Impeachment of Dubya Bush?

Question

It has been proven in several published texts that the big Dubya repeatedly lied to both the American public and Congress about his reasons for going to War with Iraq. This is a breach of the US constitution and leaves him liable for being tried for impeachment. Why is this not happening. As a British citizen I would like some opinions on this please?

Answer 1

Right now, there is a Republican majority in both our House of Representatives and in the Senate. Impeachment proceedings have to be undertaken by the House, and the President is then tried in the Senate. Thus far, while many of the Republicans in the House and Senate are starting to vocalize their disapproval of Bush's administration (just in time for the elections!), there is no Republican movement under way to impeach him.

Now, it is likely the House of Representatives will come back under Democrat control after November's elections. The Senate may not. Still, at that time, with a Democrat majority in the House, they could very well impeach him. There is, however, a major problem with that. If they are successful, and he is removed from office, Dick Cheney will become President.

Cheney could be impeached as well, but it would have to be a near certain thing (Democrat majority in the Senate). I can't think of a worse scenario than an impeachment of Bush that leaves Cheney in the Presidency with sufficent time left in the term to do even more damage.

If the Democrats manage to win a majority in both House and Senate this November, I think you will see impeachment proceedings against both of them. Here's hoping.

Answer 2

I am a British citizen, and agree that the George W Bush has been in difficult times, much as Tony Blair has over their handling of the war in Iraq.

Impeachment is very serious. There is no evidence that says either George Bush or Tony Blair lied on purpose, however there is evidence to suggest that the information given to the US Congress and Senate and the UK Parliament was proved to be incorrect.

Information that is used to make decisions of this kind needs to be reliable.

If at the time it is being used to make decisions it is reliable and then later is proved not to be reliable then you cannot just stop the policy and bring home the troops and then Impeach the President or Prime Minister, you need to see the policy through to the end and you need leaders that constantly put their head on the block and say this is what we beleived based on the evidence, it turned out not to be the case, but our policy is working.

Answer 3

Lying to the public is not grounds for impeachment. Even if it can be proven that he knowingly lied, as opposed to just repeated whatever information he had at the time, that is not illegal.

I truly boggles me that people keep focusing on the lying as possible grounds for impeachment. It's like having someone who has admitted to serial murder, and choosing to try them for shoplifting.

Bush has admitted felony violations of various federal laws, including public admission of war crimes (18 USC 2441). This has also been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

So why the heck is everyone so hung up about potential lying?!

Answer 4

If the a law was broken that calls for impeachment then the congress should follow through with that. However I do believe that the congress is Bush supported so at this time I don't think that anything will be done.

Answer 5

nearly all presidents and prime ministers lie at some point during their reign of duty; if this was grounds for impeachment then that's how all reigns of government would end: impeachment. lies aren't grounds on which to impeach, end of. you may not like him and i don't like him either but the fact is the american people exlected him into office, twice, and he's staying

Answer 6

There are several opinions I might highlite:
*That's a bunch of fluffy lies
*Impeaching the President would not cure societies ills, only scapegoat a person who is not wholly responsible for them.
*It would put Cheney in the driver's seat, and we know how he hates the thought of being a public figure in his 'private' democracy.
*Americans are constantly distracted with talks of Oil crisis and terror threats, the event of 9/11 is far overshadowed with constant CONSTANT referalls to the importance of imparting the 'oppurtunity of freedom and democracy' to a nation which had none prior to our forceful intervention.
*Americans are constantly asked to connect terrorism with muslims, as well as criticism for anything connected with the current objectives of the administration (lack of support means one is not a patriot, and fearfully, civil liberties only extend to those that share the administrations views).
*Have I mentioned Rhetoric, rhetoric, and rhetoric?
*There is as yet, no official proven evidence of deception or consipiracy, not matter how apparent it seems.
*What am I forgetting?

Answer 7

Only the congress (specifically the House of representatives) can impeach the president and the majority there is on his side.

Hopefully after the '06 elections that will not be so.

Answer 8

Because he didn't lie and if he was impeachable then so is the United States Senate and House of Representatives who also allowed the war.

Answer 9

Let me understand the question and the back ground to the war.
First there was weapons of mass destruction,then Iraqi freedom,then it becomes insurgency.
So the first reason became the second reason and the third reason is the actual reason? but all along there is another reason?...

Answer 10

As a British citizen, you should not have any opinions because Tony Blair is retarded. So is soccer, calling french fries chips, and marmite.