Why won't the Democrats impeach GW Bush?

Question

Bush has done a LOT more harm to the USA than Clinton's personal unfaithfullness... yet Clinton's actions were viewed as impeachable.

Answer 1

Under the US Constitution, Article 1, The House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has the power to try all impeachments. In order for President Bush to be impeached, which he deserves, the process still requires a 2/3 Vote by Congress to get a conviction. As it sits right now, Democrats have the majority in both houses; unfortunately, they do not have the necessary 2/3 Vote required to get rid of Bush. Bush has bought a lot of power for himself over the past few years. Unless American continues to vote out Republicans, the trends of disception will continue.

Answer 2

Bush has broken many laws. He refuses to answer questions. He lies when he does answer questions. Everything is classified. I'm sure after he's gone(can't wait by the way) a lot of things will come out. Of course Bush will claim executive privilege and not answer a thing. Just like when he was asked to testify at the 9/11 Commission, his response "I won't testify, I'll talk with them". He should have been required to get on the record under oath and testify. I guarantee he would have faced impeachment. I don't think the Dems could get the American people behind an impeachment. The Bush administration has succeeded at fooling the American people for the last 6 years. Your average Bush supporter has no idea about what's going on in the country. Most still believe gays are the devil, that Saddam had WMD's and Clinton is responsible for all of our current problems. Another thing the R party does well is the "wash". They say things like, "Clinton lied about an affair and Bush invaded another country killing hundreds of thousands of people based on a lie, so we're even, it's a wash." I would love to see Bush and the morons under face a court and see jail time for their crimes. Unfortunately, it well never happen. Bush, the worst president ever? 1 vote yes.

Answer 3

You cannot impeach a President just because you feel he is doing a bad job. There must be an unlawful act committed. At that time there can be an Impeachment process in the House of Representatives. If the house impeaches the President the Senate then has a trial to remove the President from office.

President Clinton, who was impeached by the House and left in office by the Senate is a good example of how the two sides can differ.

Answer 4

Obviously, the Democratic party leaders figure it is to the advantage of their party not to impeach Bush. This most can agree with, one would think. So now the question is, why do the Democrats figure it is to the advantage of the Democratic party not to impeach Bush?

I will offer two answers, the first of which leads to the other.

1. They support the same fundamental policies, but want the Republicans to be the ones to take the political hit for them.

2. 2008 electoral political calculations are taking precedence for the Democratic party over all other concerns, since they do not disagree in a fundamental way with the current policies.

The damage being done to the nation, our international standing and long established democratic norms are only of secondary importance to the Democratic party which, first and foremost, seeks electoral advantage in order to wield more power for themselves and their own particular moneyed and corporate constituencies - many of which overlap with the same Republican moneyed and corporate constituencies. But, being in control of Congress and the Whitehouse puts more money in their coffers.

Policies, however, will remain fundamentally unchanged. It is just which faction of a parasitic elite is in control of the levers of power of the legislative and executive branches that is of primary significance to both the the Democrats and Republicans. Actual policies matter little to the Democrats, as the two parties, in reality, differ little on them .

Answer 5

First off, bush has done good, and bad. Sending our men do takeo ut sadmam was NOT bad, being that he was SUPPORTING Osama Bin Laden. Second the democrats tend to lie through their teeth, Hilary for instance, she CANNOT sya ONE sentance without pausing to think, why?

the other reason is that the democrats CANNOT find a GOOD reason to impeach him, they cannot find ANYTHING in the constitution, or their minds(witch are sess pools of filth and lies) to make an impeachment plausable. BEFOR any president can be impeached, you have to have "just ccause", their is none, the war, a sad thing yes, but consider this, did we PROVOKE osama befor 9/11, no. SO then why did he attack us? Because he hates the americans, he hates the russians, he hates his own countrymen, because none will follow the "True" islam, the kind that says, and this is a direct qoute from the koran, "When you are strong, make war, when you are weak,make peace". ANother qoute, "IF you lie to the infedel, to protect yourself from him, and then kill him, you have done "Alla's" work. Now, I ask, why is it so bad that we defend ourselves from a man with the means to kill thousands of us?

In response to demecrat weiners who complain that iraq is the next vietnam, no. We lost well over 200,000 men in vietnam, in the first few years, in about two or three years we have lost only 3000, in iraq. YEs, each life lost is a tragedy, but answer me this, if the enemy would fight like real men, and not hide behind women and children, and not set IEDs out, buried under bushes, or if they had a uniform to show theuir alegance, what would have happened? We'd have kicked their butts by now. But the sad truth is that the terrorists, extremests and others, do not fight, the attack, they ambush, they hide behind WOMEN! CHILDREN! even men. They do not make war, they make a mokery of the muslim faith. So again I ask, how does 3000 lives, compare to a nation of millions, who if not defended will all die because of indesition in congress? Why can no one see that the democrats propose to pull out becuase it hurts THEIR image, how can people hate someone who has only tried to protect you? WOuld the sheep hate the shepard, if the shepard took several men and killed a pack of wolves, but at the cost of a few mens lives? OR would the sheep feel sorrow for those lost, but thank the shepard, who only cared for its well being?

Answer 6

the democrats are not pushing for the impeachment because it is a long long process that would likely run the course of the rest of his term. technically bush can cite his cabinet and lawyers as scapegoats as he hasn't done anything that can't be passed off on someone else. he is quite the greasy little pig. pelosi would like to focus on getting something accomplished. unfortunately getting anyone in government to move forward seems to be a very difficult task. most likely bush will be whining to keep his position as dictator in cheif while the democrats block his efforts. our government is broken -- i think its probably going to take an internal war on a pretty big scale to fix it. i was thinking about proposing elections in which old people and evangelical freaks would be turned away at the polls. maybe we could get lucky and china and russia will attack us since bush has bankrupted the military. i don't think they will need to though -- they can sit and watch us destroy ourselves without spending a dime.

Answer 7

Well, first off, the harm you speak of, is your opinion. And not any fact that could be quantitated. Second all, the first guy is right. There was clear cut evidence against Clinton, and nothing strong against Bush. Unlike the drone who cut and pasted a slanted article he read. The language alone shows it biased and not factually evident. It's almost as laughable as the one guy who said the media is owned by Republicans. He must not watch or read the papers. I worked in them, he's far from the truth. In a nut shell, Clinton had clear evidense against him, Bush doesn't.

Answer 8

Dems are weenie socialists with no spine. if they had anything on Bush, rest assured they would trip over themselves to present impeachment. they will never find anything on Bush. because they are so used to the slime of Clinton, they assume all politicians are "just like Bill." they have a hard time understanding that Bush is not brazen enough to perjure himself before a grand jury, which drives them in an apoplectic rage.

Clinton was not impeached for being unfaithful to his "wife," btw.
he lied under oath before a grand jury. he did it because he thought he was above the law. turns out the drive by media covered for him and he skated the issue, with the blessing of Bush 43, even by default. the latter exemplifying his gentlemanly nature.

Answer 9

Because most of the Democrats supported invading Iraq. This would mean political suicide, look at Edwards. Our elected officials would rather save face, then do the next right thing. Face it, each Presidency will be worse than the previous. I am sad to say that I have come to the sad realization that the U.S. is headed in the same direction that all the great nations in history have. Enjoy what you have while you have it. Nothing lasts forever.

Answer 10

There are to many bush supporters in the Senate to be able to get the 75% needed to impeach.

Also, people voted Democrats in to change things. It's better they focus on that, even if their measures are vetoed. If people see the democrats trying, they may be more inclined to vote for them in 08.