If Nixon was forced out for bugging why hasnt Dubyah been impeached for his crimes?

Question

And Im talking authorisation of illegal wiretaps by the FBI and NSA,? also lying to the world over 911, lying over OBL's involvement with 911, lying about WMD's, Lying about al Qaeda in Iraq, (they hated Saddam even more than Bushs old man did), legalising torture, destroying habeus corpus, and basically destroying the US constitution and everything it was designed to stop.

Answer 1

Once his term is over, he's planning to escape the USA. Right now we have treaties signed with several nations who want to take Bush and Cheney to The Hague to be tried for war crimes and genocide.

But Bush and Cheney will leave the country in the night he stops being president. He already bought a ranch in a Nazi refuge in Paraguay.
===
Blair, Bush could face probe at The Hague
Email Print Normal font Large font Gethin Chamberlain, London
March 19, 2007

TONY Blair could face the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation for alleged coalition war crimes in Iraq.

The court's chief prosecutor said at the weekend that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the British Prime Minister and US President George Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said that his country was actively considering signing up.
===

If there's any justice in this world, Bush and his cronies will be tried, found guilty and executed by the International Human Rights Tribunal.

Answer 2

President Nixon resigned. At the time, he said to spare the country any more pain & division by his mistake. He was
not forced out. Notice Clinton could noy be forced out & he was not willing to resign to spare the country the division.
The division still goes on today over him.

Did you miss the declassification of the world intelligence community that identifies Al Queada's involvement in Iraq to attack the USA? I read them yesterday & today. The wiretaps are not illegal & the rest is pure fiction. Prove a crime & you can impeach the president. Make up a crime & the media will write about it & extreme people not requiring proof will talk about it. If Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid thought they had
even a tiny chance of getting the President impeached, they would have filed the charges weeks ago.

Answer 3

Nixon resigned rather than go through a trial that probably would have resulted in a successful impeachment. The burglary and wiretaps involved were done in complete secret and done for political purposes that did not involve national security.

In contrast to the total secrecy of Watergate, President Bush, by Executive Order, authorized warrantless wiretaps pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs wiretaps and also provides an "otherwise provided by statute" clause 50 U.S.C. § 1809 that arguably allows other statutes to override the restrictions in FISA.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Resolution passed by Congress following the attacks of 9/11 authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

President Bush has provided lists of warrentless wiretaps to the judicial panels from whom warrants would have been pursued, had time permitted. In addition, members of Congress have also been kept informed of the wiretaps.

There are valid statutory and Constitutional arguements on both sides of the wiretap issue. The reason it should not be impeachable is that the President has made every effort to keep the matter "above the board" by notifying judicial panels and members of Congress. Obviously it was not made public because of its value as an intelligence asset. In addition, the clear purpose is to prevent terrorists from planning additional attacks inside the United States.

There is no evidence to suggest that President Bush lied over the 9/11 attack or Osama Bin Laden's involvement. In fact, the vast, vast majority of evidence is to the contrary.

It is also clear that the President did not lie over Iraq's possession of WMDs. Chemical weapons are WMDs. There is strong evidence that Iraq used Chemical weapons on it's own citizens. It is quite unfortunate that our intelligence network was fooled into believing that Iraq was on the verge of building nuclear weapons. However, it appears that the reason we, and the rest of the world, were duped is that Iraqi scientists had been providing false communiques to Saddam so that he would also believe they were close to building a nuclear weapon. The CIA, NSA, Congress, and the President all believed the same thing, both before, and after President Bush was elected.

In addition, the President, CIA, NSA, and Congress also had the same information on Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. Al Qaeda did not hate Iraq as they are primarily Sunni Muslims, like Saddam, and became more dedicated to attacking U.S. interests following the first U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There is no evidence that the President has authorized torture of enemy combatants. Some enemy combatants are held by other countries, as has been true in every multi-national war ever fought. Enemy combatants held prisoner by or in other nations are not subject to U.S. laws.

The Consitution provides for Habeus Corpus except during times of insurrection or invasion. Following 9/11, during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the President restricted Habeus Corpus for Guantanimo detainees because of the state of war. In addition, Congress passed restrictions to Habeas Corpus in the Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The President is not destroying the Consitution. In fact, by the very acts he has taken, he is doing his duty as the Commander and Chief, what he has sworn to do, which is to uphold, protect, and defend the Consitution of the United States to the best of his ability, despite making difficult and unpopular decisions.

Answer 4

He replaced into impeached for mendacity under oath to a grand jury. He wasn't compelled from place of work, some distance from it. He left place of work with a extra physically powerful favorability score than Bush has enjoyed for extremely a while. probable might have gained a 0.33 term if it replaced into constitutional.

Answer 5

Good question--a lot of people are asking this. I would
suppose he has an iron grip on Congress. Also most people
still believe the President should be held in high regard but this
Pres. doesn't play by honorable rules.

Answer 6

Presidents don't get impeached for imagined crimes, unless you have proof, like say, a DNA stained dress or something, it's all in your dreams. I can say libs are honest, decent people all day long, it still won't make it true.

Answer 7

Because you are wrong.

I still have my full habeus corpus rights.

and as for the rest, calm down and get a grip.

Answer 8

Nixon was not forced out for bugging, he was forced out for trying to cover it up. That's on the same level of offenses as Slick Willy committing perjury, and he almost got it.

Answer 9

No crimes, for the billionth time.

And, I sure will be glad when Liberals decide to stop hampering the nation from moving FORWARD in time. For liberals, they are sure stuck in the past. We have elections in 2008, and Bush cannot run. We have rehashed 5 billion times why we are in Iraq and cannot leave. We have defended Bush every way we know how. It's time to move forward.

Answer 10

you believe in that propaganda if bush lied clinton lied to so did al gore and john murtha hillary clinton harry reid john kerry john edwards the list can go on.