What specific crimes would you impeach Bush for?

Question

Be specific and provide a credible link from a credible news source.

Not something that could be a home page for the tin hat brigade.

Answer 1

No impeachable offense has transpired as a result of Bushs' presidency.

But I will forever be angry about him allowing those Marines and Navy Corpsman to be jailed due to the Haditha lie. And this immigration business is insanity.

Answer 2

Bush actually can be impeached for no crimes at all. Congress is responsible for determining what is an impeachable offense, and it does not have to be a crime.

I would impeach him for misleading congress and not presenting all intel related to the Iraq war & WMD.

"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. "

nowhere does it define what a high crime or misdemeanor is, it's the responsibility of congress to determine this

Answer 3

George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.

President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.

The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.

Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.

Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/index.php?articleid=8282

Answer 4

He hasn't committed any crimes, despite what liberals, and the left wing media suggests. I know you Democrats are used to people being impeached, committing perjury, having sex with an intern, ect., but you have to remember not all presidents are like that.

Answer 5

He needs to be impeached,

Because he was mean to Democrats.

And hurt their feelings by beating their best candiate's twice.

Answer 6

Stupidity is not a crime so we'll have to find something else.

Answer 7

expect a lot of non answers like the first one.

There are no crimes he has committed. If there were, the democrats in congress would be all over him.

Answer 8

Why don't you ride off on your little moped and let the Big Kids play by themselves, mmmmk? Have a nice day...loser!!!

Answer 9

None, he hasn't committed any crimes.