He lied about WMDs in Iraq as an excuse to wage war?
He tried to make a connection between Saddam and Al Qeida which he know did not exist.
He is responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 soldiers which died in Iraq because of lies.
He administration continues to make false statement about the progress in reductin seculiar violence in Iraq.
Its slowly becoming the next Vietnam mainly do to Bush's and his administration total incompetence.
2007-05-15 15:33:47 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am not liberal, I not even American. So I really don't give a Sh*t. I just wanted to see what responses I would get.
2007-05-15 15:53:19 · update #1
Man, you must be ignorant. You don't seem to know know what your talking aboutm he didn't lie about the WMD's, if he did, than Hillary and many other Democrats lied to, because they also believed they had them. I would like to see you do ANY better.
No offense=No impeachment
2007-05-15 15:50:13 · answer #1 · answered by rosslambert 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Considering that every one of your statements can be proven wrong, there are no grounds for impeachment. We did find chemical weapons and the means of producing them. Bush never implied a connection between Al Quada and Saddam, only that Saddam was funding and supporting terror groups, which is true. The congress authorized the use of force, supporting a previous resolution making regime change in Iraq a matter of National policy A resolution passed and signed during the Clinton administration. If you exam a map of Iraq you find that the bulk of the Voilence is centered in Sunni areas. The Kurds in the North and Shiite in the south live relatively peacefully.
The only thing that made Vietnam worst was that the Democrat president and his administration lacked the will to fight the war to its conclusion. A trait that has not changed in the current Crop of Democrats.
2007-05-15 22:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
1. So the mass graves where Saddam used bio weapons are non-existent?
2. Considering that Iraq had SEVERAL training facilities for terrorists kind of debunks that claim
3.no, the insurgents are responsible for their deaths.
4. Really, or is it because you do not wish to believe it so?
Vietnam? Last I checked, it was the liberals that wanted to re-instate the draft.
In other words, there is no real reason for him to be impeached.
2007-05-15 22:53:25 · answer #3 · answered by Chase 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You have to break the law in order to be impeached and he has not. Everything you stated are just your opinions , there are no facts to support them. I believe there were WMDs in Iraq and I believe there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qieda. I can't prove this either but I don't put down people who have a different view than I do.
2007-05-15 22:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by jim h 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
almost every point you presented was due to the fact that he decided, stupidly, I might add, that he would keep Clinton's CIA director George Tenet! that was dumb! and although your points are strong democrat talking points, as noted by the number of times they have been repeated over the past 4 or 5 years, none are of an impeachable nature. but don't give up, George may decide to get a ******** in the oval office and lie about it! but just like slick Willie, he will still be around in the end.
2007-05-15 23:06:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Can yall ignorant Libs talk about anything but impeaching Bush. BTW he is a million times smart than you'll ever be. People were saying that Kerry was smart and Bush has a higher IQ. The higher IQ is just a conservative thing.
2007-05-15 22:42:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
No. We need to get through the next 19 months with some dignity. Do you not forget the horror of the GOP Clinton impeachment?
2007-05-15 22:38:20 · answer #7 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I don't. He cannot be impeached for no impeachable offense. Do you not think that Reid and Pelosi would have already started impeachment hearings if there were grounds? By the way, GWB is not a moron.
2007-05-15 22:36:35 · answer #8 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 11⤊ 3⤋
No, because Cheney would follow him and Pelosi would be president. That is what the Liberals want. Pelosi would is bad for America, as is Bush.
Bush should step down as President.
2007-05-15 22:42:35 · answer #9 · answered by InTROLLigent 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
why not ask your liberal buddies they didn't learn anything apparently neither did you why don't we have pelosi or your hero loser harry reid impeach for not having faith in the military.
2007-05-15 22:39:05 · answer #10 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋