2006-09-16 07:44:39 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sadly, the s-o-b probably won't be brought up on charges and impeached since no one really has the cajones to introduce a Bill of Impeachment. And if Bush were to be impeached and removed from office, you know who would take his place, don't you? Cheney. And do we really want that in charge??
2006-09-16 07:46:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
The initial problem, even given that Democrats win both house and senate this year, would be Cheney. If you recall the 1970's, Agnew was forced to resign before Nixon's impeachment trial. Cheney would be even worse than Agnew. Also there are only two years left in this administration. Unless the impeachment process could be speeded up considerably with incontrovertable evidence, it would tie up Congress for almost the whole two years. Congress would spend its time better by using its legislative powers to thwart administration strategies. Once Bush is out of office he might be prosecutable.
2006-09-16 08:07:22 · answer #2 · answered by Ernie F 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He needs to be. NOW! I read an article the other day that said he could be brought up on 30 felony charges for his warrentless wiretapping. This is an impeachable offense. The biggest problem is that with a Republican controlled Congress, the chance of an impeachment is almost nil. Unless....Congress is dominated by Democrats. If that happens in Nov., investigations on warrentless wiretapping, manipulation of CIA documents to push for war (cherry-picking) & not abiding by international law or the Geneva Convention to hold & (to torture?) supposed terrorists without due process & then if he can get Congress to pass legislature to try them, & yet not allow them to see the evidence (because it's classified?). These are things that NEED to be investigated. SOON!
Impeaching Bush would show the World that we (as Americans), do not agree with Bush on many levels (foreign as well as domestic policies). Bush has alienated all world leaders in the name of "finding the terrorists" & bringing them to justice. I think there may be a chance that he could be brought up on charges for war crimes in the international community for his stance on torture & holding persons from other countries without due process. Stay tuned for that.
2006-09-16 08:10:02 · answer #3 · answered by Nancy L 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both. Dems win house and senate, Moderate repubs jump on bandwagon. Cheney goes down first, they Dubya.
Outing an undercover CIA operative=treason
Lying to go to war=treason
Ignoring Geneva Convention=War crimes
Exceeding the limits of executive branch, ignoring congress and the supreme court=failure to follow constitutional law
Dick Nixon resigned over 40 some minutes of blank tape, Dubya has hours and hours of non-warranted illegal surveillance data. Some Arabs in London, according to the CIA, were planing on making a bomb, while in flight, out of a tube of Crest, a stick of Old Spice and some Vagisil. So on this side of the pond we have no gels or liquids allowed on board a plane, period, and local cops in every airport carrying automatic weapons. This is not normal, this is conditioning. The timing with Lieberman, Bush's closest thing to a democratic ally, loosing his parties primary and this revelation by the CIA is not coincidental, IMO.
2006-09-16 08:12:01 · answer #4 · answered by Chronic Observer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush has not violated any particular laws whether in be from here or international. So there would be no need for impeachment trials. There is a difference between what you may feel as wrong and what is against the law.
2006-09-16 08:32:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Impeached only means suspected and brought before a hearing.
I would like to see him hauled in front of a International secret tribunal.
Oh and with no counsel of access to the evidence.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-16 08:31:34 · answer #6 · answered by 43 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
desirous to question the fool isn't adequate. To be impeached, he could be convicted of intense crimes. His glaring incompetence is, regrettably, no longer a criminal offense. Any conviction could require stable evidence and robust criminal history. Bush has executed it is appropriate to muddy waters by using hiding suggestions, putting his people into judicial branch, passing regulations that have adequate loopholes to guard his strikes, and so on. His propaganda gadget additionally has executed a somewhat mind-blowing activity brainwashing public into believing that he's frigging God and persons who're after him are traitors. This criminal is going to be difficult to convict.
2016-12-12 09:31:31 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats would have to take over the congress in order for bush to be investigated. Impeachment is highly unlikely as long as republicans have their way.
2006-09-16 07:47:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
If Democrats win the majority in congress, I hope to see investigations into his criminal activity and if something can be proven then he should be impeached and maybe a few repuglicans will cross over and do what is right. Then he will be impeached, as it stands now with repuglicans in control of congress it will never happen.
2006-09-16 07:50:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
really makes no difference if he is impeached. Apart from a minor inconvience to those who pull the strings.
The policies set by the bilderbergers, PNAC and the rest of the global cabal who work for the rockerfellas and rotheschilds will still continue to be realised.
2006-09-16 07:59:14 · answer #10 · answered by mistertimgray 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋