December 19, 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached by the u.s. house of representatives for perjury & obstruction of justice.
"Bush lied.... People died..."
Right?
Why hasn't Bush been impeached on far worse grounds?
2007-07-06 14:27:43 · 17 answers · asked by of 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
i do think that IF there were reasonable grounds for impeachment, it would have taken place. i don't think that "government's mind is screwed up" or "cheney is the devil" which are some of the *reasons* given.
it leads me to the question of why 1/2 the american people find grounds for impeachment when congress (who are more informed) does not.
2007-07-06 14:40:30 · update #1
1) Bush didn't lie.
For reference go here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
2) What high crimes has he been charged with beside being legally elected twice which I know you can't stand.
3) The impeachment train has left the building. Pelosi already took it off the table.
4) One thing there aren't enough votes to get into Senate.
5) It will only cost the democrats in the end. The republican paid for the impeachment trails. I don't think the DNC is ready for the blow back from it.
I would worry more about trying to get the DNC somewhat to center before 08 or it is going to get worse.
2007-07-06 14:40:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was impeached but finished his term in office. Bush has done nothing to justify impeachment, he has broken no law or committed any impeachable act so how could we go about doing what most people would like to see but can't be justifiably done. Dislike of the President is not grounds for impeachment! Starting a war with Iraq? The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, but no President in history has ever asked Congress for permission before going to war, they start a war then tell Congress that we are at war & Congress grants them the money to fight said war. Wonderful system, if only it worked as it was intended to work. It would be great if the people we elect at least knew what is written in the Constitution & followed it, things would work a lot better in this country if they did so.
2007-07-06 14:47:07 · answer #2 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question. Most Neo-Con will say nonsense like Clinton committed crimes and Bush didn't. What they don't wont to say is Clinton was never convicted. I would have to say Cheney is really the Devil, and only people in congress know the truth. So they are scared to impeach because Cheney might eat their souls... The only thing that makes sense to me. Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq having WMD's to go to war (FELONY) Leaked the name of a CIA field agent endangering her life and ruining her career. (TREASON.) Those are some serious crimes. If Cheney isn't the Devil why hasn't Bush been impeached....?
2007-07-06 14:37:09 · answer #3 · answered by usefulidiot230 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Truth is...it would not be good for this country...especially when we have real enemies who would like to destroy us and we are in the middle of the war. Impeaching Bush would be a gift to the enemies...
"Bush lied....people died"?
Not sure if that is the case...
And if Bush hadn't done anything, people would have still died. People would have called him a murderer for doing nothing.
It was a matter of time till we got heavily involved in the Middle East. With its growing irrationality and hatred brewing it was a matter of time for the clashes of civilization.
2007-07-06 14:57:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most likely because they know that there are too many Republicans in the Senate for an impeachment to pass anyway so why bother. It takes a 2/3 vote.
2007-07-06 14:41:35 · answer #5 · answered by punxy_girl 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Congress had a Super majority of Redpublicans.
But the Senate was more closely balanced so Clinton was declared Not Guilty.
This is why a balanced Government works better than a right or lest leaning government.
Go Team Red Go
2007-07-06 14:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Good question. But, didn't Clinton serve the remainder of his term, techinically not stepping down?
Also, As stated before, Clinton technically commited a felony, therefore making him a clear choice to have been impeached.
2007-07-06 14:36:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush did not lie. If you think he did then impeach Hillary because she voted to go to war and backed him up with the very same information. Bush (and Hillary) were wrong, but they didn't lie. BJ Clinton put his hand on a bible in front of a judge, took an oath and lied. Most people go to prison for that but Libby and BJ Clinton got a pass.
2007-07-06 14:31:11 · answer #8 · answered by netjr 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋
well, lying isn't against the law... lying under oath is...
PLEASE TO NOTICE HOW STRINGENTLY BUSH FIGHTS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH...
I thought you guys said it's ok if you don't have anything to hide?
if Clinton testified, why not Bush?
then after that, we get to the impeachment...
2007-07-06 14:32:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Basicly because Clinton was pushed in to a corner by what can only be described as a witch hunt.
He did lie...thats bad enough.
As for Bush...well.
2007-07-06 14:31:56 · answer #10 · answered by philip_jones2003 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋