Why George W. Bush haven't still been impeached??

Question

Really, I have 4 Grades Highschool and I assure we have all evidences, why , really, it's unsense....

Give me a real top shape military answer.

Answer 1

Ten Reasons To Impeach the President -- And One Reason Why Democratic Leaders Are Wrong To Be Afraid To Do It

by Dave Lindorff, Co-Author of "The Case for Impeachment"

As prospects grow for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, and perhaps even the Senate, this November, the idea of impeachment is gaining attention. Yet even as polls show increasing numbers of Americans supporting the idea of removing Bush from office before the end of his term, Democratic Party leaders keep backing away.

This is not simply bad politics. It is cowardly, wrong and dangerous.

Let's look at the facts.

President Bush has committed grave offenses against the Constitution and against the people of the United States. Among these offenses are:

1. Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S. -- a war that has needlessly killed 2500 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing between 50-100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror.

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission -- actions that come perilously close to treason.

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress -- actions which if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post-war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Each one of these offenses (and it is not meant to be a complete list) would be sufficient on its own to require the president's removal from office, and in some cases, where an actual statutory crime can be charged, his subsequent indictment and trial. Together they cry out for impeachment and removal.

There are those, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who argue against impeachment, claiming that it would be a diversion from the "important agenda" of the Democratic Party. Aside from the fact that there is not much "there" in the so-called agenda of the so-called opposition, the reality is that the Democratic Party, should it manage to win a majority in House and Senate in November, will be unable to accomplish a single thing with President Bush in the White House, since the president has already claimed that he has the power to violate and ignore 750 acts and laws passed by a Congress led by his own party. Before the Democrats can count on a single bill of theirs becoming the law of the land, they will have to remove this usurper from office. Even ardent conservatives should be afraid of leaving stand actions that, if unchallenged, will set a precedent for all future presidents, Republican and Democrat, making American presidents into tyrants answerable to no one.

There are those who fear that impeaching Bush would mean turning over the White House to Vice President Dick Cheney. This is nonsense. The vice president has long been known to be the real president, and any constitutional crimes that are exposed in the course of impeachment hearings will quickly be traced also to Cheney's office. The vice president, however, does not have the president's Constitutional immunity from prosecution, and would likely be indicted and forced to resign long before Bush's impeachment got to a Senate trial. Nor would impeaching Bush mean turning the White House over to Rep. Dennis Hastert. Besides the fact that Hastert is reportedly facing his own legal troubles, impeachment is not even going to occur unless the Democrats take over the House in November first, and that would make the next person in line after Cheney none other than Democrat Pelosi.

There are people, especially in the media, who say impeachment is a bad idea both because it would allegedly cause a "constitutional crisis" and because it would lead to public anger at Democrats who promoted another divisive political battle. This is both unprincipled and absurd. First of all, impeachment is no constitutional crisis: the Founders thought it so important that they included impeachment of the president in the same Article II of the Constitution that defines the president's powers. If anything, we are facing a constitutional crisis right now. Impeachment is an integral part of the governing process. Secondly, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor impeachment -- certainly more than ever favored impeachment of either Clinton or Nixon. People have had it with the sanctimoniousness, the dishonesty, the staggering incompetence and the nasty political dirty tricks of this administration. Third, they want an opposition that will stand on principle. But finally and most importantly, the crimes of this president and this administration are so grievous that it is shameful to even talk about practicalities and political advantage. The president simply must be impeached, because as the Willie Sutton of Constitutional violators, he is putting the Republic and the Constitution at grave risk. The only principled and valid discussion about strategy is about how best to achieve impeachment, not about whether to seek impeachment.

No one should imagine that a successful impeachment of President Bush would usher in some wonderful new world of honest and progressive government. The Democratic Party long ago lost its soul and its right to call itself a party of the people. But if the American people, in the course of this 2006 election year, force the Democratic Party to do that which their leaders are afraid to do -- to impeach this criminal president -- there is a chance that those same people will also push the Democratic Party to do other things that it has not done in decades: namely, to act in the interests of ordinary working people instead of the same moneyed interests that own the party of Lincoln.

Dave Lindorff



Dave Lindorff, a long-time Salon contributor, is co-author with Barbara Olshansky, of The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, (St. Martin's Press, May 2006).

Answer 2

Oh, you ASSURE us. Great, let's take your word for it. Well, if we're going to have an intellectual discussion on unfounded assurances, let me say this. I assure you that the President has not committed an impeachable offense.

Do you think that the raving, Bush-hating, mouth-foaming liberals in Congress would not bang the drums incessantly for impeachment if they had even one tiny hint of an impeachable action?!

There is no impeachable offense because the President used military action against Iraq only after over a dozen U.N. resolutions that said disarm or face consequences. Eventually, you gotta face the consequences.

As to WMD, the President relied on a myriad of intelligence. If the intelligence was faulty, that's not a lie and that's not an impeachable offense. And not finding the WMD doesn't mean they didn't exist. If I can't find my car keys, does that mean they never existed?

So, would you like to detail all the evidences that you assured us of?

Answer 3

There is no reason to impeach him. Don't you think if there was he would be gone? Get over it already. If the leaders of the Left can't find a strong enough reason to act, there isn't one. I am so sorry that you disagree with the way Bush has kept us safe the last five years, but he has done just that; kept us safe. Maybe in 2008 the Democrats, or hopefully a strong third party candidate, will emerge to take over the helm, but until then, sorry.

Answer 4

Because the people trying to impeach him are about as good at forming sentences as you. There's no reason to impeach him. It was all for political gain. Character assassination has been the number one tactic of politics. This is how it works:

You find one thing about a candidate/polititian, but don't release it just yet. Then you search for something far greater that may or may not be true, and release them around the same time. It seems as if we are just finding out more and more terrible stuff about our candidate and it makes all instances seem true. This is how the 9/11 conspiracy became so believable. They released his little confession to doing drugs and his DUI and the accusation about not finding WMD's all at the same time. The 9/11 consiracy came out shortly after. But none of the accusations about the conspiracy or the lack of WMD's are true. Why do you think he hasn't addressed them yet?

Answer 5

Why should I give you a top shape military answer, when this is obviously a top shape military question to begin with.

Just because you don't like Bush is not a good enough reason to impeach him!

Answer 6

You need to take a 5th year of Highschool. Unsense isn't a word we use in everday conversation.

Answer 7

Because the Republican congress is in Bush's back pocket Maybe after the coming election the new congress will grow a pair of balls and finally take Bush to task like they should Be doing now

Answer 8

It's really amazing how many people don't think willful violation of federal laws is an impeachable offense.

Look people. The man has admitted to violating federal law. He's admitted it. He has authorized warrantless wiretaps, in violation of FISA, knowing that it was in violation of FISA. And his defense is that he doesn't think the laws should apply to him.

Nor does he think that the president should be limited by the Constitution. At last count, based solely on what he has admitted to doing, he's violated provisions of Articles I, II, IV, and VI, as well as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. And that's just based on what he has admitted to doing.

So, if nothing else, he is in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land, and in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

It's amazing that people don't think this is grounds for impeachment.

Answer 9

Clinton was impeached for lying......Bush lied to the American people about reasons for going to war............seems like an impeachable offense to me.

ps...ignore the rude comments made about your grammar. These type of people give the US a bad name. It's obvious english isn't your first language, but you're tryiing!

Answer 10

OK...let me say it again because you people are apparently very slow....H e h a s d o n e n o t h i n g t h a t i s a n i m p e a c h a b l e o f f e n c e. Do you get it now? It's not that hard, really, to understand. So, why do you continue to ask this ridiculous question?

Answer 11

Quite simple, really. The Republican party controls Congress and won't likely impeach one of their own. That could change in November.