English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

Three years ago would have been a better time, but it's never to late to start holding criminals accountable for their crimes.

2006-11-08 14:39:21 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 2

The dems can try of course, but they won't succeed. It will be endless investigation after endless investigation, and guess what... They'll lose their vaunted majority in 08 because of it... And possibly blow any shot at the white house.
In reality, there's nothing to impeach him ON. Just a bunch of disproven rhetoric and nonexistant laws. Dems would be far better served by working WITH this president to get the country moving forward.
Even if they DID manage to impeach him, as the situation with Bill Clinton proved, impeachment doesn't necessarily mean anything.

2006-11-08 22:42:14 · answer #2 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 1 0

His days may be numbered. Is this the reason Cheney is nowhere to be found? He might be preparing to replace Bush. Cheney is surely on that list for scrutiny as well. He was not present at the news conference yesterday when Rumsfeld stepped down.
Before Bush is impeached, there will be investigations performed.

2006-11-10 02:40:11 · answer #3 · answered by Schona 6 · 0 0

Nope, it's never a good time to impeach a noble leader. One who has demonstrated such resolve under constant criticism should be celebrated. Impeach? No way- why don't you ask the countless family members of those whose relatives were killed and worse, tortured, by Saddam whether Bush should be impeached!
Your simple-minded & cheap attack of our fearless leader just demonstrates the media backboard you have become- you simply rebound what you heard in 1 minute radio segment back at the rest of us! Try something original you tree-hugging liberal fanatic!

2006-11-08 22:45:44 · answer #4 · answered by theWord 5 · 1 0

Do you know what impeach means?

im‧peach  /ɪmˈpitʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-peech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account.

www.dictionary.com

Impeachment is to bring criminal charges against the President.

What crimes has the President of the United States of America committed?

2006-11-08 23:13:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As Bush Sr. said to a press secretary some years ago.."If they only knew what we have done, they would drags us out into the streets and hang us by our necks."G.W. tried to dismantle this country, he loved the war, and he loved hearing about how many more deaths were happening in the Middle East, but most of all he loved being an elitist and stealing Americans money & freedoms. This will set the Illuminati back 25-years. Thank God!

2006-11-08 22:48:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You stupid people! All excited about taking control. All hopped up cause you won, but too damn stupid to listen to your Democrat Leader, the Speaker of the House said this morning, Impeachment is off the table!!!! Bush offered an olive branch today, by accepting Rumsfields' resignation, will the Democrats reciprocate? by the attitudes I have seen on here tonight, I would have to say the Democrats are sore winners . (loosers)

2006-11-08 22:42:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

There's nothing to impeach him on. I hope Bush stands his ground even if the democrats have taken over the senate and house. Bye bye America!!

2006-11-08 22:39:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

1st of all, there is nothing to impeach him for.
2nd, the House would succeed on an impeachment, but the Senate would not convict because the Dems do not have the vote (remember that lieberman in and Indy who hangs with the dems but will not vote to impeach).

2006-11-08 22:41:16 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2 0

to be truthful i would have a better time before they re-elected him. i not all against in his choice's he made as a president. but the truth and fact is that bush send people to Iraq for no good reason. i still think we should have done before all this happened with the Democrat's.

2006-11-08 23:11:18 · answer #10 · answered by Miriam G 2 · 0 1

No they will wait to the summer of 08 for maximum effect on the next election.

2006-11-08 22:40:50 · answer #11 · answered by midiman77 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers