Does our Republic actually work? Is the senateand the house still accountable to the American people?

Question

The Senate and the house of representatives has the power to impeach a president if they feel they are incapable to lead our nation, or have commited a crime such as lying to the people. When Bill Clinton and Monica were messing around and then Bill lied on T.V. to America about it they started to file the paperwork to impeach him. But there was no talk of impeaching Bush after he lied about WMDs in Iraq, which lead to a war with over a trillion dollars and over 3000 american service men and women killed. Bush also has about a 36% aproval rating. Clintons wasn't that low durring the scandal. It is clear the mjority of americans do not like Bush in office and he has lied to America and the World on T.V. Why didn't they try t impeach him?

The Senate and the house of representatives has the power to impeach a president if they feel they are incapable to lead our nation, or have commited a crime such as lying to the people. When Bill Clinton and Monica were messing around and then Bill lied on T.V. to America about it they started to file the paperwork to impeach him. But there was no talk of impeaching Bush after he lied about WMDs in Iraq, which lead to a war with over a trillion dollars and over 3000 american service men and women killed. Bush also has about a 36% aproval rating. Clintons wasn't that low durring the scandal. It is clear the mjority of americans do not like Bush in office and he has lied to America and the World on T.V. Why didn't they try to impeach him? not I dont support what the democratic legislators have done, and i am talking about after the fact that they still havn't found the weapons after five years, I think we would have found them if Bush realy had concrete evidence of them.

Answer 1

The Senators and Representatives are most definitely accountable to the American voters. It's not an instantaneous process, as we have to wait for election cycles, but we do use the power of the vote to approve or disapprove of the things they do (or don't do) in Washington.

That said, one major complication, as I see it, that's been introduced into the process is the implementation of American marketing skills. One deviously-placed, negative slogan can potentially end a political campaign and deprive this country of a good, maybe even a great, public servant. There are so many people who buy into those stupid, little quips and repeat them over and over, and even accept them as truth. They don't need facts. "It's on television so it must be true." Well, I hope the voters learn to raise the collective intelligence in future elections, but unfortunately there are plenty of weaseling campaigners that will continue to assault us with catchy b.s. and land incompetents in office. We need to learn to debunk garbage for ourselves!

Answer 2

Bush didn't "lie" about WMDs in Iraq; his claims were based on a logical assumption that turned out to be wrong. So far as I know, the news media has never actually detailed what the intelligence was that lead to the war in Iraq. If they did I'm sure support for the war would most likely double (though support for Bush would still go down). See, the decision to attack Iraq was not based on Iraq alone but on three powers of the Middle East; specifically, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Iran and North Korea are both now known to have the beginning (or better) of nuclear weapons (AKA WMDs). Out of the three countries that I mentioned you'll notice that Iraq, being the only one which we attacked, is also the only one that doesn't have nuclear weapons. So, what's the connection between these three countries? That's where Bush's so-called faulty intelligence comes in. See, according to the intelligence, Iran and Iraq were both sending money to North Korea as North Korea, being such an insanely poor country, could not possibly find the kind of money it would take to build their nuclear and rocket technology without funding from some other country. So, why wouldn’t Iran and Iraq build these weapons themselves? While Iraq and Iran had the money to make these WMDs, they didn’t have the knowledge to. North Korea knew very well how to make such weapons, however they lacked the funding. Now you’re left to wonder what Iran, Iraq, and North Korea had (or have) planned for such weapons. You’ll remember when North Korea tested a medium range missile that landed near Japan. Imagine that missile armed with a nuclear war head. What could North Korea hit with a medium range missile? What would they want to hit? They could hit Japan, but, as intelligence indicated, North Korea did not intend to use this missile at all. In fact it was to be transported to Iraq where a medium range missile would be perfect for hitting Israel. And after Israel who would be next?

So, why did we attack Iraq? Why not Iran or North Korea? We “couldn’t” attack Iran because at the time they were considered “allies”…Yeah, right. As for North Korea: It was assumed that Iraq already had WMDs, and hitting Iraq would cut off part of North Korea’s funds, hopefully stopping their nuclear program. The truth was Iraq had started a nuclear program before contracting out to North Korea, but stopped; Iraq had no WMDs. Bush looked like a fool. Now Bush has gone on some sort of side war trying to liberate Iraq instead of finishing the war he started against nuclear aggression in the Middle East. The American people were behind Bush when he went to war against terrorists, they did not anticipate fighting a war to impose democracy in another country.

Answer 3

Not as well as it could or should. Too many of the safety features were done away with during and after the War for Southern Independence.

Your question would have been better without the details. Lying under oath to Congress (not on TV) and 20 seperate criminal indictments is a different thing entirely then going to war on common knowledge that turned out to be wrong.

Answer 4

Simple. There is no proof of him lying as you say. Even the democrat that was in charge of the CIA confirmed that. Bush didn't send us to war, the congress did. The president does not have that power. Only Congress has that responsibility in our system of government. Do you want to impeach congress? Congress can start or stop war anytime. The president can't.

Why do you liberals keep trying to twist the truth? Why is it libs just can't accept reality unless it fits their desire? You have been watching to much mainstream media.

Answer 5

The reason they don't impeach him is quite simple. It would only embolden our enemies if we switched presidents based on what was happening in the war. They would pounce on it as a sign of weakness. It would be a deadly mistake that would take a huge toll on our service men and women.

Our Congress tends to also think of what's best for them before what is best for the nation. They will do whatever keeps them in office and paid. Why do you think they vote themselves raises? Most of them have been so corrupted by simple green pieces of paper, which aren't even completely backed by gold anymore. which is also slightly their fault. Congress tends to see green.

Answer 6

,lets see just about all those who voted for the war had the same info that Bush had. They all voted for the war also if your think Bushes ratings are low, and that you think the Democrat run houses are doing a good job, stop offering only partial info, like the percentages of what the Americans think about how both houses are doing got the gonads to finish your question and print those ratings!

Answer 7

The senate and the house have never worked for the best interests of all. They work for the best interests of those who put them in power. That's the way this, and every government works.

Answer 8

you be conscious of what? You get what you vote for! voters gave libs the majorities and the White homestead. could any individuals be taken aback that libs have overstepped the authority we gave them and have trespassed into our lives? Is it stunning that they have got overvalued the obstacles of the mandate that the voters gave them or that they are conversing on the subject of the main severe around of usual tax and spend lib rules that history has ever considered?

Answer 9

For your sake I hope they develop an antidote for you S-Ps to combat bad cases of "Selective Memory Syndrome".

I know, I know, don't confuse the Nutty Left with the truth and facts. You sir, are eat up with the worst case of "Selective Memory Syndrome" I have seen on these threads in many days. Please, don't try to come to a battle of the wits unarmed! You will lose as you are doing here.

Answer 10

Only during election time. The other times they are to busy spending our money. Along with playing mine games with the public.