Falsified intelligence used to make war on a sovereign nation.
Negligence in response to national disaster.
Dereliction of duty in treatment of wounded war heros.
Fiscal malfeasance spending hundreds of billions of dollars to lose two wars.
Let's add all the crimes and failures of bush here so articles of impeachment by the people can be forwarded.
2007-03-20 09:10:40 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
With what you highlighted in your question, I have to say absolutely!!! You know what he did was wrong. Bush's committing numerous high crimes and misdemeanors have been racking up for the last few years, and I find them just cause for grounds for impeachment. I say impeach Bush now! IMPEACH!!! IMPEACH!!! IMPEACH!!! IMPEACH!!!
2007-03-20 09:27:00 · answer #1 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's no question Bush's actions merit impeachment. He makes Nixon look like a saint.
But I am still hopeful Congress will succeed in reining him in--especially where Iraq is concerned. Not that he will orderr a withdrawal voluntarily. But, although he is C-in-C, the politics of power are not as simple as his authority on paper (despite what he and his supporters seem to think). So there's a chance.
I hope so, simply because I think America is better off if we can deal with this without impeaching Bush. And the good of the country is what's important. Not Bush or his crimes.
2007-03-20 09:24:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Impeachment means that he is only to be removed from office. It is not a criminal conviction.
Then you would have to identify what was the crime?
The second Iraq war: Supported by Congress and the American people when Bush was re-elected.
Lying in office? If a politician is impeached for every lie big and small we'd have no politicians!
The Bush adminsitration has asked for 2-billion dollars over the congressional budget in 2007. So I'd say he is innocent of that charge.
2007-03-20 09:18:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
no longer gonna make a difference. look into history. the international has been attempting to get to usa, yet on the comparable time, run their mouths and prefer extra distant places help. the subject is usa has kissed too lots butt by using the years and we've some human beings out right here, quite often Islamic extremists, that prefer us lifeless. Plan and straightforward. by way of fact the mid eighty's we've been attacked time and time lower back by using third international terrorists. look into Russia, Germany and France, continuously searching for of undertaking to stab us in the decrease back. the international needs what we've and we wont supply all of it away as quickly as they like it. No, Bush, hasn't accomplished to any extent further or below his Dad, invoice Ron or maybe Jimmy, yet impeaching him wont substitute the way the international feels approximately us. you're believing the liberals dribble. they are people who prefer one international government. hiya, the international cant get alongside as that's, what makes them concern one international government will artwork?
2016-12-15 04:44:29 · answer #4 · answered by killeen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he should. But not for any of the reasons you've listed.
Bush violated federal law in a number of areas, many of which he has publically admitted to, and many of which have been confirmed by federal courts. So, anyone who claims that Bush hasn't violated any laws is just plain blindly ignoring the facts.
But, Bush won't be impeached because there is no way in the current political climate that the Senate would convict him.
So, despite having been found by courts to be in violation of federal laws, and despite his having publically admitted to those violations, he's going to get away with it.
Anyone who actually wants to do the research for themselves can check out the entry below, which links to the specific federal laws that Bush has been accused of violating. Read the actual text of the laws, and decide for yourself.
2007-03-20 09:13:05 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
If you can point to specific statutes he violated, maybe. So far, all you've got is "woulda coulda shoulda" kind of ideas. Bush is not personally responsible, nor is the office of the president responsible, for gathering and presenting intelligence, for responding to natural disasters, healing wounded soldiers, etc. Congress signs ALL of the spending bills - he doesn't personally get to spend much at all in the grand scheme of things.
Give it a rest. He'll be gone soon enough.
2007-03-20 09:14:17 · answer #6 · answered by Steven D 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Did he even get legitimately voted in? We could go way back to the beginning w/McCain v GW, then Kerry. The DNC claims to this day their phones were blocked during elections. If we went further back into his history, you woundn't want to.
2007-03-20 09:18:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think being impeached would be enough. Most of America already hates him and I think impeaching him and then releasing him in the American public would be punishment enough!!!!
2007-03-20 09:18:09 · answer #8 · answered by Amber S 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Who is responsible for that bad intel? Are you sure it was falsified, and if so by whom?
Bush is not single-handedly responsible for FEMA
Bush is not single-handedly responsible for Walter Reed
Congress approves the war budget
2007-03-20 09:14:00 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.
Saddam violated his ceasefire agreement 17 times.
The state government of Louisiana told President Bush 12 hours after the levees broke that everything was fine.
2007-03-20 09:17:50 · answer #10 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋