Please someone explain to me why Bush should not be impeached?

Question

Misleading us about the Threat from IraqViolation of International Law
Bush attacked Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, and thus violated the UN Charter. Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush has violated the Nuremberg Charter and the UN Charter and is, therefore, subject to impeachment.

Answer 1

It's a given that Bush has violated federal law. He has repeatedly (and proudly) admitted doing so, and it's been confirmed by federal courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. Trying to argue that the violations never took place is like trying to argue that WW2 as a whole never happened, or that 9/11 never happened. It's pointless for anyone who is willing to look objectively at the facts. Which apparently leaves out most of the people here. But to answer your question...

The only legal argument that impeachment isn't warranted is based on his claim that, under the Unitary Executive theory, the President as head of the Executive Branch is not bound by Congressional law. This is the argument the Bush lawyers have raised several times in court, after admitting that federal laws were violated.

The argument is that Bush is entitled to violate those laws at will, as long as he has a good reason. In other words, the argument is that by right of his position ("divine right" some might claim), he is inherently above the law. The ends justify the means. So far, the Supreme Court has routinely rejected that theory, in cases as recent as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).

The other argument is policy based. The theory there goes that nothing will be gained by impeachment at this point, since Congress is already in a position to curtail any future violations of federal law by the executive branch. And given the make-up of the Senate, a two-thirds vote to convict is unlikely. So, since impeachment would be nationally divisive, and likely a waste of time, the argument is that it's better to just let him get away with all of his prior violations of federal law, rather than to try and home him accountable.

UPDATE: Actually, none of the examples you cite are violations of federal criminal statutes sufficient to warrant impeachment. For a list of the statutes he has violated, see the link below.

Answer 2

OK, let me put it this way, why should he be impeached?? If it is because of the war you think, let me tell you a little about this war we fight. We went over seas to show that we will not back down when some one threatens our land. We gotten rid of thier main source of government and have started them on the road to a better place. Now, here is the kicker, we are still there, and I quote one of the soliders that is over seas when I say this, because now that we have gotten rid of the dictatorship that they had for 35 years or so and have put into place a new government that they don't really understand. So now the only thing they know is that the Americans are there and the Americans are thier only source security. And if we back out now we are showing that America never finishes what it sets out to do and we run the risk of some one bringing the war here. Last I checked no one wants the war to be here where we could be dying. So we stay and finish things and then we show we are strong and we know what we are doing and if anyone thinks otherwise we will prove it. We have to stay for our own protection as well as thiers. And as for the UN, they support Bush. They condone everything he is doing, unless someone is lying to our troops. And Brittain was there with is and they are just now starting to pull out thier troops. So again I as why should he be impeached?

Answer 3

I think he should be but I doubt very much that he will. 1. For starters Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. 2. Impeachment is usually a long, involved process that makes other government business much more difficult. 3.The people in the best position to charge Bush with crimes are a. his cronies and accomplices, b. Democrats afraid of looking like they're on a witch hunt, c. politicians with their own skeletons in the closet. 4. If Bush is impeached Cheney takes over. 5. Bush has mostly hurt the poor and middle class, and made the rich richer. The rich control everything and make the laws so...

Answer 4

Two words: President Cheney. But assuming you are suggesting getting rid of both through impeachment . . .

It is a waste of time when there are too many more important things to tackle. Allow me to explain . . .

Impeachment, no matter how meritorious (and I am one who believes there are plenty of grounds to impeach) will not likely lead to a conviction in the Senate. The Senate is too close and there are not the votes to get a 2/3 majority necessary to convict. The Senate (and House) Republicans have demonstrated again and again that that put the elephant above the flag and party before country. So, with conviction off the table, impeachment becomes an exercise in futility.

Arguably, an investigation could expose all of the administration's criminality and disregard for Americans to people that have been loathe to admit just how bad this gang is. But much of this (and the gross incompetence) can be exposed as we figure out ways to correct and "work around" the existing shambles that has been created. Rubbing the Bush supporters nose in all this via impeachment just makes their defense more strident and rigid.

It is important to behave better than the GOP did when it was in power. The Clinton impeachment was a travesty and should never have happened. Now, absent the ability to actually remove Bush from office, it is important to focus on actually governing well rather than be perceived as engaging in the sort of partisan paybacks that the Libby trial and US Attorney firings are exposing.

Answer 5

Go to this link. Even though it's wiki, it's links are federal government sites. And, there is a roll call, so you can see who actually did vote for this crap. So, if we impeach Bush, we should also take all of those others who voted for us to do this Iraq thing to court as well for committing an act of conspiracy.

Answer 6

Get over yourself. The "nuremburg Charter" is not the law of this land. "The war powers act" is. If Congress had the balls, they would de-fund the war instead of passing half assed "non-binding" declarations. Bush did not "lie about going into war". Just because you keep repeating that, does not make it true....

Answer 7

I'm all for Chaney being President
Let the impeachment begin
Like the below folks mislead
I don't worship at the alter of the corrupt do nothing UN

Answer 8

Sorry there libbie....BUT..The 1st allegation you made..IS NOT A CRIME...as far as the rest...sending the troops in without Congress would have called for that...BUT..he got and followed Congressional authority...sorry there Libby...he is clear on all of your trumped up charges....PS...we were authorized by the UN sanctions as well...but it was a nice try....keep lying...maybe somebody will believe you...not the informed though...

Answer 9

What has he done except keep the terrorist out of America, had the stock market go higher then ever. The libs want him impeached because they only like bad news not good.

Answer 10

That's a no brainer. You can't be impeached if you haven't committed an impeachable offense. Even Pelosi knows that.