Forget impeach....why not INVESTIGATE?

Question

One of the arguments against impeachment is a lack of solid evidence.
However, given the widespread suspicion of Bush, Cheney & Co. among Americans, is there a good argument against a large, bi-partisan investigation?

Even if you are still in love with the current administration, wouldn't you see an investigation as a way to clear our senior executives' names once and for all?

What, Michael? Too ugly to show your face?

Next one down: Oh yeah, I forgot, we can't spend the money on an investigation. We spent all our money on bid-free war contracts to Bush's and Cheney's companies! Duh, am I EVER an idiot!

Answer 1

If they investigate it and find all of the evidence in the world, what do you think will be done? I'll tell you--NOTHING at all. They are all corrupt. You can't get elected without taking a lot of side money. The ones who get elected are just the smarter ones of the bunch because they got away with collecting the most money without getting caught. So do you really think they are going to do anything to the one that gets caught? That's like expecting the inmates in a prison to sit on a jury to send somebody else to jail. They will all tell you they are innocent and they sure won't send anyone else away. Know what I mean?

You may be TOO young to remember the Iran-Contra Affair. Millions of dollars spent. It accomplished absolutely nothing except made a bunch of lawyers richer. Congress hired a bunch of lawyers to investigate. The administration hired a bunch of lawyers to sit there and tell them not to answer questions. Taxpayers paid for both sets of lawyers. Here's what Wickipedia says about that under the heading AFTERMATH:
Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[29] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

What a surprise! Nobody went to jail. And you want to go for it again? Go ahead.

It made Oliver North famous and now he makes tons of money on TV as a news dude.

Push for the investigation. But I'm not going to hold my breath hoping anyone will suffer for it.

Oh yeah, there was a big investigation about the Valerie Plame thing, too. I got emails from friends hoping Cheney was going to jail. Yeah, right. What happened? Lawyers got more money! That's all.
...

Answer 2

I disagree that there is a lack of solid evidence. If what we have RIGHT NOW (president admitting the authorizaton of illegal wiretapping, president ignoring the CIA when it told him that the "yellow cake" story was hogwash, and president authorizing rendering of prisoners to countries that torture) isn't enough, then I don't know what is.

I think impeachment would be a healing influence on the country. THink of the example the president is setting by pretending there are people (him, Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Rice) in this country who are above the law? Why should anyone obey the law? Why SHOULDN't Jack Bauer torture anyone he wants (haha)?

If I were in love with the current administration, you are right, I guess, that I would feel that a full investigation would clear their names, so on that count, you're right, but I am not in love with these criminals, so if I were a congressman in the right place on the right committee, I'd be bringing up an impeachment vote.

Answer 3

First I very much disagree with the person who compared Bush and Cheney to Clinton. In Clinton's case, well it just shouldn't have even come to an investigation.

Problems with money? What better use is there for our tax dollars than to find out what really happened during this entire administration--starting with the fuked up votes.

I am an independent voter--but did not vote for Bush either time. Even those who liked him the first time became idiots when they voted for him a second time.

I totally agree with you that there should be a large-scale investigation of all the years since Bush has been in office--maybe even a year or two prior to his 1st inauguration. For that matter, should we go back and check on Papa Bush more closely???

Answer 4

I'm from the Netherlands, but i DO try to keep up with American politics.

I think an investigation is a must, but WHO should be the investigators, and how much authority should they get?

Let's face it, if the investigation would be done by people who are easily impressed by the powers of the ones they're investigating, or by the opinions of the people who still love the current administration....then leave it, spend the money on far better causes!!!

Answer 5

Constant investigations actually hurt our country's security. Look at how the Clinton investigations and impeachment occupied the administration so much that no one pay attention to all the terrorist activity building up. It would've been better if he had just admitted to lying under oath, but even if he hadn't committed perjury, it hurts us to do these investigations. I think it weakens our country to have such internal strife.

The press has been investigating Bush for the last 7 years and can't find anything he's done wrong or illegal. I don't see the point in wasting money trying to find wrongdoings that just don't exist. Look at all the Scooty Libby nonsense still going on. No one has done anything wrong and they're still investigating. What a waste of time and money !

Answer 6

Republicans did no longer spend a penny investigating Clinton. Ken Starr became named a undeniable prosecutor, after Janet Reno asked the three decide panel to nominate him in 1994 on the time, there became a democratic majority in the domicile and Senate. 2. as quickly as appointed, the only individual who could get rid of Ken Starr as specific prosecutor, became the lawyer regular, janet reno. 3. The FBI became the lead company for the 9/11 study, with help from all different government businesses. the cost of that study became very nearly one thousand million funds. Your complicated the 9/11 committee, which wasn';t there to look at 9/11, yet to make strategies on a thank you to steer away from yet another 9/11

Answer 7

Look how much money was spent prosecuting Clinton. It was a waste of time and money. Also no matter what, I doubt people's mind would change about Bush and Cheney.

Answer 8

won't get you anywhere, a sitting president won't cooperate.

Answer 9

lmao!! sorry the answer above me hahaha