The only hard justification Congress could muster at this point for impeachment is...revenge. And that's a piss poor reason to impeach.

My personal opinion is that Bush is inept and unfit for the job...but I can think of a few of his predecessors who fit that bill as well. The constitutional standard for impeachment is that they have to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors", and I have yet to have one anti-Bushite show me compelling evidence that he has done so.

If we set the bar for impeachment THIS low, we've effectively neutered the presidency for generations to come.

"My personal opinion is that Bush is inept and unfit for the job..."

I don't see how anyone could make the point of Bush being "inept". He's done just about everything he's set out to do. Perhaps his PR people are inept, and perhaps he has gone in directions people disagree with, but the only failures I see are totally subjective. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and a host of other "beloved" Presidents had many, many for failures and setbacks and aren't considered "inept".

Someone who was inept wouldn't have caused all this anger, frankly. An inept President couldn't have enacted all these things that make people angry. He's been very, very effective, but people just don't like what he's effected much. Bush hasn't had his "Bay of Pigs" that i have seen.

Well how do I know you're not making counterfeit money unless I kick down your door and sock you in the face?

That statement is as lame as your cowardess. I'll bet behind that anon user there is a former banished looser. But, how would I know that?

Let’s assume I was making counterfeit money. I had the whole deal set up in my basement. There would be some sort of evidence that stuff was either coming in or going out. Right? Now under US law, with probable cause, a judge could issue a search warrant. The police come in legally and search though my whole house and basement to find instead of counterfeit money I was making cookies for the starving children. I have no problem with them coming in to search because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Sadam was hiding something or at least he was acting as any other criminal would if they didn't want you to know what they were up to. You can debate WMD's all day long. Fine, they weren't there. But if Sadam was only baking cookies ... Why wouldn't he let us in to see?

I don't see how anyone could make the point of Bush being "inept". He's done just about everything he's set out to do.

I DID state it was my personal opinion, Baker, and it remains so (and yes, it is a VERY subjective opinion. I won't deny that). I'm not going to argue it as it was clearly stated as such. BUT the fact remains, he WAS elected through the democratic process and there's no grounds for impeachment.

I believe now, as I did one year ago, that last year's presidential election was a winnable one for the dems...but they fouled it up by nominating a candidate that was COMPLETELY unappealing to just about everyone to the right of the Kennedy, Boxer, and Clinton contingent.

What about sending our troops into battle without the proper equipment, with too few forces to accomplish the mission properly

Not his purview! Properly equipping the army is NOT the presidents job.

When the police investigate people illegally printing money, they are investigating a crime. The WMD thing is a given. His agreement stated he lived by certain rules, and things in the past would be left there. He ignored those rules, and the cease fire was called off. The insignificant detail of whether he had any WMDs is like lambasting police for arresting a drug cartel boss and not finding anything in his pockets.

So far, I haven't seen anyone here or elsewhere offer up anything better for Bush to do. They say more troops, which would be more oppression, more targets, and more excuse for attacks, and other say no troops, which would be abandoning our commitment.

People don't care what Hussein was doing to Iraq. They don't care that he was shooting at our planes, and they don't care that he was paying bounties to suicide bombers in Israel. All people like Babwa do is show how insensitive they are to people suffering when they pretend they care to make these empty political statements.

"I DID state it was my personal opinion, Baker, and it remains so (and yes, it is a VERY subjective opinion."

You know I respect your opinion, Gid, but frankly I think an inept president wouldn't have fueled your angst as much as Bush has. In the great scheme of things Bush has accomplished a whole lot more that he set out to do than other presidents we consider successes. We just don't agreee with them.

The actions of Bush in sending our troops into a war where there was NO danger to America. Sending too few trooops to secure Iraq. Sending them into battle without protective equipment. Everyone of those choices was made by Bush and EVERY one caused Americans to die. There is NOTHING worse a Peresident can do then to cause American military to die without reason! The UN inspectors were in Iraq when Bush invadad. If Bush had allowed the UN inspectors to complete their job, we would have learned what we now know - Saddam had no WMD. Bush could not have risked that because it would have prevented him getting Congredss to approve the war. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from his very first cabinet meeting long before 9/11. If causing the needless death of American military is not a reason to Impeach, then nothing is a reason. How many of our troops died when Clinton lied and the GOP impeached him?

You only go in if the intelligence is credible. It clearly wasn't, i.e. Blair's 45 minute claim from a decade old PhD thesis lifted from the net and the Africa uraniam claim Bush was told was not true but still included in his State of the Union. The intelligence was fixed around the drive for war, clearly the first resort not the last.

You better go do some more research. Every and I do mean EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD thought the same thing. So do not try to tell me the intel wasn't credible. If you "still" think so then explain these:

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

And the BIGGEST one of all.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

He's been very, very effective, but people just don't like what he's effected much. Bush hasn't had his "Bay of Pigs" that i have seen.

That statement, I can agree with. A president like Jimmy Carter (can kind o' remember) was inept and ineffective. Gerald Ford (before my time, going on impressions received on 3rd party info) was borderline inept (I mean, come on! How lame do you have to be to trip and fall down a flight of stairs ... oh, wait ... that was me last week. Oops. Carry on.)

Anyways, other than a large part of the population in the country disagreeing w/ him (Dems and libs 'cause they're not running things and the Repubs 'cause he's not doing EXACTLY what they want him to do and us independents 'cause we think he's just screwing things up), he doesn't qualify as inept (Bungling or clumsy; incompetent -Dictionary) or ineffective ( ). He has proven effective and compentent in manipulating Congress to achieve his goals/desires. I think we can all agree with that.

What I see us all disagreeing w/ is the exact content of those goals/desires.

but frankly I think an inept president wouldn't have fueled your angst as much as Bush has.

Actually, I wouldn't call my feelings towards Bush "angst". Want proof? Take a look back through my articles and see how many "Bush Bashing" articles I've written. Not many. I didn't weigh in on Roberts, didn't weigh in on Meirs, haven't yet weighed in on Alito (although I may well do so soon...this is a rare "good point" on Bush's part, in my opinion), I haven't weighed in heavily on my own blog about our involvement in Iraq...even though it would be consistent with the type of articles I write.

Frankly, when Bush does something (allegedly) stupid, I tend to roll my eyes at the fact that he was, admittedly, the BETTER of the two major '04 candidates. That's about it.

What Bush did in Iraq was not just dumb it was WRONG. His actions have resulted in American Military to die and be injured. The UN inspectors should have been allowed to complete their job and then we would not have needed to rely on intelligence to determine if Saddam had WMD!

Here's a view from another side of this debate.

I don't care if there were WMDs. Not one tinsywinsy little bit.

I supported going in and I support staying until we can leave without the country falling into total anarchy and it had NOTHING to do with WMD.

Sadaam was snubbing his nose at the U.N. The UN was slowly showing the world its impotence. As part of the UN we were looking weak and wishy washy.

Now I don't know about you, but the last thing I want our country to look like to terrorists is weak and wishy washy. And I believe we needed to show the ineffectual (on this) UN they don't control us. We choose to be part of the UN, they don't choose to let us be.

So we went to war with Sadaam. To me it showed the world, the U.S. doesn't give two craps what you think....if you cross us or cross something we support, don't follow through on your end of a deal, we're coming for you. Period.

Now you will no doubt disagree with my views, but I have to say I hear a lot of "normal" non political people kinda saying the same things. Course we could all be retarded, but retards with a VOTE.

That's how I feel...and George W was just the swaggering cowboy type we needed to show the world we are DONE cow towing to all the bullies. I don't care if he appears arrogant. Maybe HIS arrognace will make those idiots think twice about America before they come at us again. Maybe not....but it sure is fun to watch!

That swaggering cowboy caused the death of more then 2,000 troops and injured 35,000 more. He also spent about $300 billion of American Tax Dollars to do that. He is hated all over the world. Great going George!

(I mean, come on! How lame do you have to be to trip and fall down a flight of stairs ... oh, wait ... that was me last week. Oops. Carry on.)

Nah!  That allowed the country to laugh after Watergate!  But I disagree he was inept.  Ineffective, yes.

" That swaggering cowboy caused the death of more then 2,000 troops and injured 35,000 more. He also spent about $300 billion of American Tax Dollars to do that. He is hated all over the world. Great going George!"

Lincoln split the nation through his lack of domestic diplomacy, undertook a war that snuffed hundreds of thousands of lives, left the nation in shambles, and Blacks suffered hate and injustice for another hundred years after his failed attempt to declare them "equal".

Great going Abe!! Careful what you call a failure. JFK's Iraq was Cuba and Vietnam. We have an odd idea of "success" in the US apparently.

Bush is NO Lincoln. The issue that sparked the Civil War was one that threatened our nation. The Iraq War is NOTHING like the issues that caused the Civil War. The invasion of Iraq was an elective war aginst a country that did not pose any danger to this nation. As for JFK and Cuba, they had the WMD that could have reached our shores just 90 miles away. Saddam did not have the bombs or the means to use them. Your analogies are not even close.

That swaggering cowboy caused the death of more then 2,000 troops and injured 35,000 more. He also spent about $300 billion of American Tax Dollars to do that. He is hated all over the world. Great going George!

Um, I don't think George shot our boys.

Pfft. The more the world hates him, the higher he rises in my esteem.

"Bush is NO Lincoln. The issue that sparked the Civil War was one that threatened our nation. The Iraq War is NOTHING like the issues that caused the Civil War. The invasion of Iraq was an elective war aginst a country that did not pose any danger to this nation. As for JFK and Cuba, they had the WMD that could have reached our shores just 90 miles away. Saddam did not have the bombs or the means to use them. Your analogies are not even close."

Nice dodge, but you have set your criterea for success, not me. Many great presidents fail miserably compared to Bush. Now you want to say that why they failed somehow tweaks whether a miserable failure is actually a success. Actually, it is a pretty clumsy dodge.

We have fought many wars based upon attacks on our military, and Hussein had been attacking our military for years. You are too ignorant to understand what a "cease fire" is, evidently, since you don't know what can happen when a leader violates one. Everytime you open your mouth you show how hypocritical and knee-jerk your opinions are.

You are defined by your hatred of this administration. Aren't you ashamed by that? Don't you feel so cheap knowing that that is all there is of you? I feel sorry for you. After the next election you'll either have to pull together a lot of hate for someone else or dissolve into thin air.

Aren't you ashamed by that? Don't you feel so cheap knowing that that is all there is of you?

I dont think he is capable of that.

I hate what this administartion has done to our country. Bush is so out of touch with what this country needs it is sad. He has gotten into a war that was unneded. Created a fiscal problem that will linger for decades after he is gone. Failed to do anything about border security, energy, helath care, Social Security while turning most of the world aginst us. He has caused the greatest policical unrest in America since the Civil Way. HE IS A SWAGERING LITTLE RICH BOY THAT HAS ACCOMPLISHED VERY LITTLE THAT BEBEFITS AMERICA AND A GREAT DEAL THAT HAS HARMED AMERICA. He has appointed people to important positions with NO experience just to pay them back them for helping him get elected. I can not think of a single thing that GWB has done that history will judge as good for America.

He has appointed people to important positions with NO experience just to pay them back them for helping him get elected.

I am sure he invented this concept to. At least he kept his pistol in his pants while doing it.

If you would, for just one second, look at another point of view. Digest it. Swish it around in your mouth a bit and then say something intelligent.

HE IS A SWAGERING LITTLE RICH BOY THAT HAS ACCOMPLISHED VERY LITTLE THAT BEBEFITS AMERICA AND A GREAT DEAL THAT HAS HARMED AMERICA.

This is the very first time (I've read) you have actually read what was written and used it sort of correctly. The only part you got wrong was that, YOU THINK he is a swagering...

Your opinion of what is right for this country, our country, is your opinion. I happen to think he has done some really great things but that's just MY opinion.

Um, I still like his swagger.

Your opinion of what is right for this country, our country, is your opinion. I happen to think he has done some really great things but that's just MY opinion.

I like yours better. maybe because it is saner?

About 2/3 of Americans feel Bush is wrong and is inept. His results are the true test of how he has failed his respinsibilities. He has not solved or improved any of the major issues facing this country.

No not my opinion but that of the Army CoS, Gen Franks and just about all the other senior generals admit the force levels were far too small.

Please provide a link to where Gen Franks and all the other senior Generals admitted the force levels were far too small. Because all the interviews that I have seen with General Franks and his book "American Soldier" has him saying the exact opposite. The ONLY general that has said troop levels was too low is General Shinseki.

Another charge made against the administration is that political appointees failed to give the generals enough troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, Franks writes, it was his own choice to employ limited forces in order to avoid getting bogged down. Instead of relying on sheer size, he thought surprise and speed were the keys to victory -- a judgment largely vindicated by events. Link

The lack of Body Armor and armored equipment is another example.

You fail to note that the only Army budget that Bush resided over before the start of the invasion was the FY02 and half of the FY03. In the FY02 budget Bush doubled the Army's inventory of ballistics vests and in the FY03 more vests was purchase then in the nine years before his presidency combined. Blame Bush all you want, but it takes longer then 18 months to refit an Army from flak to ballistics vests. You should know that, you claim to have been an Army reserve officer once.