Clinton lied about a *******. Bush lied about causus belli (reason for going to war).
John Q. Adams was basically run out of office for the "Alien & Sedition Acts" which were the forerunner of today's Patriot Act.
Whitewater was investigated by a Republican hit squad who never came up with anything. Why has no one investigated the Cheney-linked Halliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq?
Use of torture, officially condoned, contravenes the Geneva Convention.
When the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate in November, should they impeach Bush?
2006-09-12 17:24:58 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because Congress refuses to do its job and hold the trial.
I find it amusing all the people who keep mindlessly repeating that Bush has not done anything illegal, but never bothered to actually read the laws in question or the court proceedings where his violations were confirmed. It's as if by chanting it often enough, they can somehow erase the reality of the situation.
Bush broke federal laws. He publicly admitted breaking them intentionally. Federal courts have confirmed this, including the Supreme Court. What more evidence do people want.
2006-09-12 17:53:37 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
John Adams, not John Quincy Adams, was VOTED out of office due in part to the Alien and Sedition Acts. He was not impeached. In 2004, Bush was voted BACK into the White House despite the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is not illegal, it was approved by both the Senate and the House.
Cheney is no longer a part of Halliburton.
The Geneva Conventions description is vague at best. Alternative methods of interrogation are condoned (hot/cold temperatures, rap music, bright lights to prevent sleep). Phyiscal torture is not used and is not condoned. The Abu Graib scandal, while bad, was only humilating (and disgusting), but it was not condoned.
Bush didn't lie about the reasons for going to war. There may have been faulty intel, but blame the intelligence community and lack of intel sharing and inter-agency cooperation, not Bush. We have found WMDs, albeit old ones, in Iraq, and there is evidence that WMDs and/or research were moved to Syria before the war.
Saddam DID support terrorists. He paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000.
2006-09-13 00:43:47 · answer #2 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I love reading this anti - Bush blather from you guys!!!!...
It tells me that you haven't changed tactics or learned a bloody thing in the last six years... you still attack and condemn without offering up a SINGLE original solution....
as long as the Clintons keep pulling the Democratic party strings you guys can FORGET the senate and the house...
Impeachment??? hang on to that dream you guys!!!! LMAO!!!
2006-09-13 01:53:19 · answer #3 · answered by Dear Blabby 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all theses problems we have right now in the world with the adminstration's overwhelming support of Israel, war in iraq, war on terror. i think it is good that Bush handle all these problems till the next election because the Democrats are going to take Congress back and he is the worst president of the United States because the national debt is in the trillions, and over what a war that manipulated by the words of the president not facts. why are we going to war with saddam even though he was a bad president, we should go war with Bin Laden.
i think Bush should just stick it out and deal with all the problems he has created with US foreign policy towards the middle east and calling them Islamic Fascists. which is sending the wrong message to Muslim people because we are not at war with Islam we are at war with radicals but Muslims that are with us are now turning into Radical Muslims against the west because of Bush and Bin Laden's propaganda is winning over muslims when we aren't at war with them to begin with.
2006-09-13 00:41:42 · answer #4 · answered by minddfloww 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was only impeached because of partisan politics, nothing more.
Republicans have a "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude when it comes to a Republican in the midst of questionable behavior. As long as they hold congress, they're not going to do anything.
Hopefully, if the Democrats gain the Congress, they will impeach Bush.
2006-09-13 00:29:05 · answer #5 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Impeachment requires the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor. What high crime has been committed? Don't you think if suchh a situation existed, there would be an outcry across the nation? The last time I checked, no suc h thing existed. Get a life.
2006-09-13 00:38:30 · answer #6 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
On what ground?
When he is just a living human kind like you and me who made blunders and slip-ups with human errors falling for little children ghost stories on planet earth?
When little children did not learn an old saying " Children are to be seen and not to be heard" when they do not aged like good wine on planet earth.
2006-09-13 02:38:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Bush should be impeached after the Democrats take control of congress. I guess sex is worse than lies that apply to our daily lives.
2006-09-13 00:28:53 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The great thing about back seat drivers is they are always right, and have the benefit of never having to drive.
Yes, the Bush administration has made some mistakes - but they made those mistakes while taking action, not while resting on their heals getting hummers from interns while we suffered attack after attack.
2006-09-13 00:33:48 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
He didn't lie about the reason we went to war.They had weapons of mass destruction,we just never found it.Like
Bin Laden,We know he exists,we just cant find him.And don't forget its a war on terrorists.They are real and we are most likely to be targeted again.I hope you enjoy your freedom and the protection of our military.
2006-09-13 00:34:15 · answer #10 · answered by kelliekareen 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋