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

What is your viewpont and why?

I am trying to see the specific instances that have caused people to become anti-Bush. I don't keep up on current issues as much as I'd like, so I want you to tell me the specifics so I can decide for myself. I am a moderate republican.

You can also email me your viewponts.

2007-01-27 13:32:06 · 11 answers · asked by Smarty Pants 3 in Politics & Government Government

11 answers

Enough of this crap. Iraq is NOT an illegal war. If you want Bish impeached, you should also want every senator and representitive impeached as well. They saw the same intel (wrong or right) that ush saw and voted to send troops to Iraq. Thats all thier is to it. The war may be going poorly and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle are changing thier minds. I think we all know, they were taking credit for everything when the Army went into Baghdad and ousted Saddam Hussien in 2 weeks. You can't have it both ways...

2007-01-28 00:18:29 · answer #1 · answered by shaqle2001 2 · 1 2

Everyone of the 100,000 protestors that marched on Capital Hill today, believe that Bush used 9/11 to go to war, that 9/11 was an inside job and they're all fed up with it.

Myself, I don't have a decision either way. He admitted he was wrong on several counts, but people who don't have anything better to do with their $$, which they all complain that they DON'T have, but go to Washington to stand on the front lawn of the capitol and force their way past police lines to prove a point and sing senseless, made up songs like a bunch of spoiled little kids.

This is what happend during the VietNam era, and if they don't quit there's going to be a bigger problem here.

I've seen proof both ways, for and against and I have to make my own decisions when I speak with people in the military. It's just a big load and something else for people to complain about.

If the President's plan doesn't work, then he'll just be forced to pull them out. However, at that point when he does, if I were him I would delete responsibility for any further terrorist actions that take place in the U.S.. Then whichever persons wants to claim responsibility in Congress for pushing him into an action he did not want to take, can shoulder the responsibility for the homeland terror attacks.

I'm sick and tired of listening to the gripes of everyone at home, and also in Washington. Jane Fonda was at this demonstration AGAIN, just like Viet Nam. In that war, she sided with the enemy in ther protests in Viet Nam, and there are even photo's of her sitting on the artillary equipment of the Viet Cong...and she was never delt with as a conspirator because she was a 'hot Hollywood honey' but the vets of the war hated her. Now these vets hate the war in Iraq.

It's all a big load, people are looking for something to **itch about and something else to do to make this country look like everyone here are a bunch of idiots. They all make we want to hurle.

2007-01-27 21:55:18 · answer #2 · answered by chole_24 5 · 1 0

Because it is the noble and right thing to do to a dictator who has abused the power that was given to him (I'm sorry, I meant to say the power that he has taken and corrupted) He listens to no one, least of all Congress or the Constitution. He lied to start a war, he invaded a sovereign country, and he is responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 soldiers. If those aren't reasons to impeach him, I don't know what is.
As for revenge for trying to impeach Bill Clinton, a typical CONservative remark. How can you compare a sexual incident where no one was killed to a war where hundreds of thousands of people were killed or maimed?

2007-01-27 22:25:21 · answer #3 · answered by whitesoxr1 2 · 0 0

contempt of congress

In the federal law of the United States, contempt of Congress is the crime of obstructing the work of United States Congress, with a punishment of up to one year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines.

The United States Congress generally brings this action for refusing to testify before a Congressional committee, or failing to provide a committee with requested documents. There have also been contempt cases based on bribing a United States Senator or United States Representative.

In order for someone to be convicted of contempt of Congress, the congressional committee which has suffered the contempt first reports a resolution that the affected individual is guilty of contempt. This takes a majority vote of the committee. The full United States House of Representatives or United States Senate then must approve the resolution, which sends the matter to an assistant United States attorney or higher with the Department of Justice, who may call a grand jury to decide whether to indict the affected individual, and prosecute if the grand jury affirms an indictment. This version of the procedure was put into place in 1857 and exists in order to provide a balance of power so the House and Senate cannot run amok and jail all their political opponents with contempt charges, also to be within the restrictions laid out in the United States Constitution that Congress cannot pass a Bill of attainder, and declare someone criminally guilty without trial. The Congress is also restricted in that contempt citations can only be brought on matters that relate to legislative purposes within the jurisdiction of the committee that brings the charges.

2007-01-27 21:39:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I think most people are anti-Bush for a couple reasons. First, because he has gotten us mired in a war that we should never have been in. Second, because he has almost ignored domestic issues.

however, why should we impeach him? Perhaps because he has illegally kept us in Iraq. However, I am not sure if impeaching is the answer.

I'm "anti-Bush" because I honestly believe that he lied to us about the reasons for entering Iraq. Iraq never had WMDs. Most of Bush's advisors told him this. Most of his generals nowadays have told him we need to withdraw from Iraq (he has had them replaced).

2007-01-27 21:42:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

If he was a leader of any other country he would be considered a war criminal for the mismanagement of this war, this illegal war. Most dictators don't get away with it for 6 years. That itself is reason enough.

2007-01-27 21:40:28 · answer #6 · answered by 33 3 · 1 2

Its all media hype and liberal propaganda to prep the citizens of the US to vote for a democratic president this next election.

2007-01-28 08:28:26 · answer #7 · answered by rwill54287 3 · 1 1

Because Bil Clinton their immoral hero was impeached so the libs want to get even, revenge is what it is all about, They like to bring eveyone down to their level

2007-01-27 21:53:17 · answer #8 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 2 3

Each one of his signing statements saying that he will only follow the laws that he wants to show that he was lying when he took the oath of office.

2007-01-27 21:39:00 · answer #9 · answered by cheri b 5 · 2 2

everyone says impeach bush, but why not kennedy or lyndon ? ( the time they were alive )VIETNAM was definatly a fck up beyond measures.

2007-01-27 21:39:47 · answer #10 · answered by BoTToms UP 5 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers