English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-09-28 01:47:16 · 20 answers · asked by Big Paesano 4 in Politics & Government Politics

I wasn't expecting this much ignorance...

2007-09-28 02:05:04 · update #1

20 answers

for the life of me i can't figure that one.
it would seem like a slam dunk.
the only possible answer is that they do not want a repeat of the fiasco that let the terrorists plan and carry out their attacks while the country was focused on the witch hunt that was the Clinton impeachment.

2007-10-05 09:38:43 · answer #1 · answered by Constipated CON. 7 · 0 0

They appear to be "in agreement" with what President Bush and Vice President Cheney are doing. This approximates to not very much of anything. Yet, when President Bill Clinton had a "non-political affair" with a grown woman, Monica Lewinsky, all HELL broke lose. That president's actions had nothing whatsoever to do with the political "business" atmosphere of this country. President Clinton also didn't send our troops to be "killed" for an attack on "terror." Not a war in another country, mind you, but a philosophy. This type of indefinite war could last for "decades." With President Bush, we have lost almost 400,000 troops in Iraq alone. Mr. Bush managed to "kill" Saddam Hussein, his two sons and a "13-year-old grandson, Mustafa (in cold blood)." This, of course, was "certainly" justified. None of this business has ever been attributed to President Clinton. The public seems to like those who possess the "devil's blood" and like treacherous ways, whoever they are. I wish all of us well. Peace, Love and God Bless.

2007-10-05 16:33:28 · answer #2 · answered by In God We Trust 7 · 0 0

It makes good rhetoric when you are in the hallways or on the steps of the Capitol. To do so in a debate or on Larry King would show them to be a fool. There are no grounds for impeachment. To think so shows a lack of knowledge of the law. any serious Pres candidate who said so now would be roasted.

2007-09-28 08:54:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Because even if it were something that had legal ground, it would take at least a year for the proceedings to unfold, and then whats the point. There are more pressing issues to be resolved at this point.

2007-09-28 08:51:50 · answer #4 · answered by chris m 5 · 3 1

Although there are some differences on tactics, the ruling elite (Republicans, Democrats and their wealthy backers) are in a concensus that fascism is needed to pursue the desires of the wealthy-elite against a working class public.

2007-09-28 08:49:46 · answer #5 · answered by Trevor S 4 · 4 2

Their all of the same club. Their are no longer any true independent American politicians . All are bought and paid for. Your just allowed to pick one .

2007-10-04 02:06:59 · answer #6 · answered by Mogollon Dude 7 · 0 0

Actually Hillary is spending her whole campaign voicing her efforts as if she's running against President Bush.

I'm not sure if she understands he's not running in the next election.
-
They don't go that route because Congress won the democrat majority and they all know where their approval rating took them after attempting to even speak about impeaching Bush.

2007-09-28 08:59:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Because they don't want to appear stupid,as Bush has committed no impeachable offense.Some of the far left,sadly,have no hesitation looking stupid.Ironic,they claim Bush "tramples the constitution"Yet are more than willing to throw the Constitution in the crapper and simply "impeach Bush"without any constitutional grounds to do so

2007-09-28 08:54:45 · answer #8 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 1 5

1.) Please indicate which rule of law they have broken. (I know, I know: Clinton technically broke no law when the dogs were "investigating" a stained blue party dress, but impeachment must not be a quid-pro-quo tool for a political agenda, even if Newt's hypocritical army did do it);

2.) Too many politicians on both sides of the aisle would watch their own heads roll... After all, they're in it together.

3.) It would cost us way too much money, and we've got a $200 billion price tag coming due for our bogus "war" in Iraq.

2007-09-28 08:53:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 5

What "high crime or midemeanor" can he be accused of?
Hairy-chested calls for impeachment may all sound well and good, but there has to be statutory support/evidence of such miscreance. Overall cheeziness doesn't count.

2007-09-29 18:16:48 · answer #10 · answered by grumpy geezer 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers