Why don't the Democrats impeach George W. Bush?

Question

As soon as the Democrats became the majority in congress, right away, Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment will not take place. I don't understand why the Democrats have to be so politically correct. There are so many grounds on which they can have him impeached. Had the Republicans been in the same place and had GWB been a Democrat, they would've impeached him when they got the first oppertunity.

So, why don't the Democrats impeach George W. Bush?

I'll report anything that isn't related to the question.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but the Democrats owe the American people who voted for them, an impeachment.

The fact is that the majority of the American public hates Bush and wants him out of the White House. Besides that, the Democrats will never get anything passed because George W. Bush is a hardhead who'll just veto everything so the Dems can't get anything done (out of spite). This is why he should be impeached.

"Dude... He hasn't made an impeachable offense"

Lying to the American people over and over again isn't an impeachable offense?

"You say because he vetoes he should be impeached, the damn Constitution says that President's have that power."

I never said that they should impeach him because he's vetoing everything.

His refusal to cooperate should be a reason for the Dems to want to impeach him, however they can't bring that as a reason.

The fact that he has lied under oath is a reason. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about an extramarital affair, but when Bush lies about an entire war, well, that's a whole different thing.

The Republicans argue that Bill Clinton should've been impeached because he lied under oath about an affair he was having.

And how many times has Bush lied? He lied about WMDS and he lied about Iraq being a threat. The entire Iraq war was based around these lies and yet somehow that isn't a crime?

So, how is Bush's lying any different than Clinton's?

Answer 1

One very compelling reaosn, well two actually. Impeaching a President doesn't necessarily remove him or her from office; it's just Congress saying, "We Don't Like What You Did".

Second, even if he WAS removed from office (which is what I presume you're asking), removing Bush puts Dick Cheney in charge and I for one would rather have an idiot in the Oval Office than a Fascist.

Answer 2

I have to concur with Burt T.'s answer.

And at this point in the game, I'm less concerned with impeaching Bush than just counting the days and hoping for some impressive candidates to run against the Republicans.

I just want Bush's successor to be an improvement.

Answer 3

You tell me what grounds they have to impeach him...there are none. I'm so sick of the separation between Republicans and Democrats. We are so concerned about bringing the other party down instead of working together to resolve current issues. If George W. Bush deserves to be impeached, then you should agree that Bill Clinton should have been impeached as well, but I'm sure you feel differently.

Answer 4

Us/them Dems typically do not stand up and assert their views.

I think they're content to ride it out instead of risking a public coup to have the President impeached. That would turn a lot of voters against the Democratic Party if the impeachment were to take place.

I'm a Democrat, but passive mentality is one trait I wish "we'd" lose.

it's a purely political move to not want to risk alienating potential voters, especially this early in the race.

Answer 5

I am very opposed to the ideology of the Democrats, however, I do not assume they cannot occasionally do what is best for the US. In deciding to not pursue some bogus impeachment, which would probably net a bunch of Democrats, anyway, they are just "moving forward."

Answer 6

I don’t understand it either. The Democrats could easily use their majority to impeach Bush. Violation of the FISA law would be enough. Bush probably couldn’t be convicted but the same was true for Clinton. That didn’t stop the Republicans from carrying out that spectacle of impeachment in order to embarrass Clinton. The Democrats like the idea of holding themselves to a higher standard but it doesn’t do them much good.

Answer 7

You say because he vetoes he should be impeached, the damn Constitution says that President's have that power. That is the exact opposite of an impeachable offence.

Answer 8

One reason is he did not break any laws.

And if he did there is not one dem with the b*alls to do anything. Because this is a do NOTHING congress. Dam I bet the libs are happy they won.

Answer 9

remember dumbass that ol w was in office only 9 months when we were attacked. The retard before did nothing when the towers were targeted the first time. Also do a little research and you will find that Clinton was riding the coattails of reagonomics when the economy was doing well. REpublicans keep our country strong and democrats make the rich richer and the middle class and poor, in dire straights. Also I love my gun rights and dont want to lose them due to democratic pacifists.

Answer 10

The Democrats want to, but they cannot find any reason to do so. That is why they don't. And since when did he lie? And don't bring out that whole lying to go to war thing, even the Democrats saw the same intel and was in favor of the war.

Answer 11

because the dem's need the rep's (bush included) for something. politics is all a game, the rep's act as if they hate the dem's and the dem's act as if they hate the rep's when in reality they are all using each other to get what they all wanted in the first place....power and money...that's it. there used to be those in politics that had noble intentions and the citizens needs came first but that was long ago and i don't think we shall ever see that kind of politician again. sad but true.