Meaning once Bush officially had "war powers" given to him by Congress (Republicans & Democrats) other than strangling Pelosi on the House floor, Bush could get away with almost anything he wanted to (especially with executive prilvilge too)?
And if that is true why do libs put so much of the blame on Bush & not their own Democrat Congress like Senator Hilary Clinton?
2007-08-26 06:40:33 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Dems actually pushed for this war long before Bush was president. I would LOVE to hear a legitimate reason why it then became Bush's war and everything that has gone wrong is now the fault of only the Republicans.
2007-08-26 06:47:41 · answer #1 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the main obstacle for the impeachment of President Bush is that there is no proof that any law was broken. Democrats can talk about articles of impeachment all they want, it will go nowhere. Do you honestly believe that if the Democrats had a valid case with evidence against Bush that they would hold back???
Bush has not violated any law.
2007-08-26 06:49:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Dems gained a small majority in Congress final mid-term. There are nonetheless sufficient Republicans in the two residences to end any attempt to convey this administration to any form of justice. The Dems have not got the votes to override a veto. Republicans vote lock-step, no longer McCain and an particularly few others yet maximum are party animals who quite plenty carry our u . s . a .'s inhabitants in contempt. those lock-step automatons will vote the way they are ordered. the yankee people ought to stand up from our television watching keesters and take an activity in our u . s . a .'s agency and we are in a position to start by removing each and every Republican at the instant in place of work. returned McCain and a few others can stay yet many choose a splash reformatory time for his or her violation of their dedication while they have been sworn in.
2016-10-09 06:35:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It amazes me that, having gone through the impeachment process so recently, so many people in this country STILL haven't a clue what it's all about.
No President can be impeached for invading another nation unless he has done so without Congress's permission. The people who are in favor of impeachment (of whom I am NOT one) are in favor of it because of Bush's assorted other bowel movements on our Constitution - declaring "Executive privilege" every time he is asked to explain himself, signing Executive Orders giving himself unConstitutional authority so he can accomplish his personal agenda without impediment.
It isn't the war. It's all the circumstances SURROUNDING the "war on terror" that Bush has screwed himself with.
In order to impeach a President, you have to be able to establish some proof that a crime may have been committed.
So what would that have to do with Congress voting to authorize the necessary use of force in Iraq?
2007-08-26 06:52:25 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, just like a waste of money and time to impeach Clinton it would be a waste of time and money to impeach Bush. We prefer to wait for the war crimes trials once he has left office. Besides the more he screws up and the more corruption that can be uncovered the better for the Democrats. They can lay that on their GOP rivals in the elections next year.
2007-08-26 06:57:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only reason the Democrats voted for the Iraq war in the first place was because Bush faked evidence and lied toconvince people that Saddam had WMD and ties to al-Qaida--both of which have been PROVEN to be lies.
So, no, that vote does not make it impossible to impeach Bush--in fact, the circumstances only provide added justification for doing so.
2007-08-26 06:49:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Geeez, you people amaze me! Bush is on his way out the door, and you still want to expend all your energy trying to impeach him instead of getting some work done! No wonder Congress has the lowest approval rating in history (way lower than Bush's)!!
2007-08-26 06:50:14 · answer #7 · answered by Terri J 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What Bush has done by misleading this country into going to war is not--I am sorry to tell you--an impeachable offense. If he steals white house silverware, he can be impeached, but not because he is a flawed leader.
2007-08-26 06:48:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, you have to prove that he committed some high crime in office such as treason, murder etc.
And on your second question, the Dems wouldn't dare point out Hilliary's opinions on the war because she doesn't have one and she is their best shot for retaking the White House in 08.
2007-08-26 06:48:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I believe it is because you actually have to commit some high crime or misdemeanor to be impeached.
2007-08-26 06:46:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋