Do you agree that the Dems should not seek to impeach Bush?
Do you think that the people should vote on this question?
2006-11-11 05:08:51 · 36 answers · asked by JC J 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I think the people have voted! I voted for his impeachment, I wrote all my senators asking them to impeach him, I wrote Nancy Polosi and asked her to impeach him!
It is up to The Senate and Congress whether he is impeached! Bush would not be like Clinton and face the Congress in a trial where they could not get the votes to have him impeached!
I see Bush as more a Nixon type, as he wants the lifetime money, office expenses and CIA protection! He would cut and run!
I think he should be impeached but that at least for now has been taken off the table! I am more interested into an investigation into the reason for the war and the corruption rampant in the Republican administration and the businesses they have given contracts in Iraq to! I am especially interested in Halliburton and how much the president and vice president have gotten from this war! Perhaps Bush and Cheney will go on Tax Evasion charges!
I can give you an impeachable offense right now! Bush, without approval of the UN Security Council, launched a war on a sovereign nation in violation of world law!
The US Supreme court has ruled that he has violated the Geneva Conventions, not once, but twice!
Bush set up secret CIA torture camps in places like Poland which is against International law!
Oh, there is plenty to impeach Bush on, expecially after you Republicans so nastily went after Clinton, appointing a Special Counsel and trying to impeach him for not telling the truth in a CIVIL TRIAL!! You spent a $100 Million dollars trying to get Clinton impeached!
2006-11-11 05:20:27 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Impeachment Of the president is not in the best interest of the country or for either party! Impeach president Bush and what will happen when the Rep. Get control back!! Tit for tat! Rather than worring about impeaching President Bush may be they could work on the war, the aging, health care and numerous other issues that are of much more importance than impeaching a lame duck president.
2006-11-12 11:06:50 · answer #2 · answered by tony l 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes I agree with the Democrats. No we as the people should not have a vote to impeach a President. We voted for our Congressmen they represent us if there is any impeachment proceedings.
Why bother to impeach him anyway, he only has two years left. The Democratic Congress can block or change much of the damage that he has done if they get off their duffs, get busy and work together with those who remained in Congress. They can make him what is called a Lame Duck President for the next two years. It remains to be seen how much this new Democratic Congress will achieve.
Besides impeachment proceedings would only take time, money and effort away from the many things which really need tending to: Immigration laws, Health insurance, the environment and new types of fuels, Medicare upgrades, social changes and the war in Iraq just to name a few. Why muddy the waters further with something that will go away on its own in two years.
2006-11-11 05:37:27 · answer #3 · answered by Country Hick 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It really amazes me that a lot of people talk about impeaching Bush, but they DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS! Only the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach the President. The Senate has no say in it. An impeachment also does not remove the President. Impeachment is not a punishment. It is the equivalent to a Grand Jury indictment. It only means that there is enough evidence to stand trial. The trial is then held by the Senate. In the history of the United States, two Presidents have been impeached. They were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
Get your facts straight before you start throwing the word "impeachment" around. There are enough votes in the House to impeach (only takes a simple majority), but there are not enough in the Senate to remove him from office (takes a 2/3 majority). I'm not a Bush supporter, but I believe it will do nothing, and is a waste of time and taxpayer money. It was a waste of time and money to go through it for Clinton.
2006-11-11 07:04:45 · answer #4 · answered by Mutt 7 · 8⤊ 2⤋
As much as I dislike some of the things Bush has done, I am not in favor of impeachment (indictment really by the House). That would make two presidents in a row who were impached, and I am afraid it would set a precedent for future presidents. The opposition doesn't like what the president is doing - vote to impach, even if there isn't sufficient cause.
Impeachment should be reserved for serious matters like what Nixon did. Bush isn't the first president to lie to get us into a war.
2006-11-12 13:15:36 · answer #5 · answered by Shelley 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I agree with the democrats that say we should not seek impeachment. It would be a colossal waste of time and money and would prevent more important things getting done. No, I don't think the people should vote on this. If they did it wouldn't be binding because it would be unconstitutional.
2006-11-12 01:22:19 · answer #6 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I agree that there should be NO impeachment of President Bush. No the people should not vote on this.
2006-11-12 03:46:25 · answer #7 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i imagine a number of you individuals do not extremely keep in mind that you've been had by Bush and Corruption. a very good area of you individuals take each and every ingredient you listen from Politicians to be the reality without exploring the possibilities of being lied to. nicely George Walker Bush and Corruption has F'd you over enormous time for 6 years and look at were given no human being to blame except yourselves. sure the Democrrats won't be able to impeach the Monkey yet he may pay his debt after he leaves workplace if expenditures of warfare Crimes adverse to Humanity are presented adverse to him by the global Courts contained in the Hague, Netherlands. The "Coward" will more effective than likely reduce and run as universal as he's not something yet a coward contained in the first position. he will more effective than likely run to his offered land in Paraguay the position the Paraguayan authorities has already promised the "Coward" immunity from being extradited from Paraguay.
2016-11-29 00:59:05 · answer #8 · answered by cutburth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats are being pragmatic. In other words, they are looking long term and not short term (politically). If they seek to impeach Bush now, it will only anger the republican voters and possibly the independents. They want to win again in 2008 and obviously want to have a Democratic president. It would serve them no purpose in impeaching a lame duck president. It would only back fire and cost them seats in 2008.
2006-11-12 06:22:12 · answer #9 · answered by cheyennetomahawk 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whether the Democratic House decides or should decide to impeach Bush is one question, but whether or not the people should have input on it is quite another.
The answer is "no", and the Constitution is quite clear on that.
2006-11-11 13:33:28 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree that we shouldn't impeach Bush. It's only going to hurt dems and make us lose the white house in 2008.
2006-11-11 08:07:16 · answer #11 · answered by cynical 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋