Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:


  1. /Archive 1
  2. /Archive 2
  3. /Archive 3
  4. /Archive 4


Contents

[edit] Constitutional question

The background section states "If a President is found guilty by two thirds of the Senate on any charge, the Constitution states that he must be removed from office and replaced by the Vice President." However, the relevant section of Article 1 of the Constitution is more vague. Article 1, Section 3 says in part "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." I'm not sure this means the President must be removed from office, only that he may be. Huadpe 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14th Amendment, Section 4

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In trying to further burden our posterity with debt, and cede control of trillions of dollars to the securities interests of the US, Bush specifically questioned the public debt instruments held by the Social Security trust fund. Not NPoV language -- but comments not whored out to content strippers (in violation of all that GNU represents) -- so OK in the Talk section -- right?? 4.248.44.247 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[1]


I'm hesitant on this one. Pres. Bush is not a creditor to the United States (unless he happens to own some T-Bills) and has not accused the US of defaulting. There is a difference between George Walker Bush and the Office of the President. Bush is free to question the validity of the debt all he likes, as he has freedom of speech. The Office of the President however is governed by this section. You would need to show that the statements were made in the context of executing the Office. For example, campaign speeches would NOT be capable of triggering a violation of this section. Huadpe 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City referendums for impeachment =

  • Urbana, IL,
  • Chaimpaign, IL,
  • some place in vermont
  • Berkeley, California
  • Wisconsin Rapids, WI


Anycase, these should be researched and included. Kevin Baastalk 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC

Does it really matter that four cities and a vague city in Vermont want Bush removed? The Constitution delegates the right of impeachment to the House of Representatives, not to cities.Dace48 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
I've added info on Berkeley and San Francisco's referenda. Inclusion in a Wikipedia article does not turn on the item's feasibility or merits, it turns on the item's notability. I know that the California propositions are fairly notable (as proved by the press coverage and sources I have supplied). I don't know about the other referenda, but the Berkeley and S.F. ones both call upon the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, so technically, they are feasible. Schi 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] polls and significance

regarding [2]:

It is not statistically significant that it is not statistically significant. only a tiny fraction of things are statistically significant. So why mention the obvious? I think putting the obvious in violates the rule of balance: the information should be significant and interesting.

Secondly, regarding the second part, "it should be noted...", should it? why or why not? do we have a citation providing evidence that it should be noted? it's opinion. and it is kinda redundant because it's mentioned (if very subtly) in the sentence above. Kevin Baastalk 16:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole mention of Clinton should be dropped. This article is not about him, and mentioning a statistically insignificant fact adds no value to the article.--RWR8189 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Kevin Baastalk 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV (1-sided?)

It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baastalk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you can find any specific anti-impeachement commentary, it would be great. At the moment, I have the impression that the people who oppose impeachment generally consider it too unlikely to be worth mentioning. Perhaps someone could find some quotes to that effect?

24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • While I am admittedly pro-impeachment, it certainly would be more neutral if this article covered anti-impeachment reasons/advocates. Even some who dislike Bush don't want him impeached (pursuing impeachment would make the Democrats look bad, he makes a good scapegoat for the Democrats, what if he were removed but Cheney wasn't, etc). Perhaps this article should be titled "Controversy over impeaching Bush" and then it could more easily handle the pro & con material. Except it would get even longer! Maybe a "Controversy" article could be the parent article, then there'd be sub-articles that covered pro vs. con?
Also, why are all the NPOVs sub-ordinate to the "polls" talk topic? Seems wrong.
Jason C.K. 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV (neutrality of reverted FISA text)

I just had some changes reverted for totally invalid reasons. I'm putting this here as a warning and a defense of the changes. Rationale for changes are as follows: (1) Remove weasel words. Everyone knows that Bush violated FISA; he admitted it. His claim was that FISA didn't apply, as noted only two sentences later. (2) Replace extremely biased wording with neutral wording. "As Commander in Chief in the War on Terror" is spectacularly biased, as is "to protect the American people". 24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV (neutrality of article content/structure)

In that Wikipedia endeavors to be an encyclopedia rather than a forum, this topic should be confined only to news of official government actions (municipal, county, state) which might actually lend legal weight or progress toward an impeachment process.

Discussions of the merit or wisdom of such subordinate government actions should not be posted.

It might however be of utility to post a section with links to the most active and authorative web discussions on the topic. Subsections could be "Openly Pro Bias", "Openly Against Bias", "Attempts at Moderated Balance", and "Unmoderated Free For All". Some thought might be given to overall seperation of links into "Membership Required" and "Open Forum" as many people find the forum membership screening of some sites offensive/invasive/suspicious.

I suggest all controversial topics not involving discussion of technical tradeoffs be handled this way.

69.23.125.173 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC) CJF

  • Wikipedia covers plenty of scandals and controversies. Cold fusion seems to not exist as more than an idea, a lot of wishes, and some unsupported claims, but Wikipedia still has lots of material on it. Shouldn't it? Likewise with the controversy over Bush (see my NPOV 1 comments). It's an important idea in the public conciousness that frequently appears in the news (public figures discuss, polls reported upon, White House statements, actions by state legislatures, rallies, etc).
Jason C.K. 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be featured

I don't know how to get it featured and I'd rather not bother with it all, but I think the people who maintain it should get it featured. If it gets featured soon, maybe the impeachment will happen!! Anomo 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject matter is too controversial, rapidly changing and people will think its being done for political reasons. It's no different than partisans who repeatedly put this article up for deletion to make a political statement. -- Stbalbach 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't change very rapidly. And it's certainly interesting. Though I generally agree with Stbalbach, if it's really a well-written article and fits the criteria for featured status, when then it should be a featured article. This does not mean that it is featured on the main page. Just that it's tagged and put in a category. Kevin Baastalk 16:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuredly, Anomo, advocating that the article be featured in order to assist in getting impeachment started is about the most POV reason I could imagine. I am pretty certain that making it a featured article would have little to no effect on the public (i.e. let's not flatter ourselves about the impact of Wikipedia). I do think the article is fairly well-written, comprehensive and NPOV. --Habap 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is a section in favor of impeachment

Do we need an opposing view, or is it the very point that this article merely list the reasons to support impeachment. If so, doesn;t this violkate POV, or do we create an article to state reasons why it is silly silly silly to impeach now. Chivista 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "movement to not impeach GWB" since he has not been impeached! So no, it's not a POV split. If there is an official move to impeach GWB, this article will change dramatically, as then both sides will need to be represented, and it will no longer be a movement, by an actual impeachment. At that point there would be, say, 2006 impeachment of GWB as one article, and Criticisms against impeaching GWB as another article (assuming the criticisms section gets long enough to support a separate article, as it would). Until then this article is enough. Otherwise we just enter into an endless debate back and forth which is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, this article just documents the people and actions who want to impeach GWB. -- Stbalbach 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This talk topic seems to be the same issue as this talk topic (NPOV 1). Perhaps one should absorb the other? This one also seems to be mis-titled. Shouldn't it be something like "There is no section in favor of impeachment"?
Jason C.K. 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV post-November

It is interesting now that the Democrats have won both houses and GWB is essentially a lame duck president, the Democrats have every opportunity to pursue impeachment, the President is wide open. But the house majority leader has said impeachment is "off the table", so it is unlikely to happen. Given this dramatic change in perspective, is the article still considered POV by anyone? The article has not changed at all from where it was before - the only thing that has changed is external events. I don't hear anyone complaining about POV now, the article has been very quiet. It makes me think the article never was POV, because if it was, then it would have to be re-written to reflect the November change in power dynamics. But that is not the case. Probably because the article is neutral and works no matter who is in power. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that there has been the switch in direction (I assume it is being done because they will get more mileage out of a "bad" president in office than out of the risky endeavor of impeachment, which has many possible outcomes) and agree that most of the arguing over whether it is POV was due to the "current events" nature of it. I suspect that there will be some changes to reduce POV, but my reading was that it was a relatively balanced article, considering the controversial nature of the topic. --Habap 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections on grounds for impeachment should explain what the alleged crime is

The Katrina section is confusing to me. It says:

"The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used ... to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense."

An impeachable offense requires a crime ("high crime or misdemeanor"). I don't understand how incompetence or mishandling would be a crime. Am I missing something here? Crust 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me generalize the above complaint. Unlike for example a vote of non-confidence for a Prime Minister under the Westminster system, to impeach the President in the U.S. it is not sufficient to show that he is incompetent, has made bad decisions, has lied, etc. For impeachment, he must have committed a crime. (Of course there is the caveat as in the article that impeachment is a political process, but I'm putting that aside and saying what the standard is supposed to be.) Some sections do explain what the alleged crime is, but others do not. Of course, Wikipedia is not about original research and it may be that some of the arguments supporting impeachment that people advance do not involve an alleged crime; in such cases, we should find a way to note this problem (ideally by quoting a critic of the argument).Crust 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to get to deep into the original research, but couldn't criminal negligence count? The other question, of course, is what counts as a "high crime". The Wikipedia article says that, at least historically, it has meant crimes against the State. Schi 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Schi.
Re criminal negligence: Well, what law is he violating?

1) Perjury. He told Congress Iraq had WMD and based this ona fictitious document. 2) Electoral Fraud. In the 2000 election, ballot boxes came up missing in the very state where his brother so happened to be governor, African-Americans were turned away fromt he polls and told they needn't bother voting. 3) Establishment of a domestic surveilance system which completely ignores the need for a warrant from a federal court to tap phone lines or monitor electronic information. A violation of the illegal search and seizure clause. 4) The mass murder of thousands of American youth in the Iraqi conflict. Why is it that if you kill one man it's murder, but if you kill 3,000 it's just a statistic? 169.226.136.37 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe none. IF you see him as being in dereliction of his duty and in violation of his oath of office, is there any crime there? I don't know. But people more knowledgeable than me seem to think there could be a crime there. I certainly think it ought to be a crime :P "Criminal negligence" is something a person can be found guilty of, depending upon the circumstances and applicable law (if any). As I mention below about Plame, the fact that he may have committed a crime in this regard is yet another reason why it's worth investigating him to see if he did.
Jason C.K. 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For another example under "Declassifying for political purposes" the article says
"Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense."
But misrepresenting (or for that matter outright lying) isn't a crime. Is "declassifying of information for a political purpose" a crime? Not that I know of. If it is a crime, what is the law that makes it illegal and what are the standards that apply?
  • Isn't there still controversy about this (hence the court case) over who said what to whom and when? Do we know Bush was/wasn't involved? Do we know it was properly de-classified before any leak was "authorized"? If it was still classified, there are laws against disseminating classified info. If it was de-classified...hmmm, de-classifying the name of a covert op?!? Is that following "procedure"? Is it legal? There seems to be a lot of smoke here. It may not be worthy of impeaching Bush, but it seems worthy of investigating whether he ought to be impeached, depending upon who did what, what happened, and what, if any, laws were broken. When you start an impeachment investigation, you don't already know the end-result. But you do want to have some reasons for starting one. And it seems we do...many reasons. So the leak issue isn't so much a "reason to impeach" as a "reason for an impeachment investigation".
Jason C.K. 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Crime" vs. "high crime" is another question as you say. Crust 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how exactly to phrase it in legal terms, but it seems painfully obvious that GWB is guilty of criminal fraud and negligence that resulted in massive death. It is actually grounds for a strong case of him being a criminal against humanity if you ask me. Luis Dantas 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movement Filed

http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.49.114 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The bill is dead as soon as the 109th Congress adjourns for the last time.--RWR8189 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians

It seems the only musician listed that advocates impeachment with his song is Neil Young. The Pink and Bright Eyes songs are certainly critical of Bush, but neither go so far as to advocate impeachment as stated by the header. I'm going to remove them.--RWR8189 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muddy structure in regard to organizations

This article has a section on "Groups formed to support impeachment", followed by a section about "Organizations" under "Advocates of impeachment". This seems muddy. In which section should an organization be listed? Some are listed in both. It seems you could make a case that all should be listed in both. Ultimately it seems like one of these sections ought to absorb the other, for clarity's sake. I'd suggest that the section "Groups formed to support impeachment" should be absorbed and go away, since there's existing structure that can easily accomodate it, as well as everything else it already accomodates (politicians that advocate impeachment, authors that advocate impeachment, etc). Jason C.K. 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movement to impeach Bill Clinton

Where is the page for the Movement to impeach Bill Clinton?--Dr who1975 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was impeached. There is no need for a movement. auburnpilot talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Impeachment of Bill Clinton entry. Terjen 06:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no mention of the Arkansas Project on that page. The impeachment of Bill CLinton was the resultoof an organized movement to impeach him. I think Id like to amke an article for that movement. I can make comparisons between this movement and that one. I could even say something like "the movement to impeahc Bush may very well be retribution for the movement to Impeahc Clinton"... surely many would agree with that statement.--Dr who1975 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason Bush is not yet impeached is exactly because Democrats want to avoid that accusation. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that and the small detail of who would succeed him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's mainly because there isn't really enough concrete support to impeach him and remove him from office. There is also this argument that he did all this stuff because "he felt it was best" which many would want to let him off the hook with (so much for bringing integrity and accountability back to the white house). It's unitary executive type thinking... but it is still a reality of how people (in both parties) think about him.--Dr who1975 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The public support for impeachment is greater than it was for Clinton. The reason Clinton got impeached over a BJ while Bush gets away with abolishing the Constitution, international law, war crimes, political appointments, etc, is of course adequately explained through politics and the Democrats current fear it will damage 2008. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete category?

After unilaterally changing reference to this article in numerous other articles and renaming this article Dr who1975 (talk • contribs) has decided, again without any discussion, to ask for deletion of the relevant category. Unfortunately he forgot to inform all those involved in this article therefore I make this comment so all editors that want to can leave their opinion on the matter.-- Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for deleteion of the category IS ASKING FOR DISCUSSION.The apropriate text has been added to the category now. Nomen Nescio, if you are so concerned why didn't you add it? You are simply trying to subvert elements within wikipedia to get your way. Anyone who disagress can comment on this discussion page all they'd like.--Dr who1975 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITMFA

Some mention should be added to the article of the phenomenon of ITMFA (acronym for the phrase "Impeach The Mother F*er Already") and the fact that buttons and bumper stickers were sold bearing this acronym. I think the ITMFA phenomenon is notable as a sort of popular countermovement, even though it might be considered limited to certain types of people. I'm not sure how to introduce the subject into the article without POV, though, so I'm suggesting it here instead, in the hopes that someone braver than I will add the reference. Here are three references:

—SaxTeacher (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is about nothing

And maybe should be deleted. It is comprised of, essentially, non-events -- just political posturing, in some cases by people who have reversed their views or were speaking off the cuff, not to be taken seriously. it also contains the comments and ideas of people who simply do not count in the discussion -- like minor state legislators. I am not saying that some people do not seriously want to see Bush impeached (some want him tried, convicted and burned at the stake!) but that some people want such things is not the same as it being real. There is simply no "movement" to impeach him. It does not exist. This article is in essence an effort to present a catalog of every possible statement on the matter that can be found -- and they are essentially irrelevant to anything. As wikipedia guidelines say: "Wikipedia is not ... Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". Yet this is simply a compendium of advocacy. In that regard it is sort of "a directory of everything that exists or has existed" in respect to a non-event. I don't think that this is what wikipedia is about. It is a compilation of opinions and even if it is not deleted it would be reasonable to rename it as "Opinions supporting the impeachment of George W Bush"--Blue Tie 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see that the sources establish that there is a movement to impeach W, as opposed to a series of often unrelated events. The idea that there is an overall movement causing these things to occur strikes me as original research at best, and some kind of wishful conspiracy theory at worst. TheronJ 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, there don't seem to be enough rational people at Wikipedia to counter the rediculous knee-jerk reactionary behavior exhibited by those who wrote this page. Any effort to do something like this on Wikipedia to anyone's sacred cow (say, a page on Movement to disband the European Union or Movement to stop universal healthcare, or even Movement to calm global warming hysteria) would be vandalized into oblivion if it lasted a day without being deleted. Wikipedia should not be used to display political propaganda against a sitting administration. JCSeer 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence of thr article is a WP:OR violation. There is no "the" Movement to impeach George W. Bush. This article should be deleted. I am going to tag it as an WP:NPOV violation 66.28.139.13 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It says "refers to" which means a general phrase or term. It is grammatically redundant to add "the phrase movement.." so it just says "the movement.." - there is absolutely nothing in this article to suggest there is a single movement, in fact it goes out of its way to say otherwise. -- Stbalbach 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There was more of a concerted movement to impeach Bill Clinton, and there's no article for that. -Toptomcat 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, just an article titled Impeachment of Bill Clinton.--Mbc362 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why did you revert me at Movement to impeach George W. Bush? There are (4) editors who have recently commented about that article having problems and all 4 of them are recent comments on the talk page, with none speaking against that. That's a good enough reason to tag the article. I am reverting you. 66.28.139.13 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah we've had tons of discussions about this already, there is nothing new being said, the article is not beholden to a small but vocal partisan minority, see all the previous talk page archives and AfD's. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things to consider: #1 at this time Stbalbach is in the minority and #2 past consensus is not written in stone forever. It's really not relevant what may have been discussed in the past or what the prior consensus may have been - right now the consensus is that this article is badly written and biased. The NPOV tag is certainly appropriate. And frankly, I feel that Stbalbach has a lot of nerver slinging personal attacks such as "vocal partisan". I am un-reverting. 66.28.139.24 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When a bunch of single-purpose anon accounts show up suddenly, when the article has been quiet for 5 months, it does seem odd. Coincidently, this happened the day after leading Republicans hinted that if Bush did not back down on Iraq there were other "stronger" measures the Congress could consider. I wonder why suddenly there is focus and attention on this article again? It was dead quiet here once the Democrats won the house and assured Impeachment was not in the cards.. no one seemed to care about this article after that.. now that Republicans are hinting that impeachment might be possible[3], suddenly this article under assault again. So many coincidences... -- Stbalbach 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I propose renaming this article, to either Impeachment of George W. Bush or Potential impeachment of George W. Bush. I don't think Movement to impeach... is POV, but changing it would leave room for opposing arguments and more nuanced discussion. Quadpus 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I whole heartedly agree that this page needs to be renamed, I believe that Impeachment... would be unsuitable, as it would imply something that is entirely untrue; Bush has not been impeached nor is the House considering it. Potential... is also problematic in my mind, as it makes it appear likely that Bush could be impeached, something I don't think is NPOV.--Mbc362 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Impeachability of...? I don't know, it's an awkward thing. Quadpus 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the question is "Is this article about the movement or some hypothetical impeachment?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An article about a hypothetical impeachment would be inappropriate in my opinion. Whether or not the material described in the article truly constitutes a movement is questionable, since there is no current action being taken in the House, no majority support in the general public, and no unified group leading it. The best title I can come up with is Support for Impeachment of George W. Bush, but even that is not a good alternative. To Stbalbach, the sky is not going to fall if there is a minor change to the title.--Mbc362 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is reasonable if it describes a movement that actually exists, even if it's a minority one. Much as I loathe Bush, I wouldn't have started this article, frankly. However, I don't see any reason to tweak the title, as it does appear to be about the movement for impeachment. It's true the sky won't fall if it's changed, but the current title does seem to most accurately describe the article.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with renaming. Nothing wrong with current title. There is no consensus that this article should become a idealogical battle-ground of "opposing arguments". There is nothing to oppose, he has not been impeached! This article would quickly deteriorate into a mess of original research rhetoric and POV he-said/she-said. Political punditry is not notable. -- Stbalbach 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So there really can't be any room for important points such as Hagel's recent statements? Since he isn't part of the "movement to impeach"? Quadpus 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hagel's statements? -- Stbalbach 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska... It's all over the news http://news.google.com/news?q=hagel+impeachment Quadpus 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
He did use the word impeachment, which I guess technically could be included in this article, but it's not very notable IMO since it was a single instance and he hasn't done anything. He's also a presidential contender which further muddles the water. -- Stbalbach 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's about as much as Nancy Pelosi has done. Quadpus 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/v/Talk%7EMovement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_b9b1.html"