2006-12-20 15:55:00 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
In a perfect world--yes. The only problem with that is if we get rid of that idiot then we have sleazy Dick Cheney to live with for the next two years.
2006-12-21 03:30:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can no one see the fallacy in this argument?? First, if Bush were removed (by impeachment, assassination, etc.), who would become president? Right, Cheney. And, what's the law about vice-presidents running for office after they assume the presidency?? Well, it says that if there is more that half of the term lift, then the vice-president can run on his own only once. If there is less than half the term left, then he can run twice. So, if Bush were removed, who would we have? Cheney. How long? 10 years. (After all, look at the Christian Conservatives, and the fundamentalists, and Karl Rove--how could he lose??) So, if Bush were removed, we would have Chaney for another 10 years. You think things are bad now....
2006-12-21 01:12:18 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. Dave 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Andrew Johnson was impeached and left office. Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached. Bill Clinton was impeached and refused to leave office.
Now what are the chances that Bush would leave if he were impeached?
I don't think he will be because he is already leaning toward the Democratic side. He knows he is beat and is trying to save face. He really squirmed in his speech a few days ago.
If Chaney becomes President, then I say no Bush should not be impeached.
2006-12-21 01:16:04 · answer #3 · answered by Tenn Gal 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would probably go a long way in reestablishing our credibility in the world. If he is impeached and removed from office, Cheney would have to removed with him. It could go very hard on both of them and maybe Rumsfeld too. Almost certainly, they would be charged with war crimes following removal. Many people believe that's whats happened. If there really is evidence to this effect, they should be given a fair trial, but if found guilty, dealt with in the harshest way the law might provide for. As much as I dislike the greed, arrogance and stupidity, of this administration, I would hate to see that. I would be a poor choice as a replacement president. The day the verdicts were read, I would mount a preemptive nuclear strike against both North Korea and Iran. I would have to take my medicine as a war criminal too then. Lucky I'm a nobody.
2006-12-21 00:29:51 · answer #4 · answered by Kim 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no and legally he cant. look at the presidency of andrew johnson and you will find that a president cannot be impeached based on his political decisions. not to mention what would the point be? if he's impeached it doesnt matter a republican is still in office. not to mention as a nation we have not been very good at impeaching our presidents.
2006-12-21 00:25:45 · answer #5 · answered by A.J Freeman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's wait and see what happens once the democratic majority in the house and senate gets in. His term has only 2 years left anyway.
2006-12-20 23:57:29 · answer #6 · answered by Geoff S 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Which is worse? Defending your country from terrorism or getting a Lewinsky in the Oval Office, then knowingly lied about it under oath. Clinton said, "There is no sexual relationship [with Lewinsky]," a statement which he later said was truthful depending on one's definition of "is" (i.e., he was not, at the time he made that statement, still having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky). Under pressure from Starr, who as Clinton learned had obtained from Lewinsky a blue dress with Clinton's semen stain, as well as testimony from Lewinsky that the president had inserted a cigar-tube into her vagina, Clinton admitted on August 17, 1998, that he misled the American people and that he had had an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton denied having committed perjury because, in his opinion, oral sex was not "sex" per se.
In addition, relying upon the definition of "sexual relations" as worded by Judge Susan Webber Wright, who was hearing the Paula Jones case, Clinton claimed that because certain acts were performed on him, not by him, he did not engage in sexual relations. Lewinsky's testimony to the Starr Commission, however, contradicted Clinton's claim of being totally passive in their encounters. Clinton's lawyer would later explain that different people can remember the same events in different ways.
After Clinton's autobiography My Life appeared in 2004, Lewinsky said in an interview with Daily Mail:"He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied. (...) I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship (...) But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded.... I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert. (...) That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character.
2006-12-21 00:09:15 · answer #7 · answered by jay r 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Immediately.
2006-12-20 23:58:03 · answer #8 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No he is doing a great job he's gonna keep America safe
and after his Presidency is finished we will see the truth
come out about how great his legacy will be.
2006-12-21 06:59:00 · answer #9 · answered by josh m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely.
2006-12-20 23:57:12 · answer #10 · answered by WestCoastin4Life 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋