How can Republicans refute this argument for Impeaching Bush?

Question

1-Bush declared a pre-emptive strike against a country unrelated to 9-11 in response to 9-11.

2-Bush later admits he did this based on false intelligence.

3-Rather that pull out in light of this knowledge,he does nothing but repeats his "stay the course" mantra.

1+2+3=Grounds for Impeachment.

Plus breaking the Genova Convention(abu Ghraib photographs,fir one thing.)

If he were a Democrat,he'd be impeached by now.Garaunteed.

Whiskeytango-Blaming Clinton for 9-11?Lame.Wrong.Desperate.Sad.Did not answer the question,again!

Answer 1

As a republican voter...I want to see him impeached. I share this country with republicans and democrats and if anyone can be realistic...enough is enough. Because if you are that gullible then I would love the opportunity to sell you a bridge and have you jump off of it.

Answer 2

1. I thought it was WMD's, not a response to 9/11, but what do I know?

2. Most all other intelligence from other countries had the same thing, not just ours, which means they(WMD's) were probably moved to Iran or Syria in the weeks leading up to the invasion.

3. After we invaded and Saddam was out of power, we had no choice but to stay to try to fix our screw-up. If we had left it in that state, Iran(the real threat in the middle east) would have moved in and taken over, giving them even more control of oil and more people to brainwash which in turn would lead to even more terrorism and killing.

As far as Abu Ghraib, as long as they weren't physically torturing the terrorists, then they should be allowed to use humiliation and intimidation in their interrogation. No torture though.

I care little about any strict party affiliation. To me repubs and dems are simply two different legs on the same pair of pants. None really better or worse than the other. Dems, IMHO, just adhere to a slightly scarier group of special interests.

Clinton could've got Bin Laden and maybe none of this would've have happened, but that's neither here nor there.

Answer 3

All I have to say is France was right. Remember when Neo-Cons were like "Ban anything French and change the word French to Freedom."

Who was right about WMDs? The French. They said the evidence wasn't enough and they were right.

You are right that if Bush was a democrate all the Neo-cons would be asking for impeachment. The only difference would be that the country would be united in doing so. I would ask for Bush's impeachment even if he was a democrate. A bad president is a bad president.

Answer 4

1-Bush declared a pre-emptive strike against a country unrelated to 9-11 in response to 9-11..................hmmm tell us how and when he premptivly struck this country and what country it was back in 2001......before 9-11 and tell us how he can preemptivly do something in response.....hmmmm


Nothing you stated is a high crime or misdemeanor.

if the detainees in Abu Ghraib are not in the military there has been no mistreatment of prisoners of war and no violations of the Geneva convention


Hows the cool aid today?

Answer 5

I hate to answer a question with a question, but let me throw one back at you: If there are such solid grounds for impeachment, why aren't Democrats introducing such articles in the House? If it's because they're in the minority, then why not take their case to the people? It seems to me that if popular sentiment leans that way, they can even use it as an election issue, picking up seats of Republicans who vote to block such articles.

Answer 6

He has broke no laws so therefore no impeachment. The genova Convention has never been law and we are the only country that has ever followed it. Let me ask you why do you fight for the rights of other countrys rather than your own or do you not want to live here?

Answer 7

1. the dems wont win this fall, I would like to thank all of Lamont's supporters. You have successful ran a great campaign, for the Republicans. The swing voters now see that the left has been taken over by the kooks and looneys (ie the conspiracy theory wackos). Your to busy fighting with each other.
Also, Hillary's chances (not that she had) are now shot because she voted for the Iraq war like Lieberman. She can't appeal to the loonies that have taken over.

2. Your Geneva Convention...I don't call an ememy that straps a bomb to themselves and walking into a pizza place complying to the Geneva Convention

3. Thanks for your support of the terrorists. I'm sure they thank you

Answer 8

Easy republicans are slimier than a snails underbelly! 1. He attacked Iraq to get those WMD's that weren't there since 1991. 2.That's the C.I.A.'s fault gotta luv deniability. 3.We broke it we gotta fix it, or the terrorist take over and declare victory. P.s. I think the terrorist already have won they're just waiting for us to either get tired or go broke. 4. The Geneva convention is full of loopholes where terrorist are concerned needs a re-write. 5. If he were a Dem he would be getting the needle by now.

Answer 9

The whole world believed in the "bad intellegence". Geneva convention applies only to uniformed soldiers from a warring country. and if Saddam was so innocent why did he go against about 17 UN resolutions?
Why do you defend terrorists and dictators?

Answer 10

This question had nothing to do with blaming Bush for 9-11, it is about making him be held accountable for his bad decisions in response to 9-11.


Oh yes, don't forget....if you disagree with any of the crappy illegal things Bush does, you are supporting terrorism and against "freedom".