2007-03-05 03:31:28 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They know that only kooks believe this. They don't want to end their liberal careers by chasing pipe dreams any more than they always do.
2007-03-05 03:33:57 · answer #1 · answered by grantwiscour 4 · 6⤊ 4⤋
Because Impeachment would be UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Dems can't give ONE actual fact that proves the war is illegal: the Congress approved military action in Iraq.
NOT ONE thing he has done (that we've heard of) meets the Constitutional requirements for impeachment - "High Crimes or Misdemeanors". If it HAD, we'd see rulings from the Supreme Court regarding the Patriot Act and such.
YES, there are political implications as well... the House might well bring forth a trumped up indictment (Articles of Impeachment) but the Senate would never be able to get a 2/3 vote for impeachment with liberal rhetoric instead of evidence.
President Clinton CLEARLY committed Perjury... in front of a Grand Jury as well as the television cameras.
I wish some of those who spout their leftist-rhetoric would take the time to READ the Constitution and US Code.
2007-03-05 11:55:58 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Al Franken in his book "The Truth with Jokes" suggests that it should happen this way: - In November 2008, a Democrat is elected president and the Democrats gain big majorities in the house and senate - The new congress takes office on January 3, 2009, - 17 days before the new president is sworn in - so in exchange for a promise to share a little power with the remaining Republicans, they impeach Bush on January 4th - and they try, convict and remove him from office on January 5th - whereupon he starts drinking again and Cheney becomes president for 15 days.
Why bother says Franken. - "Because we can."
2007-03-06 22:49:45 · answer #3 · answered by Franklin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there is nothing illegal about "Bush's" war. Clinton broke a law in the United States.
The United States is not beholden to International Law in any way except by Choice.
When Bush started the war he had the full support of Congress and the American people.
Not being partisan here just stating the facts, I am not exactly a big war supporter.
2007-03-05 11:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by Snap 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Democrats complained, and with some justification, that the impeachment of Clinton was political in nature and not based upon "high crimes and misdemeanors". With the House and Senate having overwhelmingly approved of Mr Bush's foray into Iraq they would be hard-pressed at this moment to claim that said attack was illegal and, therefore, impeachable. If impeachment proceedings were to commence based upon this theory it would look like politics to many folks - an unacceptable result at this critical juncture.
2007-03-05 11:39:34 · answer #5 · answered by Pete W 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It would be a waste of time. Although it only takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach the president, 2/3 of the Senate has to be present at the impeachment hearings. Then, 2/3 of the Senators present would have to vote to convict the president of wrongdoing. Since the Democrats hold the Senate majority by only a small margin, you know that Bush wouldn't be convicted.
2007-03-05 11:38:02 · answer #6 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Only a complete idiot would think this war is illegal. The Senate authorized action so are they criminals too? Saddam broke numerous sanctions which justified going to war but some people hate Bush so bad they can't possibly understand that. The far left fringe along with the libturd media are the only ones spouting this kind of non-sense.
2007-03-05 11:38:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Don't you think if they had a leg to stand on they would have by now? They know he hasn't done anything impeachable and aren't about to give up their careers when they have to answer why they voted for it. It would be far to costly, we are in war so you don't do that now. How would it look to have two impeached presidents in a row?
2007-03-05 11:42:47 · answer #8 · answered by Mercadies2000 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, that would be a bit difficult since the war wasn't illegal... But I would invite the Democrats to try to impeach him, it would fit right in with the "Hate Bush" campaign they have been running.
2007-03-05 11:38:17 · answer #9 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm convinced that it's because the whole Constitutional issue of going to war without a declaration of war would be brought front and center.
Congress does have responsibility concerning international law.
It is their responsibility to ratify or deny any treaties that the President makes. So when did they somehow lose the responsibility to declare or not declare war?
2007-03-05 11:35:54 · answer #10 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because all the Democrats voted to go to war, if they impeach Bush...they impeach themselves...LOL
2007-03-05 11:34:46 · answer #11 · answered by bigbro3006 3 · 9⤊ 3⤋