English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Would you approve of impeaching the current President and Vice President, even if it meant we had to elect another Republican? If California can do it with Grey Davis, why can't we replace our President with someone that more than 50 percent of Americans could trust to do the right thing?

2006-09-07 06:32:33 · 26 answers · asked by CharlieB 2 in Politics & Government Politics

This is just speculative, I'm not saying it will happen, I just wonder if this country would be much more united under a President that more than 40 percent of the American public trusts (and even if you don't believe in polls, he doesn't really poll more than that in any poll taken recently).

2006-09-07 06:41:17 · update #1

Hey coragryph, you are entirely right and I do apologize, I should have included Independents and others as well.

2006-09-07 06:44:08 · update #2

26 answers

No, President Bush has been entirely honest with us. We did go to war in Iraq based on the threat of WMD's, not Nuclear weapons, although that would be a threat too. Saddam had a massive pileup of Sarin Gas and Mustard Gas and Anthrax, which he would have sold to terrorist organizations. We found WMD's.
President Bush correctly stated that Saddam was pursuing Nuclear weapons, we just didnt know how close he was to acheiving them. President Bush got all his information from the CIA. President Bush did not gather the intelligence himself, nor did he interpret it. He merely read reports which were gathered for him and reported what he read to the American People. That is not lying, that is bad intelligence.
The only reason we had bad intelligence in the first place is because Clinton dismantled our intelligence community throughout the 90's, leaving President Bush with inefficient intelligence.
Also, President Bush didn't ruin the economy, Presidents inherit their economy's from the previous president. Bill Clinton ruined our economy by raising taxes and decreasing the workforce. President Clinton also made us a threat by drastically reducing the military budget.
President Bush is a strong leader, and yes, we do have a high deficit, but thats because 1) wars are expensive, and 2) the government had to throw millions into the economy to help keep it afloat.

And also, only the House of Representatives has the power to impeach the President. The president can only be impeached if he has done something unconstitutional or illegal, neither of which George W. Bush has done.

2006-09-07 06:34:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

At this point it wouldn't matter who was in the office, the wheels are in motion and it will be a long time before anyone can safely stop them. Even if a Democrat were in office, we still couldn't just pull people out of Iraq...now we have a responsibility there, and the only reason we were so hot to set up shop there in the first place was to have better tactical positioning for Iran, which we can't afford to let go of now. So, while I still feel it was a mistake to go to Iraq in retaliation for 9/11, there's no getting around our need to stay there now. Nothing is changing in the next 10 - 20 years no matter the political sway of the president.

2006-09-07 13:37:50 · answer #2 · answered by Tom 4 · 1 0

If the President and Vice-President were impeached and removed from office I do not think the voters would get to vote. Isn't there a line of succession or something giving the Speaker of the House power?

2006-09-07 14:08:31 · answer #3 · answered by Podiatristdja 2 · 0 0

Speculative or not is there a greater way to perpetuate dis-unity and show a self defeatist attitude than to even consider an impeachment proceeding during a time of war. Anyway, I don't think there are grounds for impeachment.

2006-09-07 13:45:23 · answer #4 · answered by fire_side_2003 5 · 0 0

I am not a member of any party. I still vote though. I never saw the logic of parties -- so a party is pushing for the interests of basically half of the people and not all. An election should not be about half of the people winning and the other half losing because of the outcome. George Washington was the first President and he was against political parties. He said political parties would be the undoing of our country and he was right.

2006-09-07 13:37:20 · answer #5 · answered by Steve P 5 · 3 0

You assume that Republicans and Democrats are all that's out there?

I can't speak for either party, but the issue with Bush is not his party affiliation. It's the fact that he breaks federal laws at will, denies that the courts have any legal authority to review executive actions, and refuses to abide the legal limits that Congress sets.

Bush is on a massive power trip, and has filed legal documents with both federal courts and Congress stating that he does not recognize their authority to pass laws or issue court rulings limiting his power. He considers the executive branch unanswerable to either other branch.

And that's just too dangerous to allow in anyone, regardless of party.

2006-09-07 13:42:20 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

Yes I would. We have impeached presidents in the past for doing a lot less. I think the economy would have to get really bad though before people would really start calling for it. People are still eating to well, so no one cares.

2006-09-07 13:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by Jordan H 1 · 1 0

people voted for bush in this last election,and got the president they deserved. when people realize that the way to keep politicians from going completely crazy is simple. we will have it much easier. the answer? make sure that congress and the president are of different political persuasions. they will keep each other occupied.

2006-09-11 10:46:47 · answer #8 · answered by onelonevoice 5 · 0 0

Impeaching the President and Vice President can be done however, for whatever reason, the People have elected not too.

2006-09-07 13:34:45 · answer #9 · answered by Minina 4 · 0 2

Bush isn't exactly a strong leader, but he does have a good team. Impeach him and another republican president would take his place anyway.

2006-09-07 13:47:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers