Why don't the libs impeach Bush?

Question

A left wing fringe group on this site and elsewhere liken Bush to a war criminal, Hitler and "a monster". They cry out for his impeachment like bloodthirsty vampires. Then why don't their Dem leaders impeach Bush? No BAL*S?? Or, (gawd!) no impeachable offense?? Is this all bluster from the left or will they finally put their money where their mouths are?

Answer 1

Because they are a bunch of lilly livered, spineless, liars.

Answer 2

There's a great story I'd love to share with everybody.

Periodically, during the course of the Rodney King riots, a bunch of foo-foo CA Liberal Hollywood stars arrived sheepishly at the doorstep of Charlton Heston, asking if he had a spare gun to lend them.

He did. :)

This is the same analogy of the Libs who denounce Bush. On some level, they know that what he is doing is right, logical, and the best course of action. But just like irresponsible Hollywood types who love to bash anything conservative, they revel in finding fault with Bush.

Since there are no impeachable offenses, the Libs can shout all the louder, knowing that Bush will not be forced to step down. It's like some punk kid bravely yelling at a cop... from the security of a rooftop. He knows he can't be caught.

Answer 3

There 2 parts to your question. The first you address is to those who are on yahoo answers claim that Bush is a war criminal and monster. He is a war criminal and there are plenty of arguments that are rational and reasonable to prove that he is a war criminal and lied about going to war in the first place, which is a crime according to the Constitution. People (not just the left wing fringe people) from all political backgrounds are claiming this, even conservatives. The things that this administration has gotten away with is truly frightening for this democracy we live in. And, I'm not just talking about Bush and his administration, but what precedent it sets for future presidents. Do you really want Hillary to have as much power as Bush has exerted during his two terms? You cons never think about that do you? Because whatever powers Bush increases for the office of president the next president will get the same powers and then will more than likely add to it if Bush isn't stopped. Impeachment is a tool to limit the powers of the presidency and it is meant as a means of checks and balances. There are plenty of actions this president has taken that are impeachable:
Firstly, the spying upon Americans without probable cause, due process and a warrant supported by evidence and sworn before a competent magistrate violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The US courts have held that a wiretap is an unreasonable search unless it is executed upon a valid warrant. The US congress has held such as being so unreasonable that it has passed the following laws that guarantee limits upon the execution of surveillance, investigation and record keeping by use of communication, telecommunication and records.
He has lied, misled and/or relied upon inappropriate intelligence DATA to engage in an improper invasion of a sovereign nation, violated the UN Charter (which is part and parcel of our Constitution by law).
Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention.
Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.
Bush lied to the people of the United States and to the entire world when he declared in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had developed and deployed "weapons of mass destruction" and was an imminent threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. itself. Bush's lies amount to a "high crime" under the U.S. Constitution and this alone justifies impeachement and removal from office.

The second part of your question askes about the liberals in D.C and why they won't impeach. The answer is simple. Both parties are working for the same goal and they are obviously on the same side of things. The liberal elites in the southern Blue Dog Dems will not vote for impeachment despite all the crimes this administration as committed and for all the corruption that is in it's administration because they all have the same goals of American Empire and goals of taking Iraqi oil. And, they are all paid by the same lobbyists and interest groups that are making billions off our tax dollars for this horrible which is not only illegal but wrong in the first place. The left stands by what it says, but it is obvious that those in D.C are looking out for their own.

Answer 4

Because if they continue to repeat these falsehoods long enough and loud enough, with the help of a liberal media the unwary public will begin to believe in some, if not all of it. A turning of the tide so to speak in order to sway votes over to the Democrat side. Pure propaganda. Nothing more.

Only solution is to research things on your own. Find the truth by at least varying your sources of news and information. Low and behold, the truth always comes through.

Answer 5

Because for one thing, the votes aren't there. For another, there simply isn't enough time between now and January 2009 to impeach. As much as I dislike Bush, I would rather Dems focus on winning more seats in Congress, rather than impeaching Bush, who will be gone in less than a year and a half anyway. And besides, if Bush is removed from office, that would leave us with Cheney, who would be even worse.

Answer 6

Well I have certainly heard enough of the stuff of not enough votes. Here is what Wiki says is needed to start impeachment-
The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
-they certainly should have the votes they have the majority.

Answer 7

I don't think there is enough evidence at this point for an impeachment.
bsides it would hurt us to impeach him- we'd have to face the fact that we not only elected him twice but were hotheaded in our decision making.

Answer 8

The correct answer is

No impeachable offense.


which is what makes them whine like little schoolgirls and toss around " war criminal" without the knowledge of what makes one a "war criminal"

Answer 9

He's a lame (redneck) duck who's on his way out.

Why waste the effort on impeachment?

Answer 10

They have to have evidence he committed a misdeed, or broke a law, not just an allegation because they don't like him, or his politics. They are a majorly short in the proof department.

Answer 11

can`t get 2/3 of the congress to impeach him.