why hasn't congress started the impeachment hearings for bush and cheney. we all know he has committed so many crimes against Americans and humanity. what the heck are we all waiting for? how many more innocent Iraqis and Americans have to die before we Impeach this jerk?
2007-06-17 17:29:11 · 16 answers · asked by Gurinder N 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Good thing they can't arrest you for lack of smarts!
You would be guilty of Ignorance in the highest degree!
2007-06-17 17:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by mes210 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Everyone would have so much more respect for you and answer your questions in a civil manner if you could back up your foundless accusations with facts.
Every single member of Congress had a copy of the intelligence report President Bush used to make his case for the war and had ample opportunity to read it before voting for the war. Some like Edwards read it and lied about it afterwards. Should Edwards be thrown in Prison? Should Democrats like Hillary Clinton be impeached because they based their vote for the war on faulty intelligence?
You left wing Libs need to grow up. You remind me of a bully baby at the daycare that will not share his toys with the other babies. All of you just a bunch of spoiled, stubborn, brats!
President Bush has committed no crimes and neither has Cheney. clinton sent troops to Bosnia and they got slaughtered. Remember "blackhawk Down"? Nobody tried to impeach him for that. They impeached him for perjuring himself.
Low approval ratings does not equate to impeachment. If it did, the entire lib controlled Congress would have been impeached by now because their approval rating is lower than the President's.
The only crimes against humanity were letting Bin Laden off the hook like clinton did. 9/11 would not have happened!
2007-06-17 18:12:28 · answer #2 · answered by cadcommando2003 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
When Clinton lied, no one died. When Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, thousands of Americans, Afghanis, Iraqis, and others died. And Bush's lie was so bad that when someone tried to cover up the truth (I forget the guy's name, he is a reporter), they revealed that the reporter's wife was a CIA agent. Also, Gunny Bill, we should NOT "take jerks like you and prosecute them for treason" because we are protected by the First Amendment. Learn the law before making stupid accusations!
2007-06-18 05:30:56 · answer #3 · answered by treehugger 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Billy Boy Clinton Lied under oath! Has Bush done that? NO!
Bush repeated what the CIA and other spooks told him about WMD. The US knew Saddam had these weapons while Billy Boy was in office. Saddam won't allow the UN to inspect to verify these finding or current reports. So, Bush showed testicle fortitude that Clinton never had and took action against terrorism.
What we should do is take jerks like you and prosecute them for treason. We probably have more grounds than you do for impeachment.
2007-06-17 18:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by Gunny Bill 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wow... this is actually a lot of questions... not just one. You really cheated the system here. Don't you know you only get so many questions... hence, the point system. Now, you've gone and shown others how to circumvent this great process that Yahoo! Answers has come up with. Maybe we should impeach you. Maybe we'd get to this whole impeachment process if we didn't have to thoroughly police very simple processes such as this because people like you abuse it. Please learn from your mistakes. I would hate to see this behavior continue. God Bless! Reverend Brian Joseph
2007-06-17 17:41:17 · answer #5 · answered by Brian J 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is the same system that has been going on since the ratification of the constitution 200+ years ago- Only on trial for US federal crimes-LARGE crimes, impeach means trial not kicked out of office
2007-06-17 17:44:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
PRESIDENT CLINTON DID NOT HAVE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SERVED ON HIM FOR RECEIVING ORAL SEX IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THAT WAS NOT THE ISSUE. WHAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO IMPEACH HIM FOR WAS LYING TO THE INVESTIGATOR ABOUT IT. REMEMBER "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN". IF A ******** AIN'T SEX, THEN WHAT IS IT?
BUT NONE THE LESS I AGREE. G.W. HAS LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT WERE NON EXISTENT. FOR JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
POINT OF INTEREST: THERE HAVE TWO TIMES IN HISTORY THAT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE SERVED AND NEITHER TIME WAS IT SUCCESSFUL, SO THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PRESIDENT ACTUALLY IMPEACHED. NOT THAT SOME DIDN'T DESERVE IT. RICHARD NIXON RESIGNED BEFORE THEY COULD TRY TO IMPEACH HIM. I THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
2007-06-17 17:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by BOOMBOOMBILLY 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It's all a question of perception. It's my view that Clinton, or any other leader for that matter, should not have to answer questions on sexuality unless it involves pedophilia. If that was the case he would never have been accused of lying or misleading. There are far worse things that a leader can do.
2007-06-17 17:41:03 · answer #8 · answered by Ted T 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't imply that converting the Oval Office Into the Oral Office was not a serious, impeachable offense.
2007-06-17 17:34:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
NO not really he was impeached because he lied under oath about getting oral from Monica. Saying he did not know her etc.....
2007-06-17 17:35:22 · answer #10 · answered by Jenn 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush is committing us to fight the evil organizations that commit evil crimes against humanity. Why would you have him impeached for that. He is fighting Al-Queda in Iraq; Al-Queda is the organization that would destroy your liberties as an American.
You should place the blame where it lies, not with President Bush.
2007-06-17 17:37:56 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋