Reading results of a study are not crimes. Passing on intel he recieved from the CIA and Great Britian are not lies. I really want an answer not your same copy paste answers of last time.
2006-12-11 11:36:21 · 26 answers · asked by dakota29575 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is a real question, I see 20 to 30 times a day that people in this forum want him impeached I want to know how you expect that to get done. What are the charges that anyone can actually prove?
2006-12-11 11:46:20 · update #1
There is no legal reason to impeach him unfortunately despite the fact he is a lying sob who has no right to run this country any longer. However I cant blame him as he is just the front man doing big business bidding.
Go Bush Go!
Why even bother calling for his impeachment you all know it is not going to happen, why not focus your energy elsewhere. If you seriously think you have a snowballs chance in you know where of getting him impeached you clearly have no clue as to how our country works.
2006-12-11 12:11:50 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree with the impeachment but as for the lies:
1. If Iraq, as you said, was a threat to the USA and Blair, then they could destroy their military without invading Iraq and the deaths of many Americans in Iraq, right? Without the military forces Iraq and Saddam would not be the threat.
So why this war?
Oil and Arms - long-term interests of the USA and Blair in Iraq!!!! Open your eyes!!!!!
It is solely my opinion if you disagree prove that I am wrong!!!!
2006-12-11 20:34:48 · answer #2 · answered by Black_girly 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ahhh...the ole "passing the buck" thing.
Sure, blame it ALL on G. Tenent. Got to love it....it's always someone elses fault......grrrrr....and this from the party that postulates "personal responsibility and accountability"....hahaha, well...except when it deals with them or something they have done.
The fact is ...they're(US intelligence) bumbling idiots! Have they gotten anything re: this stuff right?....they failed re: Iraq's WMD....they failed "connecting the dots" for 9/11......doesn't that make you feel nice and safe? Oh.....and how many can actually communicate (w/Farsi/Arabic or whatever)......guess what?.....less than one dozen!!!.....same with those assisting in the training of Iraqi's.LOL....now what should one think about that!
I digress...back on topic...Bush is an arrogant SOB....but unfort. I do not believe there is anything to impeach him on. Too bad....I wish we could!!
2006-12-11 20:06:03 · answer #3 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Didn't he have people listening in on our phone calls and lied about them? Didn't he say we were going after terrorists, but instead he got sidetracked by Saddam Hussein and WMD's, that had NOTHING to do with the attack of the Twin Towers, not to mention the WMD's weren't even there? Hasn't he passed the Patriot Act to keep America safe from terrorists while arresting people who aren't terrorists, never catching the people who are, and therefore violated SIX AMENDMENTS of the Constitution? Hasn't he lied to us about there being NO terrorist attacks since 9/11, when there have (like the anthrax threat a few years ago)?
2006-12-11 20:02:21 · answer #4 · answered by Stardust 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't want impeachment. I want a sincere apology. This war had nothing to do with 9/11. Our President was, at the very least, mistaken. If Clinton apologized to America for his personal life, Bush can apologize to how much he's affect America's public life and image.
2006-12-11 19:45:33 · answer #5 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 8⤊ 0⤋
President Bush authorized wiretaps without judicial or congressional approval. At the very least he should have gone through the FISA courts, but he didn't even do that. That is unconstitutional and against the law.
There's one that you can prove.
I do hope you give me best answer because this is fact is the accurate answer to your question.
2006-12-11 19:54:52 · answer #6 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll give you one. Bush has said that the decision to invade was not made until January of 2003. That's a flat out lie. The decision was made at a minimum months earlier, well before the final UN resolution was even negotiated.
You should read the Downing Street memo's if you haven't already.
2006-12-11 19:46:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
The neurological wiring of Liberals is moronic. They like to manifest ideas of Bush lying in their minds. A typical irrational statement from the Liberals. Bush is the best President in history!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??! That's extremely illogical.
Presidents that were superior to Bush:
1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower
7. Richard Nixon
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Bush Sr.
Shall I continue?
2006-12-11 19:42:40 · answer #8 · answered by ☠Skull Cleaner☠ 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
He has succesfully impeached his own party in the mid-term elections.
21% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq.
75% disapprove
Opposition to the war is now taking on historic proportions, with 62 percent saying it was "a mistake" to send U.S. troops to Iraq — slightly more than told a Gallup Poll in 1973 that it was a mistake to send U.S. forces to Vietnam.
Seventy-one percent say the war is going badly, including 39 percent who believe the war is going very badly. Just 25 percent say it's going well. The negative assessment of the war was shared by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
2006-12-11 19:41:07 · answer #9 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
1) He said at the World Trade Center disater site, "They will pay for this" and not all camel jockeys are dead yet in Afganistan and Iraq.
2) He said the war is over on the carrier long ago.
3) US Senator Kerry said at the Presidential Debate, "The People deserve the truth." so he then went door to door in Pennsylvania.
Well 2 out of 3 isn't bad.
2006-12-11 19:44:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋