country would support impeachment proceedings against President Bush and his veep. I think that, if such hearings occurred, there would be plenty of issues to nail them on -- warrentless wiretapping, the rationale for war, the Plame scandal, torture, etc., etc., etc. However, all of this is moot if the hearings never take place.

I know Pelosi says such hearings are "off the table", but you never know what could happen in the next few years, and if public opinion shifts much more, we'd be looking at a majority of people supporting impeachment.

So, would you support impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney? Do you think such hearings would be justifiable or practical?

I say go for it, despite the fact that they just don't have the votes, even with a Democratic Congress. When they impeached Bill Clinton they prevented him from doing some very good things. The worst criticism they had of the guy was "hey! he's doing things that we think are a good idea!" Yes, the complained louder about his having sex, but that's not as bad as agreeing with a Republican.

If they impeach Bush they'll keep him too busy to screw the country up any more than he already has. And even our corrupt GOP Cock-sucking media won't be able to tear its eyes away from impeachment proceedings while a few Democrat controlled comittees pass some legislation that will repair the damage the Repubs have done these last 6 years while the GOP is too distracted to notice.