Why do people want to impeach Bush for Iraq, while we never tried to impeach Johnson for Vietnam?

Question

There is talk, mainly far left Micheal Moore liberals, and people here, that Bush should be impeached for getting us into a war congress approved of. While Lyndon B. Johnson used his allowed, Constitutional Discretion to wage war in Vietnam. He never got congress to declare war. Vietnam was known as a "police action" not a war. I don't think he should've been impeached, nor should Bush, neither of those actions are illegal. Atleast Bush had the approval of congress.

Also, no arguments of Bush should be impeached for other things. I am asking on the sole war in Iraq issue, these other issues can be discussed in a different forum

1-I used "polica action" to make the point that he didn't have a declaration of war from congress, unlike Bush he made the choice on his own, and not alongside congress.

2-Technically the war was inherited from Kennedy, but we didn't add troops sustain deaths from the enemy until LBJ was in office, and 2 days after Kennedys assasination LBJ said we would be staying in Vietnam to support the south.

Answer 1

It's a non-issue. All the intel, ALL the information gained, no matter if it was correct or if it was accurate was shared with the whole of Congress, the Senate and the House. They all had the same data and Congress approved it all. Non issue folks...you don't have to like it but thems the facts. Either hold every single person who approved it to the same standard or stop whining about it. You can not apply a rule to someone just because you hate that person blindly and not apply it to all involved. This was a legal war, like it or not. There are no "go backs" , or "do overs" in something of this nature.

Only a fool would believe that to remove Saddam and then bug out to stay within the letter of the law would be acceptable. Get real. Everyone with an IQ larger than that of a flea will know that we could never leave a country in that state.

Answer 2

Actually a good question. Vietnam was a travesty-and was escalated by LBJ (JFK had advisors only and according to Robert McNamara, would have pulled out of Vietnam and not escalated the war)with the Gulf of Tonkin incident-later found to be completely untrue. At the time, there were some "conspiracy theories" about it being made up by the government to enter Vietnam in a big way. (One of those crazy conspiracy theories that turned out to be true-hmmm)

I believe Democrats were fooled by LBJ(he did stuff we loved like civil rights issues while taking us deeper and deeper into a war we should never have been in). I believe Republicans are being fooled by GW today in the same way. Johnson's speeches back then sound a lot like GW's today...LBJ should have been investigated and so should this administration.

I also agree-we didn't know then what we know now.

Answer 3

Sadly, the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is the only course of action for Democrats, they have no other course. Get your facts straight, Congress approved the search for WMDs and the removal by force of Saddam, Congress never approved the occupation of Iraq. Congress has also not declared war on Iraq or war on "terrorist" all over the world. Those are facts. facts can not be changed. Congress will start investigations soon and they will be greater in cost and scope than Clinton's. In Clinton's impeachment the Republicans knew they did not have the votes in the Senate, they went ahead with that anyway at a cost of over $40 million. In the end the effort at embarrassment of Clinton and Gore did not work for Republicans.

Answer 4

Johnson wasn't a subject of impeachment because of several considerations, among them being he didn't start the conflict, and his deceptions were not evident until he was no longer president. In the case of Bush, he was one of the prime instigators of this failed occupation of Iraq, appears to have mislead America into the war and continued to mislead our country following the initial invasion, however until half of the Republicans believe it would be valid to impeach the president, it won't happen. At this point any talk of impeachment is simply that, "All talk, no action".

Answer 5

Because George Bush lied to the American public period. There are many things you can get away with, but invading another country on the grounds that it has WMDs, getting more than 3000 service men and women killed, then not finding a thing is unforgivable. Then he has the audacity to blame it on the Intelligence services, who had told him all along that there was nothing there, at the cost of many carers, because it was Bush who wanted war.

Answer 6

LBJ wanted to continue the war in Vietnam to further his state's agenda! A great deal of the munitions that supplied the military effort were manufactured in his home state of Texas.

GWB wants to have war in Iraq to further his financial agenda for him and his Big Money/Big Business connections!

President Bush used fear and outrage of the 9/11 atacks and manufactured intelligence reports to persuade Congress to approve of his mission.

How many other leaders of countries commit acts of Humanitarian evil against it's citizens and we look away!

Iraq's invasion had nothing to do with the war on terror!

Radical Muslim Extremists are responsible for terrorism.

GWB should be impeached for bringing our country to war with a country that did not attack the United States or aid and abett the attackers. There is absolutely no connection to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Husseins administration!!
GWB has even admitted that in recent statements.
"Our intel was wrong".
Politicians and Government officials think the average American is to concerned with what's going on in their own lives to pay a great deal of attention to what REAL motivations are behind some of our officials decisions.
With the advancement of the internet and the constant improvement in technology to share information quickly....
Corruption and corrupt officials will be easier to detect and address.
Government officials are NOT above the law!
They need to realize they are not entitled to their positions!
They are suppose to SERVE the citizenry NOT Themselves!!

Answer 7

No one ever said that we should impeach Bush for the war he should be impeached for lyoing to congress and the peolpleabout the need to go to war. There was no link to 9/11 that he repeatedly spouted there was no weapons of mass destruction that he claimed there were no links to a nuclear program that he claimed. Now more of our soilders are dead than all the people that died in 9/11 and more iraqis are dead than Saddam killed and 22,000 of oursoilders are injured maimed head wounds. Clinton was impeached for lying about an extramrital affair something that was none of our busness. I think this is a little worse.

Answer 8

Both Bush and Johnson used questionable information to justify their wars.

Please stop using Orwellian double talk like "police action" Vietnam was a war ask any veteran.

The difference was societal. Vietnam was our first experience with this type of political reality. Iraq is not.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

It is my opinion that impeachment is not appropriate unless absolutely necessary. Elections are better.

Answer 9

Johnson got all the authorization he needed for the Vietnam War with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the grounds for which turned out to be a lie. But I don't think we figured that out until he left office. We HAVE figured out that the basis for the Iraq War was a pack o' lies, but I don't even mention that in my five count indictment of Bush for exceeding his Constitutional powers. It's not a lie when you believe it, it's a delusion.

Answer 10

the concern with this debate is the inability of evidence. you do not have evidence that the President has dedicated any crime. it truly is the position your argument and all others like it fall short. bill Clinton lied lower than oath. Perjury is against the law. Clinton grow to be impeached for his crime. i do not care of you only like the president or no longer, yet with a view to eliminate a sitting president it calls for more suitable than dislike, it calls for more suitable than hypothesis, it calls for more suitable than innuendo and it really calls for more suitable than baseless rhetoric. the pro impeachment set is finished of dissimilar those products, they only lack the more suitable significant element. evidence! cantcu: Impeachment is the approach, no longer the action of eliminating the president. If the president is convicted on the articles of impeachment he can then be faraway from workplace. 2 Presidents were impeached Andrew Jackson and bill Clinton, neither were convicted and neither were faraway from workplace. you should actually learn the data and words your self earlier spouting off and making your self seem uninformed.