Debate:Has George Bush displayed questionable judgment and deserve to be impeached?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Closer government.

Anyone agree?--Closer government 19:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)


(Deep breath... count to three... RANT)

I do. He may have gotten into office via vote fraud. He has managed to ruin absolutely everything he's touched, and has run the national debt up to mind-boggling levels while simultaneously eviscerating the government. He's gotten people to discuss if maybe torture 'isn't all THAT bad', raised cynicism to new heights, seems to think his job-title is 'Emperor', not 'President', and has attained heights of corruption that would have embarrassed the Grant administration. He lied his way into a war when we already had one going, and has botched BOTH. He's screwed things up SO badly that even avowed hippies like myself find ourselves forced to side with the CIA and the military, two groups we're traditionally not very fond of. He's let an entire city get washed into the Gulf of Mexico, and seems incapable of even recognizing his failures, let alone acknowledging them.

Will someone PLEASE give this idiot a blowjob so we can impeach him already? (You'd think starting a WAR on dubious and fraudulent evidence, trashing our military, and breaking treaties agains war crimes would be enough reason, but these things are apparently OK with his party, so that just leaves sex as a possible excuse.)

Yes, impeachment at this late stage won't bring the dead back to life. But it might help remind the next person to hold his job that this county is supposed to be run by LAWS, not the Divine Will of The Decider.

"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four

airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' " -- Bill Maher's Remarks to Mr. Bush

--Gulik 15:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)


  • Actually, I disagree. Kicking Bush out would just put Cheney in. I think most people realize that that would not be a good thing. --transResident Transfanform!
    • I say we impeach both and put Pelosi in--Closer government 20:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I take a more long-term strategic look at it. I'm quite willing to give him as much rope as he'd like in order to hang himself and his movement. Damaging the Neoconservative movement is best for the future. --Edgerunner76 13:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

With so little time left to his mandate, what would be the point in starting such a process?--Bobbing up 14:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)

No. Displaying questionable judgement is not really, in itself, grounds for impeachment. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I agree. I don't know the technicalities, but certainly an extraterrestrial panel, or Mr. God himself, could empeach him to save the world? I mean, you must take away matches from small children, specially if they are playing with something flammable. And nothing is more flammable than the World. But I put my agreement in the disagree section as I... don't want to ruin the Tumbleweed animation. Editor at CP 15:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I reluctantly disagree, and not just because of the Cheney thing. The last thing the US needs is a feeling that both parties are engaging in gotcha, that "they impeached us, so we'll impeach them." That being said, I do believe there should be SOME investigations, and that a few people (like Gonzalez) should be tried for breaking US torture laws. (Or for "conspiring to torture", I guess, since I doubt he ever did the deed himself.) (However, if it can be found that Bush himself authorized it - then he deserves to be impeached.) Researcher 23:34, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Resignation vs. Impeachment[edit]

If he were at all the decent man he thinks himself to be he'd resign. --Edgerunner76 14:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

That's logical--Closer government 09:29, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Heh, but if he thought he was a decent man, then he'd have no reason to resign. So it would actually be illogical for him to resign for that reason. Lurker 14:58, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Not Enough[edit]

I think I hold the most radical opinion on Bush of any person I know. I consider him a war criminal. He has caused so many innocent deaths in his pointless war that the time for impeaching is over. He should be arrested, tried, and put in prison for the rest of his natural life. The time has come to set an example, and show future presidents that deceit and incompetence in the most powerful office in the world comes with consequences. After he has been taken care of, we should then amend the constitution to give the UN power to veto executive decisions on foreign soil or international waters (meaning they could override the president by forbidding our troops to invade somewhere, or telling them to leave if they were outside the US, but couldn't actually take command of them), and giving them power to arrest, try, and sentence a US president (thus preventing the military or Secret Service from interfering). Had such an amendment been in place prior to the Iraqi War, it wouldn't have happened. First off, they could have just said "no" and that would have been that. Secondly, there's no way Bush would have risked such a disaster had he known he actually could go to jail for it. Mustex