it's all there, in our Constitution, what it's used for and when to do it. All conditions are met, if they went after Clinton over a blue dress, how much more so than all the lies about Saddam being a threat or Al Queda connection
how can letting the Bin Ladens fly home not be high treason when the FBI wanted to interrogate them first, but no one else was allowed to fly days following sept 11?
has executive orders been issued secretly classifying all evidence until 2009 so no impeachment or justice, especially for all involved?
2006-09-11 07:25:17 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I hate Bush. That said, it's debatable whether any of the things he's done (some of which are absolutely illegal and unconstitutional) qualify as high crimes or treason. And since the interpretation as to whether they meet that standard or not is up to congress, which is republican-controlled, the odds of him being impeached are very, very small.
I'm just glad we only have to deal with this idiot for 2 more years...
2006-09-11 07:29:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, if he commits a crime or act of treason, of course Bush, like any other president, can be impeached.
For those who actually care about FACTS or TRUTH, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Because he lied to a grand jury under oath.
Also a FACT is that Bush has NOT lied about Saddam or al Qaeda. Not only did the US intelligence services say that Saddam had WMD, so did the British, French, Russian, UN, etc. That was the info he had to make decisions on. As for al Qaeda, it had been long established by intelligence that there was some relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda since at least 1992. Even Clinton acknoledged this. So was it true for 8 years then suddenly untrue?
Lastly, Bush did he let the bin Ladens fly home early or without bieng interviewed by the FBI. Those are outright lies and falsehoods. 22 of the 26 people in the party were interviewed, as noted in the 9/11 Commission Report. And they did not fly out until 9/20, on the recommendation of Richard Clarke.
It's one thing to not like the president and disagree with his policies. But all these lies, smears and untruths indicate a level of mental instability.
2006-09-11 07:55:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, none of them. people like you frequently make me snigger because it truly is painfully obtrusive you've not examine the structure. Article II, area IV: "The President, vp and all civil officials of america, will be removed from place of work on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or different severe Crimes and Misdemeanors." Has he dedicated treason hostile to america, with the help of willfully betraying any area of the country to an enemy? No. Has he bribed others to get what he needs, or widely used bribes? No evidence, yet when we were to adhere to the regulation accordingly you would might want to impeach ninety 9% of the Congress. Has he dedicated any severe crimes AND (no longer or, there's a international of massive difference) misdemeanors, as defined with the help of the rules of america? No. do not talk about something like this till you already know what that's, what it demands, and what the outcomes will be. because although if he's impeached, he has to face trial for although he's been impeached for; if and on condition that he's discovered accountable throughout the time of suggested trial, he's not any longer the President. till such time (and with so little time left in his time period, it may no longer finish before the election), he remains the President, with all the powers and privileges (and, thank God, regulations) therein. and what's this about 9/11 deaths? once back, genuinely 0 evidence that he replaced into right now or circuitously in contact. some each body is such conspiracy theorists that they can't determine actuality from fable anymore. There you've it -- no case for impeachment. Make no mistake about it, President Bush isn't precisely my trendy President ever; i'm basically attempting to talk about the logical fallacies of your argument. Please cease whining.
2016-11-26 01:27:57 · answer #3 · answered by eskdale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he can, but the items cited are not in the least grounds for such a thing.
Saddam - al Qaeda: The administration has been clear from the outset that the casus belli was Saddam's lack of cooperation on WMD. The al-Qaeda connection was incidental. Not many weapons were found because most had been moved to Syria, starting in June 2002.
bin Laden family: There is a large clan of bin Ladens, and only Osama, the black sheep of the family, has been accused of terrorist acts. None of the others have been implicated in any way.
Executive orders -- pure speculation.
2006-09-11 07:30:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush did not declare war on Iraq in a vacuum, a bipartisan supermajority of the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly, and without reservation, to enter Iraq. At the time most of the debate centered on human rights issues and WMDs. Politicians on both sides of the aisle were convinced he had these weapons and that he tortured his citizens had been long established. President Clinton said repeatedly that Saddam had WMDs and "posed a serious threat to the United States and our allies."
So while he has violated the constitution on several counts, none of the issues you mentioned are indictable or likely to lead to indictment. The president has tremendous leeway when it comes to enagaging in his duties as POTUS.
His violations of the constitution stem from his treatment and imprisonment of persons suspected of terrorism.
2006-09-11 07:39:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He has failed his oath of office for not protecting the constitution. He has broken many laws both domestic and international. His spying on his own people without warrant is probably the worst he has done in this country but there is a whole list of war crimes that he and his gang are guilty of, I would like to see him impeached and then sent to the Hague to be tried as a war criminal. He sure deserves it.
2006-09-11 07:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The president can be impeached at anytime for anything, as long as the votes exist in the house. Then if the votes exist in Senate he can be unseated. However, there needs to be a good reason cause now those congress-persons have to answer the the constituency.
2006-09-11 07:32:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You really need to put down the cool aid. Your own party looked at the same evidence & came up with the same conclusion. They now want to rewrite history but they are on record. The liberal media wont call them on it because they hate Bush so much. Clinton lied under oath before a grand jury, stupid. Bush was handed faulty intelligence, big difference. Now click your heels three times & say............................................
2006-09-11 07:35:24 · answer #8 · answered by Steven B 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As you probably know the Bush team is pro-actively trying to prevent this from happening.
If the Republicans lose their power I would strongly suspect impeachment proceedings will commence for any number of reasons - however I doubt they will lose power (see "Diebold").
2006-09-11 07:30:01 · answer #9 · answered by AntiDisEstablishmentTarianism 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
None of what you cite qualify as high crime or treason. Letting Ben Laden relatives leave was to avoid them being lynched for a crime whith which they had nothing to do .. Just because you are related to a looser don't make you a looser.
2006-09-11 07:30:09 · answer #10 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋