For all the countless acts of injustices that the president has inflicted on the Iraqi people as well as the lies,half truths etc.. he has fed us, why is he not up for impeachment? After all, wasn't President Clinton impeached for less?
2007-03-16 04:49:43 · 22 answers · asked by monique 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We already know Bush is an admitted felon for violating FISA (which he admitted to the press...I believe on TV nonetheless).
He wasn't impeached because the REpubs controlled Congress. Now that they no longer have it, impeachment becomes a real possibility. After 100 days, we are just getting started.
2007-03-16 05:02:59 · answer #1 · answered by jw 4 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Bush has to break the law. Otherwise, impeachment has no grounds.
Clinton obstructed justice by lying to Federal prosecutors. This is a felony and he was found guilty. He was impeached properly, but not removed from office.
2007-03-16 12:42:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was impeached for PERJURY(and being a lawyer he KNEW he was committing perjury, which is why he surrendered his law license rather then be disbarred) and Obstruction of Justice. You are yet to name the exact lies that Bush told. If you were ACTUALLY paying attention President Bush was saying it was a REGIME CHANGE that we were going into Iraq because Saddam was uncooperative. Although no one pays attention to what REALLY was said.
2007-03-16 12:00:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
What???
You're watching too much CNN stop reading the LA times you have no clue what your saying. He hasnt lied as a matter of fact its probably safer in Iraq than in your home town. Look at the stats shootings are down bombings are down and people are out in the streets shopping. Iraqi's are happy you dont see any of the good.
2007-03-16 12:53:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pelosi has already stated she doesn't want to do that for two reasons. One reason is because there are still too many Bush supporters in Congress and second the Congress should be engaged in making progressive laws for the people not mired in that crap as we had 8 years ago.
2007-03-16 11:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the 9818712762352527478484 times, Clinton lied under oath and President Bush did not commit a crime.
2007-03-16 11:55:12 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋
I assure you that if he had committed an impeachable offense, the Dems would be out to impeach him like flies on a rib roast. The fact that they have not just goes to prove that he has done nothing calling for impeachment.
2007-03-16 11:53:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Yawnnnnnnnnnn whatever okay maybe if they could make something up a year or two ago but by the time every little wacky twist and turn is settled then the proceedings begin they will all be out office.
2007-03-16 12:10:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, Clinton was impeached for a crime. There's no legitimate evidence the Bush has committed a crime.
2007-03-16 11:52:55 · answer #9 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
NO CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITED
If there were crimes, he would have been charged by now...Get over it, already...President Bush has done everything within the law.
Clinton was and is a criminal...thats the difference
2007-03-17 12:53:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋