At least a half dozen reasons too. Then again I suppose keeping him in power guarantees massive gains for Dems in 08'... If the country isn't completely ruined by then...
2007-10-19 18:08:49 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
BUSH BASH! Do you suffer from BDS?
2007-10-23 13:31:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A bit late for impeachment now. Too close to an election to enact the process. Better to consider the poor line up of 2008 presidential candidates. Call it as you may it is pathetic. Almost 300,000,000 people and this is the best offered? The only one I would consider voting for is John McCain. Politically I disagree with him on many issues. But he is honest and I admire his ethics as well as war record and imprisonment in Hanoi for 5 years. But I think no chance and he would be the oldest president in history. I really don't know which of the other candidates I hate most. Nut, even with a gun pointed to my head, I would never vote for any of the others. My entire life, everyone has always reported voting for the lesser of two evils. Like who would you like better, Stalin or Hitler? That's no choice.
2007-10-20 01:41:28 · answer #2 · answered by genghis1947 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily. Bush wont be running in 2008 so all the Democrats who are saying Bush messed things up are not really saying much. Bush will be gone. All the anti-Bush stuff is irrelevant . The question is what will they do about it?
By the way, since Dems won back the Congress, they have certainly changed the Iraq War and put a stop to it like they said, haven't they? Shouldn't they be fired too? They lied. They said they would do something about the war and didn't. It still drags on.
2007-10-20 01:14:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, he should -- for all the federal laws he's admitted violating -- but he won't -- because there is no way 2/3 of the Senate would ever vote to convict.
The law doesn't matter -- the evidence doesn't matter -- the facts don't matter -- because it's a political decision. And partisan politics would never convict him -- so it would be a waste of time.
And for those who keep saying "he hasn't broken any laws" -- I truly feel sorry for people so legally out of the loop that they don't even accept that Bush has ADMITTED violating over a half-dozen federal laws -- he just claims he's allowed to ignore the laws at will -- and that's an affirmative defense, not a question of whether the underlying laws were violated for purposes of establishing a prima facie case.
2007-10-20 01:17:07 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
yes, hes broken more laws than anyone before him. i can give you more than a half a dozen reasons. halliburton covers it all. bush and his cronies are making millions off this war, while they are selling the rest of us down the river. at one time, we were respected thru-out the world. now we are hated. the middle-east crisis has been going on since time began. bush is an oilman. that is the only reason for our involvement there. he has tried to setback any kind of alternative energy sources we have. everything he has done has failed for this country, but it hasnt for him. this is not a party issue, its survival, and i hope people will wake up.
2007-10-20 01:30:44 · answer #5 · answered by chris l 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I wonder how many times this question has been asked? No to the first time it was asked, and no to this time. If the dems truly wanted him out, do you not think the procedure would have already been done or in the works? They sit on their azzes doing nothing but complain when actually they support him. Even Hiliary and Bill Clinton support the war. I heard him say this on Letterman. Instead Nancy Pelosi thinks something that happend in Turkey 90 years ago is more important than what is going on now in Turkey.
2007-10-20 01:12:08 · answer #6 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The fact that unhinged liberals do not like him is hardly a dozen reasons to impeach.
I have a better idea; try to win an election based on ideas and political philosophies not phony scandals and Stalinist ploys?
2007-10-20 01:16:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes.......Too bad the Dem's aren't even trying!
I don't know why they aren't trying to investigate him for dereliction of duty for failing to protect America adequately before 9/11!
Making the republicans weak on the issue of national security!
2007-10-20 01:15:16 · answer #8 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
There are many reasons to impeach Bush [im not going to list...too long]
But you have to remember, if we impeach Bush, Cheney takes over. And most people would agree, he's much worse than Bush!
2007-10-20 01:18:36 · answer #9 · answered by No Gods, No Masters 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Problem Liberals have.
They assume that they can do what they like with people they don't like.
That's why it took so long to get minorities equality. Democrats opposed every attempt. When it finally went through, they claimed credit.
2007-10-20 01:37:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course he and Cheney should be impeached and hanged, and the refusal of Congress to do so amounts to accessory to treason. (In the case of fascists and corporations, I make an exception to my usual antagonism toward capital punishment.)
TERRY: He wasn't--in the first OR second place. It was all a scam.
2007-10-20 01:13:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋