Just let him stay. He only has a until January of next year.

I can't stand Bush and am counting the days until he's out of office. I doubt this impeachment will happen, and it's a little late at this point, but I'd be for it, if anything just to help tarnish his record even more

Given the number of studies, including by the Senate, that find that the Bush Administration 'misled' (a kind word) us into war, impeachment absolutely must be considered. It is not a distraction for a nation to work to correct the wrongs it may have done. And it isn't just a 'get Bush' thing because 77 Senators voted to support the war.

Would Democrats rather hear the words "President Cheney"?

No, impeach him too. His hands are probably far dirtier than Bush's.

IMO, if there had been enough evidence that showed Bush had done anything illegal, impeachment would've happened two years ago. This is definitely a "get Bush" thing. Let it go.

1. Too little too late.
2. being a complete and utter F*@K up doesn't warrant an impeachment.
3. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." As much as I dislike George Bush, I'm not sure what he's done fits the bill. Maybe...but I'm not a constitutional scholar.

i think kucinich is doing the right thing. now he can look back at this period of time and know that at lease he tried to do everything he could... other legislators might have a little more trouble sleeping at night.

yes, he is very unpopular, but do the american people want to go through this now, at the end of his term? if people get annoyed by this, it could backfire on the Dems in Nov.
although personally i think it's impeachable stuff.

I agree with you UD!

Cute picture b-t-w!

onabanana: just go back and read a few months worth of citizen, or any other news source... there's lots of stuff bush has done that falls into the category of "high crimes & misdemeanors". the whole valerie plame thing seems to be the most popular crime of his at the moment.

While I agree Bush/Cheney/Rove all probably should stand trial on many of their decisions, I really don't think this is the time. In fact, the timing is beyond stupid. I think the most important thing is to learn from the past, and spend time and energy on the present problem where we make smart measures both short term and long term. To spend even more time running around blaming each other won't do us any good. The history will tell the tale of Bush, and it will be punishment enough for all parties involved. A trial will make it more difficult for the country to come together, and for bipartisan solutions.

I don't know if poking it with a stick will heal the wound.

U.D., you're kidding right?
There is a mountain of evidence that the Administration deliberately misled the country into war - that's evidence of wrongdoing; there is evidence that the Constitution and American law does not support the Administration's secret prisons all over the world - that's evidence of wrongdoing; there's evidence that laws were broken so that the Administration could spy on citizens - that's evidence of wrongdoing.
If all this is allowed to pass unquestioned, precedence is set and any president, EVEN A DEMOCRAT, could point to Bush and say he was allowed to have his war, I want one too. There's a lot more at stake than Bush's reputation.

if people get annoyed by this, it could backfire on the Dems in Nov.
although personally i think it's impeachable stuff."

I agree. I do think that outing a CIA operative and intentionally exaggerating the case for war does qualify for impeachment, but I think that right now it would do more harm than good. I agree also with Tresjolie, it will make it harder for bipartisan solutions to be worked out.

It's just too late. He only has about 7 months left.
I think it would only make the Democratic party look spiteful and hurt them in the election.

I agree with Jillness and Tresjolie. Of course Bush/Cheney suck and they need to be put on trial. But frankly, that should have happened a LONG time ago.

To paraphrase a line from Hillary's concession speech - "for all those that want to look back, i say - please don't. Because i won't. It's time to look forward instead of dwelling on 'what if?' and doing whatever we need to do to win back the White House."

So, that's just my opinion...

I'm not kidding. As muck ill will as there is for Bush, if the was and hint of illegality, Bush would've been drawn and quartered.

...and somebody is up for re-election of the 10th district congressional seat in the general election November 4, 2008.

Just food for thought...

especially since he's been criticized for spending all his time/energy running for president and not focusing on his district...

Syako!

It will only hurt now, esp in a year where both candidates will have trouble getting their party's ideological base and will need to pull in the middle noncommittal voters who hate the partisan bickering... both candidates claim a reputation of nonpartisan acts that cut across party lines, so each seems to me to have an equal shot at those middle undecideds that rule the swing states... and then we're drawing antagonistic lines that are going to make it hard.

That's a very good point Syako. Do you think it will help him retain his seat?

"I agree. I do think that outing a CIA operative and intentionally exaggerating the case for war does qualify for impeachment, but I think that right now it would do more harm than good."

I agree with Jillness...it's all about timing and even though the Plame affair was just one friggin' big mess (to put it lightly)...I don't think this is going to help.

Depends what his district is made up of... if it's a bunch of Bush-hating Liberals, then hellz ya.

"Depends what his district is made up of... if it's a bunch of Bush-hating Liberals, then hellz ya."

I always thought his district was made up of teensy green men coming off spaceships. I'm guessing I'm wrong, though.

have you seen his wife? she looks like Claudia Shieffer with red hair!

nica--Stephen Colbert did this hilarious interview with her, complete with soft-focus lighting and shots of her tossing her hair back. Hilarious. And, ten bucks says Kucinich comes up to her bellybutton.

em: So funny!

LOL...oh man, i love Colbert! i'll have to look that up. I remember he had Kucinich on and they did a fake animation where he jumped into Stephen's suit pocket and lived there, along with a copy of a mini constitution.

em they actually are tiny green men that also are bush-hating liberals. crazy, I know.

I'm interested to see how all these democrats who ran on the "I will introduce articles to impeach Bush if you elect me" platform will fare at their re-election. I have a feeling Pelosi won't be very welcome. She may not lose, but she obviousily didn't follow through on her promise.

Ahaha! Em, you made me laugh!

I think it's a little too late. I understand what he is trying to do but I think it should have been done earlier.

I love that conservatives defend a president who has done more to increase government spending, involved our military in a completely unnecessary war and has destroyed the economy. Just goes to show that it has nothing to do with conservatism, it's just blindly following their party without thought. Keep going guys, the cliff's this way ...

if you're referring to the conservative on here, you've obviously never read or paid attention to ANY of our comments.

I think I was pretty clear. I was referring to conservatives who defend the president. All 19% of them.

where is that number from?

I just made it up.

Per usual Rac, you aren't that clear. You generalize and sound very condescending.

If you're referring to the numbers on THIS poll, just because someone selected "let it run its course" doesn't mean their supporting Bush. Likewise, if someone posted "other" it doesn't mean they support Bush. Way to assume things.

Amen raciccarone! I do recall the Republican's being very "spiteful" when impeachment was an issue for Bill Clinton. Talk about out to get someone. How quickly we forget when the shoe is on the other foot.

UnDave ... you of all people on CS have no room to say anyone is condescending or generalize.

No, seriously Syako, I just made it up because it sounded real. It doesn't mean anything.

Oh ok. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers or fur.

I just find it interesting that this was brought up, when I believe out of the 40+ comments on this thread the majority say "it's too little too late" or something of that nature and it hasn't been a rah rah from the conservatives about their "savior" Bush.

I said other. To quote John Adams, from John Adams the TV series; "a mob is still a mob, even if they are with you". While I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend Bush, in any way, I also fail to see what we would gain right now with impeachment. The reason they weren't impeached earlier was that in a time of war it would be extremely destructive to put Iraq on hold while we figure out who to blame the most. Not even Democrats were willing to risk that scenario. So there you go. They got off the hook in a sense, but out issues are so much more important than that. For other countries as well. Both we and they need us to clean up this mess. And that is going to take time and effort and willingness to cooperate. A trial will not solve anything.

but out issues are = but our issues are

Very well put tresjolie

trésjolie! this is why I missed you.

I feel the love, and I'm glad to be back!

If there is clear proof that an impeachable offense has been committed by our President than sure that is what the guidelines were created for. If we're not going to use them than toss them. What's the point of having them if they're going to be dismissed every time an offense is committed?

The danger of not pursuing clearly impeachable offenses first and for most gives the administrative branch more power by default that it wasn't intended to have and two sets a precedent for future administrations to move covertly with in a new space of indifference by the American public.

I don't know about you but I don't want the administrative branch to have more power than it already has. This isn't just about sending the Bush administration a message (if they did something wrong) it is about telling future administration that the American people believe in the balance of power.

You guys would make interesting cops and judges. All any criminal would have to do is lay low until the statute of limitations runs out on whatever they've done - it's not as if you'd bother to look for them - and they go free.

Impeachment isn't about political GAIN, it's about defending the Constitution, standing up for the laws of this country, calling people to task for the wrongs that they have done. Allow it to pass unnoticed this time and it will happen again.

To think that Kucinich will fare better in a local election for bringing this resolution is laughable - and he won 50 % of the vote in a five-way primary in March, despite claims he spent too much energy on the presidential race.