Will George W. Bush, president of the US, resign or be impeached before the November Republican National Congress?

It's a long article but I found after wading through the details of the events of the Plame affair it picked up the pace and became eye opening as to how Bush has damaged one of the richest cartels on the planet and will be forced to resign or be impeached within the next couple of months. Couple that with a growing disfavor by the general public, the statement in the recent Scientific American (April) about how Bush abuses science, the recent (Feb.) signed statement by 62 highly regarded scientists (including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science) basically stating the same and you see that this administration has created a deep dislike by those who value the integrity of information, many members of the CIA by definition, for example.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

Here's the Scientific American article:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000

I may be an outsider when it comes to politics in general but if Bush knew (maybe he does or not) that impeachment was imminent, I think he would rather resign then face impeachment. Just like Nixon and the watergate incident ... I don't think any president will allow themselves to be impeached. It's not something you would like to have on your "resume" ... for lack of a better term.

I guess resigning would show the people that the president accepts full responsibility of whatever happened and step down in a honourable fashion with some dignity left. Allowing himself to be impeached would be like being dragged out while kicking and screaming. I think that makes sense

I don't think any president will allow themselves to be impeached.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton both allowed it.

:m: Peace.

hmmm ... I forgot about those two cases ... but nonetheless, I don't think Bush wants to be impeached. It may be brought upon him by force but personally, he doesn't want his term to end that way ... I think.

I do not see Bush resigning or being impeached because the American Republican Party is at the Zenith of its power. Bush’s mantra throughout his entire presidency has been consistency (which usually gets the US in big trouble). Bush is a “Texan” and is not going to be messed with so easily, and in Washington the Pussycrats aren’t doing much to stop him. As long as the branches of the govt is in control of republicans and their cronies the situation will not change with Bush or his administration. Sure Bush should be gone, but that is not going to happen.

I believe, that bush will get another term in office.
there will be no impeachment,( for what reason.surely not the plame rubbish.) therefore no need to resign.
what has he done, thats not been in the countrys, best interests.

what has he done, thats not been in the countrys, best interests.

lol! well, in fairness to bush I suppose he isn't actively working against his countries best interests when he's asleep, in the bathroom or eating but those are the only times he isn't. I'm fairly sure that this presidency will be used as a guide to future generations on "how not to run a country".

The election will be a referendum on Bush's performance, but there might be prosecution later if someone finds out about all the illegal stuff he has probably done. If he wins, there will surely be. If he loses, we might forget about it, or he might get pardoned.

Mr. Chips, I just got around to reading the article you linked, it's really interesting. I'm always leery of conspiracy theories but there is a hell of a lot of evidence offered. I expected a michael-moore-like rant with tenuous links but there are SO MANY good references for the claims made by the article. I still don't believe it but not because it isn't compelling but because it's just too big, every news organization in the world should be reporting this if it's even partly true.

But the nice thing about this particular conspiracy theory (unlike most others) is we'll know quite soon if there is any validity to it.

True. Still an interesting article and the time frame gives it a bit of excitement. I think the author can be a bit hyperbolic but he is aware of some things that are not in the public eye.

The parallel events preceeding the Nixon resignation apparently have happened, and then some, for Bush. No doubt Bush has alienated some strong intelligence agencies, some of which are most adept at regime change. I see Bush as basically a back stabber. He's all sugar talk, with crafty spin and deception to earn trust only to sacrifice you to the welfare of himself and his cronies. Sometimes it seems what goes around, comes around.

If he just siezes the power and rescinds the constitution in the consequence of a relatively large calamity rendered upon the US population with the advent of martial law, maybe that would be another option not covered by this poll. Perhaps as with 9/11 Bush would seek to facilitate such an event. I know Ray McGovern, 25 year veteran of the CIA, has expressed a similar fear recently.

:eek: According to this article entitled

"Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'"
By Julian Coman in Washington (Filed: 6/13/2004) in the UK Telegraph,

the shit may start hitting the fan this next week.

Is it just rumor? I hope these sociopaths will not see fit to make a last ditch effort to cease total control.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/13/wguan13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/13/ixworld.html

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton both allowed it.

I don't think Clinton was actually impeached. Was he? I realize that impeachment doesn't necessarily mean removal from office, but I don't think they carried it that far.

Oh, and there isn't a chance in hell of Bush resigning or being impeached. Unless of course he does somehow manage to scam his way into office for a second term, then who knows?

Well, there's been an update to the original story linked to in the first post of this thread. Can't get the full article unless you subscribe. There is a summary http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062504_grand_jury_summary.html which is linked to from the home page of the site with the statement that "Grand jury soon to release explosive indictments." The summary underscores that members of the current administration have pissed off some very powerful people. I think you will find many scientists, who also seem to be growing in opposition to these sociopaths who cloak their tyrannical ways within the insanity called "faith based," scientists who will do everything in their power to speed along the fall of Bush and Cheney and a few others.

As opposed to the insanity of scientists who think they know better than everyone else? (grin)

How about a group of people interested in finding out the truth and acting on it, rather than furthering a prejudicial agenda any cost? Got any of those?

do you even know any scientists?

The election will be a referendum on Bush's performance, but there might be prosecution later if someone finds out about all the illegal stuff he has probably done. If he wins, there will surely be. If he loses, we might forget about it, or he might get pardoned.

Why a criminal ,especially president criminal should get pardon? I think if what stated in this article is true and can be proven in court Bush and his accomplices ( though more like muppet bush and his handlers) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Constitutional and law reform should follow to prevent such crooks in governement in the feature (watergate was definteyl not enough) .

Else US might end like my own country - teared appart ,robbed and brought into misery.


By the way there was very elaborate and detailed theroretical study of twin towers collapse - and it was proven highly improbale if not outright impossible that it was due to the actual planes crashed into the builduing and subsequent fire.

Now connect A and B who benefitted from 9/11 and abused all the emergence power and authorities in the name of "war on terror" ?

Though twin tower clues were all hastily buried shortly after ....

do you even know any scientists?

Yes, and I know plenty who wouldn't have anything to do with this kind of one-sided, ideological attack, and who don't think that someone is a "sociopath" just because they believe in god and run for public office.

Isn't attacking someone for their beliefs the same, one way or the other?

We're getting a little astray here, and I don't want to hijack Mr. Chips' interesting thread, but I just want to point out that I'm responding to something specific that he said:

I think you will find many scientists, who also seem to be growing in opposition to these sociopaths who cloak their tyrannical ways within the insanity called "faith based," scientists who will do everything in their power to speed along the fall of Bush and Cheney and a few others.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7726&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/167721951?ts=1088303122&sign[partnerID]=1&sign[memberID]=420861625&sign[partner_userID]=420861625

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44598-2004Jun15.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0922tubes.htm

http://inquirer.stanford.edu/archive/articles/0209/marsflightkoch.html

I don't know, really. My first suppositions here were due to looking at the online version of the latest Scientific American, the article on stem cell research and the one on the odds for god. Another thread on this forum has pointed out recent anti-bush policy reports in Scientific American, arguing that the magazine has become liberal. I don't think so. Appears to me that Bush administration has gone far radically anti-science and even many conservative science journals and organizations and scientists are getting fed up. Here's a list of subjects that I believe have pissed off many scientists as is at least partially demonstrated by the URLs above:

Dropped out of Kyoto Protocol and fails to address appropriate technology.

Restriction on stem cell research.

Promoting abstinance as a chief prophylactic while making other forms less available.

Promising to fund AIDs research then doing so to much less extent while supporting drug company profits.

The latest flap appears to be on the efforts being conducted right now to make participation in World Health Organization conferences and meetings subject to approval by the white house.

I know some scientists but it would hardly be fair for me to take my personal experiences as any evidence of scientists in general coming to more disfavor with this administration. Don't want me to present a biased perspective now, do you shrubby?Instead, I think the data in the URLs above speak better. I can't think you can discount the idea that many scientists do not like the policies of the current misadministration.

Did you get to see John Glenn address the commission on the Bush Mars-moon initiative? Apparently a lot of plans have been scrapped for the moon-Mars mission and scientists are pissed that the direction of NASA should be turned from practicality and efficiency to sensationalistic brow beating policy.

But it doesn't appear that the scientists will make the heavy ax fall. this thread started basically with an analysis that finds the professional intelligence community, one that has and is greatly involved in removing and installing regimes, has become the major foe of Bush et al due to some pretty big abuses of that community. Nixon didn't survive it. Can Bush?

Can Bush survive the election? I give him a 50-50 chance at best.

Anyway, yeah, no question a lot of scientists are angry at Bush, so I don't mean to split hairs. I think your talking points and your analysis are fine. The only one I really have a problem with is AIDS research -- a lot of scientists feel AIDS has been overfunded relative to other areas (Scienfitic American did an interesting analysis of this a while back, essentially comparing the number of victims to the level of NSF funding, as I recall).

One has to wonder what the difference is between someone lowering funding levels for unscientific reasons, and someone *raising* them for unscientific reasons.

http://www.bushwatch.com/condoms.htm

how can anyone justify tax cuts by cutting money to children's health care?

i thought Bush had kids, he should know what its like to raise them

I don't believe that Bush will be impeached, because, as others have already said, the Democrats have no balls. If they did they wouldn't have supported his little foray into Iraq that now has this country headed down a path of no return that will shape world politics to our detriment for an entire generation, if not longer.

However. . . . As I have suggested before, I'd really like to hear from an attorney on this: Bush is the commander in chief of the armed forces. As such, I believe there is precedent to say he is subject to military justice. The JAG of any one of the armed forces could -- on his own authority without needing anybody's approval! -- call him up on an Article 39 hearing. The presiding judge (whom the JAG could probably appoint, or at least have a big influence on nominating) would rule on the evidence and could decide to put the commander in chief up before a court martial. At that point a panel of military officers would hear the evidence and see the testimony and deliberate, just as in a civilian trial. They could find him guilty of any of a variety of violations of military law, which is quite a bit stricter than civilian law! Just the two biggest:

1. Dereliction of duty. Taking the word of two known idiots (Cheney and Rumsfeld) without investigating further, and using it as the basis for a decision to invade Iraq -- the most important, sensitive decision a President has made since the last Iraq war.
2. Conduct unbecoming to an officer. Posturing publicly as a Christian soldier and making it clear through a number of public statements that this war is about Christians versus Muslims.

This is not like an impeachment, which is simply a court trial with Congress acting as the court, giving out a slap on the wrist and waiting for public opinion to shame the President into resigning. This is a military court, if he were found guilty he would be stripped of rank (no longer commander in chief, and let the Supreme Court decide if that means he's no longer President) and sentenced to military prison.

That would put Cheney in power. I guess this plan does have a few flaws. ^_^ But Cheney would never win a presidential election, any more than Gerald Ford was able to.

Anybody-but-Bush (I think the guy's name is Kerry or something like that) would win by a landslide in November. But more importantly, putting the President in prison would send a message to the whole world that the U.S. is REALLY REALLY SORRY and DID NOT INTEND FOR THIS TO GO DOWN THAT WAY. We don't hate Muslims and we have nothing against the Iraqi people. Please don't shoot us, we're not your enemy. Just go back to shooting each other like you always did before.

I would really like to know if anyone who has studied law, particularly military law, thinks that the President is subject to military justice. Civilians who volunteer to go along on military missions as reporters or equipment experts or scouts can be court-martialed, that's been decided. So why not the guy who gives them all their orders? If he's not a member of the missions, then what is he?

If there's one group of people whom Bush has really pissed off, its the military leadership. He's killing off their guys for the only reason that he's backed the entire country into a corner. He's got so many National Guardsmen in Iraq that the Guard is worried it might not be able to handle a major earthquake, blackout, or riot. He wouldn't have a chance in a court martial.

The President is a civilian and thus not subject to military law. The military answers to the civilians, not the other way around. Those embedded reporters signed papers agreeing to be held, at least in some form, to military law. The President doesn't sign such things.The President takes an oath of office. Does he enter into any kind of contract in which he specifically agrees to be the commander in chief of the armed forces? Today's courts would have a field day with the question of whether that makes him a sworn member of the military.

These written agreements are only a recent phenomenon of the Mess o' Potamia. I don't recall anything about reporters having to sign agreements during earlier wars, even WWII. When they got wind of D-Day and started sending home stories that were on the verge of blowing the Allies' cover, Ike just called them all into a big tent, laid out the entire operation for them, and then asked them to please not tell anybody. Oh yeah, and if they did he would have them tried for treason. (But not court-martialed, so it's not the precedent I'm looking for.)

I guess I watch too much TV, but I remember something about civilian computer technicians on aircraft carriers and such being construed as having implicitly agreed to be part of a military operation and therefore eligible for court martial.