My brother is works for the Washignton Post and he said that the word around Washington DC is that regardless of what Nancy Pelosi said about Impeachment being off the table, there will undoubtedly be impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney.
So do you think impeachment may actually be possible?
2006-12-11 13:40:17 · 17 answers · asked by Rosebee 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hmmmm Bush and Cheney? It would be nice to have Cheney out of the picture, I think he is the dangerous one. It will be interesting to see what happens.
2006-12-11 13:48:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Alex is right...and if your brother really does work for the Washington Post, it's not surprising to hear that since it's one of the more liberal new papers in the country.
And if they do, whenever the next Democrat president comes into power with a Republican controlled congress, not matter the circumstances, you'll need to expect an impeachment hearing on him/her too.
2006-12-11 13:44:47 · answer #2 · answered by El Bubba 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i'm no longer a supporter of Bush. I even under no circumstances voted for him. yet I help the President of the US, whoever he/she perhaps. Bush isn't plenty greater impeachable that previous previous presidents. He did his job the final he would desire to under the circumstances. In any previous administrations, there have been continuously "violations" of the regulation. for the duration of his (Bush) watch although, there have been no repeat of 9/11. related to different significant themes, no different team noted the themes yet under no circumstances got here up with any strategies. i would be prepared to wager that whoever will become the subsequent president that no longer all and sundry are going to be happy and would call for his impeachment.
2016-10-05 04:59:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He should be..if he isn't our entire government is corrupt.
There are many reasons for impeaching George Bush. The ones below are the most compelling and most easily prosecuted. (For a more complete list see "Bush should be impeached.")
Lying about the Rationale for the Iraq War
Bush and his team deliberately misled Congress and the American public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda and responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the evidence shows that Iraq was not involved. Bush said in his State of the Union Address that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to build nuclear weapons. But he had already been told by the CIA that the evidence was forged. Bush claimed to have hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the UN investigators could not verify any of these claims and searches of Iraq revealed no such weapons. The real reason we invaded Iraq may have more to do with the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and sits strategically in the center of the Middle East.
Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens
George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. Bush claims he has authority to wiretap anyone he wishes but a federal judge ruled that his actions are unconstitutional.
Torture of Prisoners
Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention....
Violation of International Law
According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". They are not something that can be ignored when they are inconvenient. Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.
2006-12-11 13:43:36 · answer #4 · answered by dstr 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
It's always a possibility, but whether or not he'll actually be thrown out of office is another thing. I doubt he will be impeached at all.
2006-12-11 13:43:57 · answer #5 · answered by Jordan H 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hearings? probably. Impeachment? Unlikely. Removal from office? Impossible.
The Wash Post is not a credible source.
2006-12-11 13:43:49 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Your brother is grasping for a good story, undoubtedly based on propaganda, like most reporters..... Just so you know, one must commit a crime, in order to be impeached, and President Bush hasn't committed any.
2006-12-11 13:49:29 · answer #7 · answered by Katz 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Certain guidelines must be followed,....after this takes place,and there is determined to be lawful reasons found..,it would be unconstitutional not to proceed
2006-12-11 13:46:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bring it on, waste tax payers money! I will wager that if they do, they will pay for it in 08!
2006-12-11 13:46:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
go for it. democrats will lose what's left of the support the have in middle america.
2006-12-11 13:46:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋