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

in a recent poll were in favor of impeachment.Impeachement must be based upon high crimes or misdermeanors, anotherwords one can not impeach a president just because of politics, so what crimes do you believe George W. Bush could be legitimately charged with and subjected to the impeachment process, if any? (lying to the public while not under oath is not a crime) or would impeachment be a waste of money and time, or an act of revenge for the unsuccessful Clinton impeachment?

2006-11-11 23:03:10 · 14 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

14 answers

when clinton lied.....nobody died

2006-11-11 23:06:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

Could he legally be brought up on charges for impeachment? Probably.

Should he be impeached and forced out of office? No ... Let him finish his term. Just look who'd be president if Bush were impeached. Cheney! And as bad as Bush is, Cheney would be worse.

Let's hope that the newly elected democrats can at least tie Georgie's hands so he can't do any further damage. But, above all, let's hope that the next time around we get a president that will do what's best for the American people.

2006-11-12 06:42:36 · answer #2 · answered by Justice 4 All 2 · 1 0

By "democrats" you mean Democratic Politicians correct? Because during election time they are not going to say that they may investigate in the future. That would worry people concerned about the emotional toll and what not that could take on Americans. But many Americans have been horrified with President Bush's behaviors and will be "demanding" that their Representatives investigate Bush's actions leading up to the war and during.

This is a huge question to ask though, which laws etc. because there are so many he has violated and/or unethically skirted around (loopholes). Manipulating intelligence about Saddam having WMD is the prime one of course. But the next biggie is exploitation his office going against the best interest of the country for personal and political gain. Aka, KNOWING there where no WMD's but acting on people's fear's to go wage a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. Evidence of this abounds! I don't think there is any need to mention the number of deaths he has caused, the suffering, the civil war he has started, the war profiteering here etc. It's horrible....... This is merely the tip of the ice burg! Then we have the Katrina Hurricane and the neglect of duty to help his people. There are loop holes in the law here, but not all....... Not to mention that Bush has also acted unethically and morally aside from any laws...

Neo-con Republicans are of course having a really hard time realizing their own complicity in these matter's. The amount of "acting tough", like none of this bothers them is quite evident post elections. Or all this denial - it's amazing how people justify crime instead of hold their politicians accountable. You wonder weather they want to see what has happened.

~P.s. just checked your profile and most certainly you are a US citizen. At this hour I was guessing that you were maybe European.

2006-11-11 23:38:04 · answer #3 · answered by passenger204 2 · 2 2

Dude, learn how to read. The dictionary in this case:

Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Anglo-French empecher, enpechier to ensnare, impede, prosecute, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
- im·peach·able /-'pE-ch&-b&l/ adjective
- im·peach·ment /-'pEch-m&nt/ noun

I took that directly from Meriam-Webster online dictionary. To impeach the President is to bring charges against him. Only 2 American Presidents have been impeached: Nixon and Clinton. Neither was removed from office. Nixon resigned. To remove someone from office is just that, removing them from office. Impeaching a President is to bring charges against him for a criminal offence. When you learn to read, then you can ask questions. Until then, grow up and get over yourself.

President Bush has committed no crime to this point. When he does, I am all for impeaching him. And depending on the severity of the crime, then remove him from office only if he is found guilty. But do you really want Cheney for a President? I don't.

2006-11-12 01:26:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Clinton lied under oath. Apples to Oranges

Clinton WAS impeached and dissbarred. (Impeachment is simply the trial process NOT the removal from office)

It would be an act of revenge.

It would be a waste of time and money.

I am not even a Republican.

2006-11-12 00:15:47 · answer #5 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2 1

Bush couldn't be charged with anything. He has done NOTHING that hasn't been done before in times of war. As for the intelligence which led to the war in Iraq, I don't believe they were lies. Too many soldiers I've known have said that they DID find weapons; the problem was that the warheads were in one place, while in another, there were facilities which had recently been cleaned out (before the "invasion" as it were), but had some residue left.
Impeachment would be a waste of time and money. Bush hasn't been the best president, but there have been many that were worse.

2006-11-11 23:40:56 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3 2

There certainly seems to be a lot of people who are hung up on this impeachment thing and I believe that it's just the very same people who still believe in the myth that the Republicans stole the 2000 election. I also heard that this poll you quote was conducted by MSNBC, an organization that spend an inordinant amount of their time bashing the President so I think they probably polled their newsroom employees. GIGO

2006-11-12 00:24:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2 3

Revenge for Clinton's impeachment, but it will never happen. Bush has actually been a fine president. I do not understand the American people voting to have their taxes raised and economy destroyed by DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS.

2006-11-12 01:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Whose poll was it? Because the majority of the media is biased. So the inflation of numbers is outrageous. I will never believe that 85% of Americans will ever want to impeach any president. Not even Nixon had those numbers. Here we go with the left and their blind followers again.

2006-11-11 23:20:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

See, if the democrats were to impeach Bush, they would have to come up with plans themselves. Democrats are incapable of doing anything but complaining about republicans. So you won't see any impeachment.
Furthermore, public opinion polls do not dictate who gets impeached. I suggest you read the constitution.
Also for you "no one died when Clinton lied" Robots-talk to the kids at Waco who were burned to death by Clinton's attack dog Janet Reno, both of whom tried their best to bury the story. Or talk to Vince Foster, the "suicide" who's shotgun miraculously rolled 50 feet after he shot himself. You robots make me laugh.

EDIT The poll you mention is MSNBC, which calls an average of 400 or so people, if I'm not mistaken(and I may well be there!). If that to you is a proper extrapolation of the nation, then I GUESS you have a point. Very few, however would see it that way.

2006-11-11 23:14:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

Let's spend another 30 million on an exercise that would make[gasp], Dick Cheney President of the USA.

2006-11-12 00:03:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers