Reid said no, Pelosi said no...Why no Articles of Impeachment against the man you deem a criminal?

Question

Is it a lack of "evidence"...as opposed to partisan hysterics?

No?

Then it must be sheer incompetence on the part of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

Answer 1

You answered your own question - I think you knew that when you asked it.
It is easy to keep up the rhetoric in the long running policy of the left to simply try and discredit our president in their agenda of trying to win back the White House in 2008 - but it is an entirely different situation when the valid and verifiable evidence simply isn't available to back it up.
It's a sad day for the left when the reality finally sets in.

Answer 2

Impeachment takes time. They need time to clean up the mess left to them.

Impeachment is expensive. With all the money Dubya is spending there isn't enough left and still do the people's business.

We are waiting for the war crimes trials. They will not be held in the US and so someone else will pay the bill and spend the time while the Democratic controlled Congress and The Democratic President make progress toward moving the country in a positive direction for the first time in 8 years.

They also know how many votes it would take in the Senate to remove Dubya from office. There are too many Republicans still in the Senate who would, even if they saw it for themselves would vote against removal.

If they didn't go after both Bush and Cheney and Bush was removed that means Cheney would be president and no body wants that. He would be worse than the boy wonder.

If they got rid of both of the top neocons Pelosi would be President and she doesn't want it. She believes she can do more in the House especially as Speaker.

Answer 3

Because, unlike the Republicans of the 90s, the current Democratic leadership wants to work on solving the nation's problems rather than bogging down congress with an impeachment that will not be approved by 60% of the Senate.

Answer 4

Remember when the republicans tried to impeach Clinton didn't get as far as they wanted did they. Same thing would happen to the democrats and everyones knows it. He should be impeached, but whats the point it wouldn't get anywhere. Remember its in congresses hands they wouldn't be able to get enough votes.

Answer 5

Partisan hysterics and lack of evidence. And incompetence in the Democratic House. Are these mutually exclusive? I don't see how.

Answer 6

I've been wondering that same exact thing lately.

I understood it after last November when Bush vowed to work with the new Democratic congress; but now, he has gone back on his word.

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

Answer 7

Some combination of sheer incompetence and lack of guts.

Then again, if they try to impeach Bush, they would also need to impeach Cheney at the same time to have any net effect.

If they impeach both, and either is not convicted, they gain nothing. If they fail to convict both, then they look weak and foolish.

If they don't try at all, then they only look weak.

Answer 8

The reason: There's no difference between republicans and democrats.

Answer 9

Couple of reasons. First, while Bush's impeachable offenses (e.g. manipulating intelligence - evidence is legion for that) make Bill Clinton's offenses pale in comparison, my beloved United States of America will be in big trouble if impeachment is undertaken tit-for-tat. Prior to Clinton, who was most frivolously impeached, it had been over 130 years since the first, and only, impeachment in this country. Impeachment is not and should not be a blood sport - though Republics certainly want it to be so.

Second, as a practical matter, we're better off keeping Cheney out of the Presidency.

Personally, I like the bumper sticker that says, "Skip Bush - Impeach Cheney."

Answer 10

Darn it, all those wasted hours and tax dollars in Vermont by those 35 villages.

Could somebody pass the syrup.