I was just wondering what people thought!!!
2006-08-17 12:20:52 · 32 answers · asked by meekyle22 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Duhh for lying about the war just to finish his dads wishes!!!
2006-08-17 12:31:51 · update #1
No it would be a waste of time...I say we force congress to get back to work for the people....
2006-08-17 12:26:40 · answer #1 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YOU BIG DUMMY !!! The USA can't impeach the President. That has to be done by the House of Representatives. Then he has to be tried in the Senate of the United States. Try to understand this part: Impeachment is not a legal process, it is POLITICAL. With GB holding a majority in both houses, what do you think the chances of anything happening are???
P.S. This is why Bill Clinton is still running around free, because when he was impeached, there was a Demo majority in the Senate. Go figure...
2006-08-17 12:29:46 · answer #2 · answered by snvffy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
George hasn't done anything impeachable other than throw the country into every frigin war that could exist with him as President. Other than that he is clean as far as impeachment procedures go, now if you had a an implumbment concern he is definitely a candidate or even for a impairment procedure he is a good impairment concern.
2006-08-17 12:35:59 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. PDQ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Bush twice took an oath to God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. I seriously wonder if he has ever actually read it. He seems to think that the other two branches of government report to him and that he can ignore the bill of rights whenever he chooses, all in the name of national security. What scares me more than the terrorists is the fact that people seem more than willing to give up those rights in order to keep their butts safe. I've got news for you. If we surrender our 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of the press or any of OUR other rights out of fear, we will have done more harm to this country than 10 9/11's.
Not exactly an answer to your question. My take on impeachment is that it is a waste of time. I'd settle for a return to the system of checks and balances our for fathers intended. One party government doesn't work, no matter which party it is.
2006-08-17 13:06:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, Clinton got impeached for lying about getting a bj in the Oval Office.
Bush lied about going to war...
You tell me what was worst.
2006-08-17 12:29:23 · answer #5 · answered by Epicarus 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
IF Bush and Co. haven't done anything illegal, then they shouldn't have to worry about impeachment proceedings. It seems in they are innocent, they'd want to prove it. What are they afraid of? And if the NSA wiretaps aren't illegal, how come they are pressuring Congress to change the law to make them legal? And also make it retroactive to when they started the program.
2006-08-17 14:24:43 · answer #6 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If convicted would that put Cheny in charge? (chills run down my spine) We need to take back the majority in Congress and turn this cowboy into a full blown lame duck. Two years of gridlock would be fine with me.
2006-08-17 15:38:08 · answer #7 · answered by GJ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, his warrentless wire-tapping is far worse than the recordings that Nixon was going to be impeached for. No brainer, unless the constitution has changed since then.
And let me just say OH MY GOD!!!!! WHERE HAVE YOU PEOPLE BEEN THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT BUSH'S ACTIONS WITH THE WIRE-TAPS HAVE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL????
2006-08-17 12:27:52 · answer #8 · answered by MayMay 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Andy's right. What impeachable offense has he committed that the Congress seems to have missed?
2006-08-17 12:26:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton was impeached for his crime and now the sore loser democrats want to throw the word around.
2006-08-17 12:26:37 · answer #10 · answered by RAR24 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋