Good Republican arguement for Bush Impeachment?

Doesn't work for conservatives because Bush isn't a conservative. Remember there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Bush is a neocon Republican which is a liberal on spending and wants a one world government. I as a Conservative would prefer no impeachment but would like him out and a true Conservative in but no Hillery. I an hower afraid we may be on a downward spiral on all your issues regaurdless.

How does using signing statements in lieu of the veto correlate to ground for impeachment? Also the use of the signing statements has nothing to do with invoking powers under "executive privelege as a wartime president." The powers invoked pertained to warrantless wiretapping, not the ability to issue a signing statement. One could argue that the use of signing statements was a clever way to avoid the publicity of a veto, especially since most members of congress did not even know the President had used them until a congressional aid found a significant number during research for a bill. Upon further examination, it was determined that 750 such signing statements had been issued.

So far, reports on the NSA wire tapping program have received overwhelming support once it became clear that the calls in question were never recorded or listened to; rather, the routing information was examined. The American public is willing to accept secrecy pertaining to sources and methods in the pursuit of national security.

I fail to see how this article you have quoted will provide any support to a call for impeachment.

A Good Republican arguement for Bush Impeachment?

Where are you going with this? All but the stupidest Democrats don't even talk about impeachment of Bush. I'm not an avid Bush supporter. But impeachment as a solution to problems of todays government? Absurd!

You claim to have a winning argument to support impeachment of Bush. I'll offer this reason why it's absurd. IF you go through impeachment proceedings and succeed. How long would they take? And who would you have as President? Cheney. Who the radicals of the Democratic party say is the real problem. So you start the whole impeachment process again. How long would that take. And IF you succeed who would you get? Dennis Hasert. All this time the American people are getting more and more irritated at both parties for more reasons than I have time to list.

Now let's look at those reasons you have for impeachment.

Since taking office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill passed by Congress,

Where is it written a President HAS to veto something.- Nto an impeachable offence.

- instead invoking "executive privelege as a wartime president" to write signing statements (750 of the things) gutting any bill he doesn't agree with or saying that they don't apply to him,

You would have a hard time proving that isn't within the provence of President to do that. And you would have to debate every one of those 750 statements

- including Congressional bills on torture,

There would be so much debate on this topic alone as to what really constitutes torture since what is called torture doesn't include bamboo under the fingernails type torture.

- domestic wire-tapping,

The Democrats would get killed if they go there. You would have to prove intent to do harm, not just the possibility.

- and executive secrecy necessary to fight the "war on terror".

Another losing situation for Democrats. It is much easier to develop valid justifications for the secrecy than it is to make every thing the government is doing to stop terrorists known or even available to the general public.

- Consider the "war on terror" is a war that doesn't theoretically ever "finish".

Democrats have been backing a war on poverty since LBJ's time. Got a closing date on that 'war'?

Hillary is a red herring in the debate.

I'm more conservative than liberal, but definitly not hard core conservative. I'm more afraid of what the ACLU will do to MY Constitutional rights than I am of Bush or terrorists.

The problem with your entire hypothesis is that you are assuming the statements are true without any supporting evidence. The author makes the incredible claim that President Bush is has bee "overturning or revoking or ignoring of over 750 acts passed by Congress" with issuing a veto.

Oh really? How exactly is he doing this? What specific pieces of legislation has he ignored? Where are all the lawsuit that could be filed to compel him obey the law? The editorial is fully of statements unsupported by any evidence.

Even after reading the update to your question and looking at the links you provided, there is still no evidence to support the claims. Just because a Democrat says it is true doesn't make it true.

I read it against and STILL haven't found ANYTHING to support your claims. Provide specifics, not vague generalities.

Have to agree with #1. If any of those charges were in fact true, I might have to consider them.

But your take on signing statements is completely wrong. The purpose of signing statements is for clarity on what the bills mean. Because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, he is the one to be enacting the legislation, this is done to clarify his understanding of what course of action he will do.

If this were such a problem, the screaming whiners called Congressional Democrats would have been whining and puling for over 5 years now.

I agree with everything the president has done except where he supports liberal causes. In particular, I am highly upset about the dramatic increases in domestic and foreign welfare under his administration and would like to see those scaled back (I would actually like to see them ended in my lifetime). But more, I am incensed about his position of immigration, particularly his refusal to shut down the southern border and deport illegals. I consider those things incompetence. But, by no stretch of the imagination has Bush done anything that warrents impeachment. No....if you are looking for a president who deserved impeachment for his many, many crimes....that would be Clinton. Bush is actually a pretty good president compared to the liked of Clinton. But, he is not good enough. We need someone who strongly supports conservative values to put this country back on track. My vote is for Tom Tancredo out of Colorado. He is spearheading the movement for real immigration reform in this country. He will probably run for president this term. He will likely get the nomination because the republican base is threatening to stay home on election day because their wishes have been ignored by Bush for 8 years. This is a direct threat to the position of most republican politicians. But, a candidate like Tancredo would fix that problem. Also, immigration reform is an extremely popular idea in the US....one being completely ignored by all politicians currently. I predict Tancredo would win by a landslide victory. Quite frankly, the republicans could permanently seal the deal on government for the next decade or two if they came out strongly immigration reform. So could the democrats BTW....but it is antithetical to their pro-marxist agenda.

Well, the record is the record. But I must agree that your use of the word "Republican" in the original question weakened it considerably. These are good arguments, per se. To me, they are good Libertarian arguments.

And when you talk about H.C. becoming president, please cross your fingers and say a prayer that this country is not quite that insane yet.

Vote Libertarian for a change!

First thing is first, the ONLY reason people have even talked about impeaching Bush is to get back at the republicans for impeaching Clinton.

Clinton lied under oath to a court. That is just one of the things that was brought under charge.

Here is the articles of impeachment:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives December 19, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I (Approved by the House 228-206 Defeated February 12, 1999 by the Senate 45-55)

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;

(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;

(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and

(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article III (Approved by the House 221-212, Defeated February 12, 1999 by the Senate 50-50)

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.