Lying to congress, and in a State of the Union address to congress, about the presence of WMDs in Iraq is an objective, federal crime, not a subjective crime, AN OBJECTIVE, FEDERAL CRIME.
Outing a covert CIA operative, or shielding those that out such an operative, is an objective, federal crime, not a subjective crime, AN OBJECTIVE, FEDERAL CRIME.
Stop saying that Bush and Cheney have not broken any laws. These are the two broken laws that we know about, but they are objectively the law of the land, and these two criminals have broken them before the entire nation and the entire world.
They will bring the Republican party down with them (a good thing, actually) if they are not brought to the congressional court of impeachment.
A stubborn, imperial president also ignores Republican congressmen and Senators.
He is also ignoring the public's need to get our troops out of Iraq's civil war.
And impeachment just means that they are accused of their crimes, not found guilty.
2007-08-27 08:34:40 · 17 answers · asked by daibato 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Jadis, wrong or not, none of the people quoted sent us into war; that's the defining difference.
2007-08-27 09:02:45 · update #1
Democrats had the sense to oppose an unpopular war and pressured Johnson to not seek reelection.
Now it is the Republicans turn to oppose this unpopular war and pressure Bush to have the troops leave Iraq before he leaves - or is removed from - office.
2007-08-27 09:05:33 · update #2
bekaus dey must remaing loyal to zie furher.
2007-08-27 08:40:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I would say violating the constitution is the same as breaking a law? Considering it is (or was) the major set of rules our country has been founded on. As I have posted before:
"I DO KNOW that Bush has taken away more rights/privacy away from our country than every president ever.
Besides the Patriot Act and his being able to cancel elections (see 1st link below) if he declares a "state of emergency", he just made an executive order outlawing criticizing the war in Iraq (2nd and 3rd link).
Hopefully they'll catch him before he's written into history books that find their way into the hands of highschool students as a "GOOD" president...
Congratulations Bush, you're the biggest Tyrant in the history of the US. Here's a medal: yes that is the Nazi symbol. Fascist."
Maybe on a very technical level none of these things are "against the law" but violating the constitution is even worse if you ask me. Laws are placed as rules and guidelines to follow to keep peace and stability. Do we have peace or stability now? No. We aren't even following our own constitution, the very document that is supposed to be the ultimate set of rules for our country.
We all know what is right and what is wrong, so why are the people in power still in power? Why are we at war? And why does nobody care that the constitution is constantly being ignored and violated?
It's simple, because we are allowing it.
2007-08-27 11:41:06 · answer #2 · answered by superbaler 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Quoting the info he was given by our intelligence agencies is not lying. Are you ready to impeach all the democratic congressmen who voted in favor of the war after reading the same intel reports. If Bush was lying they ALL were lying and if he should be impeached they ALL should be impeached. Also, not following the polls is not a crime.
2007-08-27 08:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by jim h 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Let us not forget that Bush and Cheney are also war criminals and pariahs to the rest of the world. If conservatives are still in denial about the horrors of the present administration, it is most likely because they, as wealthy elites and as participants in the corporatization of our government and society, are guilty of collaborating with the administration in the follies it has committed.
2007-08-27 09:03:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
OK - let's be specific.
Identify specifically what crimes they've committed. Be specific as to which sections of the US Code he violated - don't be evasive and don't deal in generalities.
As to the military - he is the Commander-in-Chief. The military is NOT run by two committees consisting of 535 members in total.
What "....public's need to get the troops out of Iraq..."?
Now PROVE it! Until then, stop spouting the Demo's party line and do your research.
2007-08-27 08:42:14 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 6⤊ 4⤋
Bush was for the Dubai ports which Democrats thought was OK apparently...Bush also sought open borders, amnesty, printing government documents in foreign languages, and American culture erosion via "Presidents' Day". He seems OK with "No Prayer in Schools" and other de-religionization.
2007-08-27 08:42:10 · answer #6 · answered by acct10132002 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Um, because they haven't. And your 'opinion' doesn't change that. Shall I break it down for you?
No he didn't.
No he didn't.
Again, he didn't.
No he won't. Seen the congressional approval ratings lately?
No he didn't.
No he's not. Besides, who cares. He's a leader not a follower.
You can't accuse someone unless they are believed to have committed a crime.
Thanks for playing. Hope this helps. And given your take on legal issues, I really hope you're not a lawyer..or plan to become one.
2007-08-27 08:48:25 · answer #7 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
They seem to feel that if we can't prove them guilty, then we have no right to suspect that they are guilty.
Never mind the fact that they give us plenty of reason to think they are. Oh well, the worst is over. This President (and administration) is just about through with the conversion to lame-duck status.
2007-08-27 08:41:35 · answer #8 · answered by Robert K 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
You need to learn this quote, " it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." Enough allready, Peace
2007-08-27 08:48:52 · answer #9 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Sorry, but at the Federal level, this is all he said/she said. He will not be impeached. The public elected him, and got what it paid for.
2007-08-27 08:41:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Because the 2 examples you submitted are both false. If they were true he would have been impeached, why do you think he hasn't? uuuuhhhh, Maybe because your version of the truth is not true?
2007-08-27 08:41:06 · answer #11 · answered by booman17 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋