IF congress were to start impeachment proceedings, would you support their actions? Why?

Question

I seriously would like to know how you all feel about impeachment, and/or punishment of G W Bush for his actions in Iraq. Please be specific!!! Best answer will be chosen based on logic of response.

The question here IS NOT whether you actually think he did something wrong. Many of you misunderstood on that point.

What I am trying to find out is IF enough evidence were found to file the charges, would you support that action, and if so, why?

Also, this is specific to Iraq. I don't even want to start getting into anything else he's done......we would be here all day if we did.

The wire tapping.....yeah, that was illegal, but that isn't the point here, either.

Answer 1

only AFTER their investigations into the following areas:

-Violating the 4th amendment of the constitution by willfully violating the FISA statutes.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/

-Violating our agreement to abide by the UN charter by unilaterally invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraq2.html

-Bush declaring himself as a defacto monarch by issuing thousands of constitutional signing statements in which he declares which laws he will and will not follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dobbs.july26/index.html

-Violation of the Geneva Conventions by torturing "detainees", kidnapping foreign nationals and torturing them, secret CIA prisons abroad :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501227.html?nav=rss_world/northamerica


I know none of these offenses will ever be considered more dire than that of a BJ by our beloved die-hard 30%ers, but I think they STILL merit investigation, and if necessary, IMPEACHMENT.

Answer 2

I suppose they could fabricate some charges and try to impeach him in the House. Perhaps the articles of impeachment could be:
1. He's a McChimpHalliburton Hitler
2. He planned 9/11
3. He's an oil Puppet
4. He's stupid
5. He can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly
6. He looks stupid.
7. He's a liar, though after over 6 years we haven't proof of a single lie. But he's still a liar.
8. He doesn't agree with all our moonbat ideas.
9. Did we mention he's a lying puppet evil greedy fascist?

But this would not stand up in the face of facts, logic or reason. Any fool who proposed it would be celebrated by the "Loose Brains" conspiracy gang, but nobody else.

Sorry, but there really, truly is no reasonable, justifiable or logical case to bring articles of impeachment against Bush. It truly is a stupid idea. Unlike with Clinton, who actually commited a crime, this could be only seen as a partisan attempt to overturn the election.

Answer 3

This issue comes up time and time again on YA, and for no good reason. People need to get over thinking that he can be impeached. Can't happen. He has done nothing wrong. He acted on intelligence given to him a few years back which seems to have been inaccurate. He voted to go to war (but so did Clinton, edwards, kennedy, and all the rest of the Dems). Now, whether people like how he's handling Iraq is a different story. But the bottom line is that he has not broken the law. Period.

ADDITION- If I didn't understand your question, then it wasn't written well. You asked if impeachment hearing would take place then.......... Well, they won't take place because there was no impropriety. Seems like I answered the question.

Answer 4

The conflict Powers Act, which became handed interior the wake of the Vietnam conflict in an attempt to reign in Presidential conflict means, yet which definitely complements that means very much and provides the President the means to commit U.S. military forces with out searching for Congressional approval below a large style of circumstances. As summarized with the aid of Wikipedia, the Act “calls for the president to tell Congress interior of 40 8 hours of committing military to military action and forbids military from final for extra advantageous than 60 days, with a extra 30 day withdrawal era, with out an authorization of using military stress or an announcement of conflict.”

Answer 5

No. that would be a waste of tax dollars, this late into the term. By the time they did reach a decision, we would be voting on the 2008 Elections anyway; which, is why Reid and Pelosi initially said they would not move for impeachment. Better off, fiscally and politically to keep him, now.

Answer 6

Unlike his libidinous predecessor, President Bush has committed neither high crime nor misdemeanor, which are the grounds set forth in the Constitution of the United States for impeaching a president. As much as it pains the left, "We don't like him" is not an impeachable offense.

Answer 7

I would support investigation into it...simply because this administration is the most secretive of any other admin., have been found in violation of the constitution on the illegal wiretapping, have found abuse in secret prisons like Abu Gharaib and Gauntanemo, where they have ALSO violated the constitution by aboandoning habeas corpus. Billionsof dollars have gone missing from the rebuilding effort in Iraq, Halliuburton with their no bid contracts...just seems to be SO much that is vulnerable to abuse, I feel it would be in our best interest to look at least as close at this admin as we did with Reagan and Clinton.

Answer 8

This probably won't happen but it would be revealing to see some of this president's actions behind the scenes.

Right now we only know a fraction of what this president is responsible for in the lead up to war. An investigation may offer more insight on exactly how intel was sifted and how we were all misled.

It's funny how people can get outraged over oral sex in the office but when you start talking about truly criminal behavior the outrage isn't nearly as great.

Answer 9

I would support it IF there were proof of his crimes. He hasn't lied while under oath, only in his speeches and press releases, so that doesn't cut it. This is a lost cause until there is absolute proof of the criteria for impeachment, and as yet there is none.

Answer 10

No, because it would be a sham. President Bush went to Congress and received approval for the war in Iraq. If they are going to impeach him, they would need to impeach everyone in Congress who voted to give him the authorization for war. This baloney about, "If I knew then, what I know now" is ridiculous. If he had known then what he knows now, he would probably have done things differently. Hindsight is always 20/20. Face it, Congress is just trying to make him the scapegoat for Iraq. They are attempting to distance themselves from their support for an unpolular war and turn the public eye onto President Bush as the sole person responsible. I personally would prefer to have Congressmen who would quit trying to destroy the President just in an attempt to get re-elected. The Democrats are screaming about the war and Bush's responsibility for it in order to get more people to vote Democrat in '08. The few Republicans who are screaming about the war are simply attempting to distance themselves from the White House in an attempt to get themselves re-elected in '08. There is a Biblical reference that basically says "Put your hand to the plow, and don't look back". To me, this is what President Bush has done. He made a decision and he is going to see it through to it's completion. That is so much more leaderlike than someone who sways with every polling wind that blows.

Answer 11

I would need to see what the charges were first, and evaluate the evidence before I would support impeachment.

If there was convincing evidence, I would support it. If not, then I would not.