Should George Bush be impeached over Iraq?

Question

It would seem logical that if Bill Clinton could be subject to impeachment for an alleged deception over a minor consensual sexual affair, George W. Bush should be subject to the same treatment for launching a deadly and seemingly endless war based on lies, distortions and deceptions.

If that doesn't qualify as a "high crime" I don't think anything does.

see this interview with James Bamford (the guy who wrote the book on the NSA) for more details:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html

Ok, Clarification: I am talking about the way in which the Bush administration manipulated the NSA to manufacture 'evidence' in order to execute their own agenda (i.e a war on Iraq/Syria/Iran) - and in the process shamelessly exploit the high feelings resulting from the events on 9/11. The Bush people are not patriots, they are incompetent idealogues, and they should be impeached. Lying about ones private life is very small-beer compared with such crimes.

Answer 1

A sitting President cannot be impeached for a war which Congress approved funding for. Now if it can be proved that Mr. Bush knowingly lied about any justification for the action that could constitute an impeachable offense for deception of the American people. However, this case will never be made or proved as many in Congress saw and responded to same intelligence. If the Democrats win the house they could bring impeachment proceedings based on a simple majority, but this will be a fruitless waste of time as they will not have the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office as a result.

As for Mr. Clinton the impeachable offense was not alleged. He lied under oath about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This fact is not in dispute and never has been. If you wish to argue for his case based on whether this would effect his leadership ability that would be valid, but you cannot argue facts in evidence for which the man lost his license to practice law.

To date no credible evidence has been put forward to support such a claim. If impeachment is brought that may change, but just alledging something is true does not make it so. In this country we are supposed to believe in innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying you are wrong, only that it appears you have already made up your mind and have no concern for due process. If it is proved that Mr. Bush lied I will lead the charge for his removal from office. As to your contention about Mr. Clinton lying. Personally, I say it is no small matter when a President lies no matter the circumstances. Just by the very fact that they are caught in a lie it calls into question their credibility as a whole. The fact that so many seem to be willing to overlook this fact for one man they like, but not for another they don't is disturbing. We either hold all to a standard or we hold none to it. Anything else is just hypocrisy.

Answer 2

Um, Clinton was under trial for abuse of power, sexual harassment, and rape. He committed perjury.
No matter how often people insist that the war was promoted based on lies, there's really no proof of it.
A deadly war? What are wars supposed to be? And three and a half years is not "endless." The Vietnam war started in, what, 1964(?), and didn't officially end until 1975(?). And over 58,000 soldiers were killed, and countless civilians.
What exactly would President Bush be impeached for?

Answer 3

Well, I agree. Does anyone recall all the preaching for months about Iraq having WMD, mobile labs for the same? While Afastigian was basically ignored and half done? I expect more than a few past presidents have had a B/J from a consenting woman in office. Warren Harding comes to mind. I don't think anyones sex life including a president should get that kind of scrutiny. It is private. But dragging us into this half baked war the way Bush did, and ignoring the real one, that is different.

Answer 4

Democrat leaders mentioned on some interviews that impeachment will be off the table if they gain control of houses. Idea is that if Bush is impeached others involved in Iraq war (prewar stuff) will be 'off the hook.' I guess they want to hold everybody involved accountable for what actually had happened and they're worried impeachment might cut this process short.

Answer 5

Yes
THE COUNTERATTACK began almost immediately. From the moment a team of U.S. and Iraqi researchers reported in mid-October that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq had caused some 655,000 Iraqi deaths, the campaign to discredit the researchers and their report kicked into high gear.

“The numbers are preposterously high,” said Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst at the liberal Brookings Institution. “Their numbers are out of whack with every other estimate.”

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a military think-tank in Washington claimed that the study’s release--just before the November elections--was timed for political impact. “This is not analysis, this is politics,” he said.

More serious attacks claimed that the report, issued by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, used flawed methods.

Answer 6

Bush can only be impeached if a complaint is filed against him and the Congress voted for his trial.

Answer 7

It will not happen in US as the general public themselves are in favour of exercising control over Iraq. In fact, questions are raised in these columns asking when is the turn of N. Korea or Iran?
VR

Answer 8

NO. He should be impeached for allowing the invasion of the states to continue unabated.

Answer 9

what lie ?he said they have WMDs they have used them before and our military has said that they have found over 500 of them

Answer 10

For what offense?