Impeach President Bush? Yes or No?

Question

Hell Yes!!

Answer 1

No. An exercise in futility. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote from the Senate. Will never happen unless something even worse than what he has already done is uncovered. The democrats would be better advised politically to pass positive legislation that benefits middle class americans and have Bush veto it.

Answer 2

It is never going to happen. Impeachment proceeding may be brought, but they will be a waste of time, effort and money. The impeachment would stretch into the next election cycle and will alienate voters against the Democrats. In the end nothing would be accomplished because there are no impeachable offenses that can be proved and the Democrats do not have the majority required to remove a sitting president from office. To those who say he lied and that Democrats only voted for the war based on false intelligence here's your wake up call. Most mainstream Democrats were citing the same intelligence regarding Hussein and Iraq before Bush was elected. You can create whatever fantasies you want in your mind, but their own words in articles and on tape will betray them if they attempt impeachment on these grounds. Democrats would be wise to divest themselves of the hate and accept that Mr. Bush will be president until 2008. If you believe you were voted in on change then let the past go and concentrate on that. Otherwise Democrats may find that the real reason they were voted in was to send a message to the GOP and then find themselves out of power again in 2008.

student_of_life: With all due respect you are wrong.

Twelve years of time for inspectors and 17 UN Resolutions were violated. We did not have to declare war on Iraq again. War was declared in 1991 with UN support. The end of hostilities was a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. How many times did Saddam Hussein eject weapons inspectors from the country? How many time did weapons inspectors claim that they were blocked from visitng suspected weapons sites. How many times did Democrats tell us Iraq had WMDs before Bush took office? The ceasefire agreement was that Saddam Hussein would cooperate fully period. The minute he violated this agreement Iraq was subject to an invasion. There is no violation, no illegality, and no failure to honor agreements on the part of the United States. As to justifications given, 9/11 was never directly cited as a reason to invade Iraq, this is a Democrat fabrication based on a convoluted misinterpretation of what was actually stated by the president.

student_of_life: You are just incapable of grasping one basic fact apparently. There was no viloation of international law. Iraq was in violation of their ceasefire agreements. Further is no one believed that there were WMDs in Iraq there would have been no need for weapons inspectors in Iraq. Nice try, doesn't pass the smell test.

Answer 3

Yes. No impeachable offense? Starting a war which violated international law is offense enough I think. He is a criminal, and by pushing the invasion before UN inspectors could finish searching for WMD's, he violated the due process established by the UN and agreed to by the US. If you demand a country allow weapon inspectors in or else be invaded, and that country then does so, you are under the obligation to allow the inspectors to search for weapons before jumping the gun. By illegally circumventing due process, the administration took a major risk, and is directly responsible for starting a war on false pretenses. That war has resulted in many tens of thousands dead. By now, if Iraq emerges as a peaceful democracy it will only be a matter of blind luck, and consequences of blind luck cannot justify ignoring just war theory. If they did, invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow would be justified if, ten years from now, democracy happened to emerge. Yes it is good that Saddam is gone, but if the weapons inspection were occurring, it would not have been any more difficult to have human rights inspections, and that option should have at least been considered before invading. The justifications for the invasion - WMD's, links to terrorists, links to 9/11 - have proven false. The only justification that ended up being possibly justified (even though it was not used at the beginning of the war and the US's support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea undermines the rationale) is the argument that Iraq was violating human rights. Like I said though, this wasn't even addressed at the beginning, and if this was a reason for war, peaceful steps should have been taken first. Adn given the current human rights situation in Iraq, even this justification is pretty hollow.

That Bush ended up being wrong about the WMD's is not his fault. That he illegally avoided the process of searching for WMD's is. There are legal processes for a reason, and when a country or leader violates those processses and ends up being wrong about it, they need to be held accountable. If Clinton could get impeached for lying about a ********, Bush should certianly be impeached for starting an illegal war which has killed thousands. A life sentence would be justifiable, I think.

ROYAL TEE: Yes, Cheney would be preferable as president. Bush is an effective president because he has charisma and appeals (or used to) to the average voter. Cheney does not. Cheney would be unable to as effectively push his agenda across. Plus Cheney was a main architect of the invasion, so if Bush were impeached Cheney possibly would be too, and even if he were not it would be a cloud over him.

Everybody seems to be saying there is "no impeachable offense." Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states: “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The invasion of Iraq violated international law.

Plus there are all the statements that Bush and Cheney made to the public. Bush said there is “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” This is a misleading statement however you choose to look at it, and was done with the sole intention of pushing the country toward an unjust and illegal war. Does making a misleading statement with the intent to start a war in violation of international law count as a high crime? At the least, I think something like that is a misdemeanor.

AlO: The VP can be impeached also.

Answer 4

If we had the luxury of peace and prosperity we had when Clinton was President, absolutely. Bush certainly deserves it more than Clinton did, and the way they manipulated intelligence was lying to Congress, certainly an impeachable offense.

But I hope we'll get Iraq fixed, get people some health care, and stop hemorrhaging tax money to Republican corporations before we focus on bringing Bush and his cronies to justice.

Answer 5

do you even know what impeached means? it means accused. it doesn't mean kicked out of office. besides, there is nothing to impeach him for. now clinton on the other hand lied to a federal court. AND no, President Bush should not be impeached.

Answer 6

NO! We need to heal old wounds, not make new ones! Personally I don't like the guy, never did, but he is the president, he has not really committed any real crime, other then be kind of stupid and has a very naive, simplistic view of how rest of the world works.

Answer 7

As much as I would like to impeach him, that would mean Cheney would be president.

Answer 8

No, it would only make things worse for dems. I don't like Bush but I'm a realist who realizes that impeachment during a war is bad.

Answer 9

No. The Democrats are not that dumb. President Bush is basically pinned in; the Democrats would be well served to just let him stew.

Answer 10

NO lets move on in an effort to fix the problems instead of destroying another president .
We have trashed nixon ford carter reagan bush clinton and now we want to trash Bush .
He deserves it if he will not work with the new congress to solve the problems .
But to start of calling for Bush's Head on a block for past acts is counter productive .