Not a convincing source you cite regarding these papers, but I'm all for impeachment. It's more than warranted, as impeachment is the ultimate means for holding the president accountable in the event of a violation of the trust of the PEOPLE. (Elections are just a benchmark, everyone - getting elected is NOT some permanent permission slip to do whatever you want to do in the White House.)
The time remaining in office is irrelevant. We need to impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney so that FUTURE presidents, regardless of party, know that there are limits on power, that abuse of power is not tolerable, and that the government IS the people's government.
NO future president should have any latitude to misconstrue Bush's and Cheney's actions and declarations as legitimate precedent for similar, or worse, actions and declarations. That's why impeachment is imperative, if you care about these beloved United States.
2007-07-10 12:07:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Trying a seated president is very difficult. It is not an election in reverse. They (the Congress) must prove either "high Crimes" or "misdeamonrs" while excuting the office, in order to unseat the president. To impeach is just to call for the trial in congress.
Another point if the president is impeached and removed from office his successor is the Vice president.
2007-07-10 14:31:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by 1stlensman 1
·
8⤊
0⤋
As soon as I saw the word imeach, I knew this statement would be a joke. I have a thousand dollars that says he won't be impeached. Can you put your money where your mouth is? I didn't think so. Thanks for the 2 points though.
Write down my e-mail address. I'll be more than happy to pay you if I am proven wrong. Also, just because people don't agree with your point of view is no reason to get your panties in a wad and start name calling. This is America buddy.
2007-07-10 14:32:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
The senate didn't impeach Clinton because he was bombing a Christian country for 3 months.
The war against Iraq and Afghanistan are real and have an effect on our national security, which is the dems case to impeach Bush.
You guys have the guts to get us in imaginary wars against Serbia and Global Warming and want to send Bush to jail for fighting a real war....
2007-07-10 14:35:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bonneville P 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
I read a story this morning from the AP wire stating that about 36% of the Democrats in Congress are now talking seriously about possible impeachment proceedings. Until that number grows beyond that, we will see nothing happen.
I think it's a waste of time. Until they have proof of criminal activity an impeachment is just not going to happen. Do I think there's been criminal activity? Yes I think there probably has been. But I also think that the Bush Adminstration has shown extreme competence in one area - covering their own behinds. Like it or not, we just don't have the evidence to bring impeachment proceedings.
Another thing to consider is having Cheney as President. Talk about going from the frying pan into the fire.
2007-07-10 14:32:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
And what is the offense that you want him impeached for? Does that mean that any President that is doing what he believes to be right should be impeached/
All these people that want Mr. Bush impeached have not come up with any better idea than that we should put our tail between our legsa and run.
As for Africa. I agree there are terrible things happening there, but unfortunately we have to pick our battles. That does not mean that it is Mr. Bush's fault.
I bet you don't even vote
2007-07-10 14:35:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by walt631 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
what is his impeachable offense? Congress authorized his use of military force; the Supreme Court has upheld numerous cases in favor of govt procedures, and where they've overruled the administration those actitvities ceased. the Patriot Act was just a corrolary of FISA, and most of the provisions that liberals hate were largely used by the clintons: ie wiretapping and surveilance.
that's not to say I agree with all of this, or everything Bush has done, but you still need to have tangible crimes in order to impeach a president.
2007-07-10 14:34:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by kujigafy 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
Crime please.
I have yet to hear anything that comes close to high crimes.
If Fox is going to be dismissed than your site should also be dismissed.
So what do you have beside the normal talking points liberals keep on whining about.
I just got done reading the so called "Articles of Impeachment" my co-workers why I am laughing so hard.
2007-07-10 14:38:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
The short answer is because he would never be found guilty. Since the dem congress is running with a 14% approval rating they have other issues to worry about.
Remember, Clinton was impeached (that's the term for the trial process that MAY remove a sitting president) for lying under oath, not for sexual acts.
2007-07-10 14:29:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by davidmi711 7
·
11⤊
3⤋
Impeaching Bush would be putting Cheney in the big chair. No one wants that. There are not enough votes in Congress to make it happen. Republicans in the Senate won't go along even with irrefutable evidence of several impeachable crimes having been committed by Bush and or Cheney.
Impeachment is costly and wastes time. We've tried it twice and neither time was the president kicked out of office.
It is actually better to keep Bush/Cheney in office where the corruption scandals can continue to roll along so the Democrats will have all the more to throw at the Republican candidates in the 2008 elections.
2007-07-10 14:30:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
8⤋