Do you want to impeach Bush for Iraq?

Question

If you answer yes, please explain the crime and why the Democrats that agreed with him at the time should NOT be impeached.

Sassyk, that is not an answer. I guess I am not suprised that the liberals are not answering.

Sorry, but the old "they didn't have all the information" bit does not fly. The Bush admin has said nothing different than the previous administration and many of the Democrats in COngress have been there for decades, You can't give a pass to them because you say they did not know, because it is BS.

Answer 1

NO. The President can not declare war without the consent of Congress. And they believed, just as he that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believe they were there. But when Congress sat around debating the issue of whether or not to go to war, they had plenty of time to move those weapons.

Besides, Clinton was impeached. He still remained in office until the end of his term. Why should Congress waste valuable tax dollars and time that they could use to do something useful for the American people to bicker over this?

It's all political posturing by the democrats.

Answer 2

I would say yes, in principle. He's done much worse than Andrew Johnson or Clinton or even Nixon (who resigned before he could be impeached) ever did..

But in practice, it would waste time and cost a lot of money, so no.

But, he is definitely worthy of it-- he lied to the American people when he said that Iraq was building bombs, ignored the intelligence that said they weren't, had Colin Powell lie to the UN, ignored the UN and acted anyway, and started a war that seems to have no end in lives or finances. 650,000 Iraqis (most innocent civilians) have been killed since the invasion. 3,000 American troops, more than all the victims of September 11th. He's caused more terrorism, by the government's own admission (a General Accounting Office report from 2006 said that jihad terrorism has increased 600% since March 2003 when the invasion began).

In my book, that makes Bush not only a liar, but an accessory to murder and a traitor for the soldiers he's killed. Most of the world and a large part of America agrees. The case is open and shut.

Anyone who voted for the war is also culpable, but not as much as Bush because he was the one presenting the false evidence. They should all be impeached but a better way to do it is just vote them out of office.

Ron Paul didn't vote for the war!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Answer 3

No. It's a colossal waste of time as was the impeachment of Clinton. The time and money should be spent doing something useful. Bush will be gone in less than two years.

Answer 4

The Crime is misleading the country into a war. Bush claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussien was letting Al-Queda train in his country, claims that since have been proven false. It is evident that Invading Iraq was on the top of Bush's agenda from Day 1 of his presidency. A couple of cabinet members who have since resigned claimed that he was planning an invasion of Iraq in the first 100 days of his presidency. Then came 9/11, and "Holy Crap!, I've got my excuse to invade!" If you caught the George Tenet interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday., he said that on Sept.12, 2001, they were saying at the White House "Iraq will pay for this." Get a couple more witnesses to Bush's crimes, and you've got yourself an Impeachment trial. As for BOTH the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the war, they should be excused because they were mislead just as we were.

Answer 5

I say we keep Bush in and just make the last 2 years miserable for him. It seems that everyday his administration is getting hit left and right, I can believe the line he came up with many years ago that his administration was going to be a clean administration and scandal-free.

Answer 6

Nope, there is no crime here. Misleading the country, even into something as serious as war, is not a crime. Every politician is trying to mislead the country in one way or another.

Impeachment would only waste the time and money of the American people and serve to further divide this nation. It is time to wait out the last twenty months of President Bush's term and work to find a new President who maybe can provide real leadership and unite this country (Hilliary Clinton will not do this).

Answer 7

No. It'd be a complete waste of EVERYONE'S time. If we were stupid enough to elect AND RE-ELECT the clown, impeaching him is kind of a bad "joke" (on US). Let's concentrate on picking a GOOD replacement for him- next year... :) Then we can start getting some things DONE- in this country.

Answer 8

It would have some merit had it been done earlier but at this point the process would avail very little as he's a "lame duck". Yes, every identity should stand according to their posits. The American Public has to shoulder some accountability for allowing themselves to be duped in such a manner.

Answer 9

Yes. President Bush purposely circumvented the law by not running wire taps through a Judge. A specific program was set up to allow expedient wire tap, and getting a warrant issued by a judge. Bush chose not ignore that and ran taps without warrants. A clear violation of law and he should be impeached for failure to uphold the law and violating the constitution he swore to uphold and protect.

Answer 10

Bush and Cheney should be impeached because they wanted to rely on false intelligence that Cheney cherry-picked to make Iraq suspected of WMDs (anyone in the CIA or Cheney's office who disagreed would have been mocked by his/her collegues or even fired!). Congress (Repub and Demo) were "decieved" to go into war (not like Bush and Cheney). Today, Repubs still don't want to believe that they were deceived.