Given the state of things in Iraq,would impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney and rumsfield be in order?

Answer 1

yes except Rumsfield is already out of office, criminal charges should be pending against the trio

Answer 2

Impeachment in the U.S. Constitution is not for bad policy choices. "Given the state of things in Iraq" is not a reason for impeachment of any of the people (Rumsfeld has already left office, so impeachment would do nothing to him). Impeachment is "conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If we can prove that either Bush, Cheney or others knowingly misled in Congressional testimony about Iraq, then it may be an impeachable offense. However, what is important is that it is not based on the success or failure of their policies, but on the legality of their actions.

Answer 3

Against Bush and Cheney, yes. Rumsfeld is no longer in his position, so its up to the judicial system, not Congress.

But--as much as they deserve it, that's a last resort. As things stand, Bush is going to be pretty irrelevant soon--Congres is on the verge of being able to force a withdrawal from Iraq--veto or no veto. If they can manage to contain Bush, it may be better for the country to do that and just let him serve out his term.

Answer 4

Unfortunately you cannot impeach someone for making a grand mess of something. You have to actually have evidence of a crime they committed.
And since it would not make it through the senate anyway it would seem a waste of time (unless you goal was just party political grandstanding as it was when the Republicans did it to Clinton).

Answer 5

Well, yes.

Their most staunch defenders right now are saying they couldn't predict what was going to happen. Despite Middle East Expert and military commanders (Who were promptly fired) telling them this would happen, they refused to believe it (Or at least chose to dismiss it) and went in anyway.
At the very least, in the best case scenario, if you believe they've told the truth as far as they knew it, they can at least be accused of gross incompetence and mismanagement.
In the best of cases.

Answer 6

You're a troll on yahoo answers at 700 EST.

GET A LIFE!

Answer 7

Fist off no, they did not break any laws. To the sadness to all libtards.

How about we fire all the democrats that said we have to remove Saddam????? Oh that's right it was libtards that said that and with that they get a pass. NOT

Answer 8

i need to start keeping a tick count about how many times liberal extremists whine about this here. its truly priceless. this question has no answer as it makes no sense. use the clinton mess as a benchmark as he was impeached. identify the impeachable behavior AND THEN all of us will listen. until then stop wasting peoples time here.

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Answer 9

rumsfield is already gone you idiot. Get your facts straight first before you ramble on about nothing.

Answer 10

impeach all the people who voted for these idiots the second time.