As mush as I hate to say it, no, they should not. Why? It simply distracts Congress from taking care of more important matters and gives the GOP more election fodder to use against the Democrats. Also, it is too late in the Bush presidency to even do anything about it. They've gotten away with their lies for this long; we might as well wait until after Bush's reign and then call for charges to be brought up against Cheney. Hopefully, with a Democrat in the White House, his chances of an potential presidential pardon go down the drain should he ever be convicted.
2007-11-07 01:58:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
I think that this idea has been done to death. Since the House is mostly democrat, they would have done it if they had even a shred of hope that they could prove anything. I think it would be more useful to find another horse to beat.
As to Robert Byrd being the most honest person in the Senate, I don't know about that, I guess it depends on what your version of honesty entails. I do know that Robert Byrd has been the"king of pork" and he has more roads in West Virginia leading nowhere, to his credit than anyone else.
Perhaps that is why he keeps getting elected, he brings home the bacon, and, because he has so much seniority, he makes West Virginia important. I wonder what will happen when he retires or dies. West Virginia won't have any more jobs, and those roads won't be maintained anymore.
We need term limits.
2007-11-07 09:57:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by maryjellerson 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
The Post is just stating the truth. Even if impeachment proceedings were introduced it would be stupid to start them on the grounds of WMD's. We all know what Condaleeza testified, that they used the information available. Bush and Cheney would simply follow that excuse and would slide out of it. Somewhere down the line their might be a fallguy but it won't be from the executive branch. Thats why they are trying to go after them on grounds that they ordered the use of torture.
2007-11-07 09:59:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Enigma 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
. . . and a host of other reasons as well such as sanctioning torture and thus placing our troops in grave danger while accomplishing nothing of substance, since information gained thru torture is notoriously unreliable.
. . . for promoting the suspension of habeas corpus and other rights and freedoms Americans have always been guaranteed under the constitution (recall that part of a President's and Vice-President's oath of office is to uphold and defend the Constitution!)
. . . for wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on his crony corporations.
. . . and on and on and on.
. . . and Bush with him!
The reason they haven't been impeached is that we've never before had a President and Vice-President who are anti-American, anti-people and anti-God and we don't know how to deal with the situation!
2007-11-07 23:27:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by worldinspector 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
With all those Democrates,including both Clintons,on the record saying Saddam had WMD's
Please.impeach him,so America Hears the the WHOLE TRUTH and you libs have to shut up.
Then we get to impeach all those Dems for lying to the Vice President.
2007-11-07 10:05:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
If you remember I think Dick is like in limbo some place between the senate and the vice presidency neither senator or vice president . So a special law would first need to be written to describe the office with in which Dick sits and serves .
2007-11-07 09:40:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by TroubleMaker 5
·
4⤊
3⤋
It would be useless and expensive to even attempt impeachment at this point. That may have been an option four or more years ago, but it is far too late to gather evidence for such a thing now. The Bush Administration should be investigated, but not with an eye towards impeachment.
2007-11-07 09:41:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
5⤊
5⤋
I think it is a very good idea. First him then King George.
Supporting Documents for H Res 333 to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney
http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
2007-11-07 09:37:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
11⤊
3⤋
I think impeachment should be for much lesser things than this. It should be very easy to be impeached in theory. That would keep politicians from becoming drunk with power as they often do.
Due process and innocent until proven guilty are Liberties the people have. They are not enjoyed by the government. The government is under the people. Presidents and congresspeople need to have this drilled into their heads.
2007-11-07 09:37:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joey C 3
·
9⤊
4⤋
First of all you have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor to be impeached. Telling the American People that the reason we went to war over WMD's because of bad intelligence that the WORLD believed is neither. Second, then Bush would appoint a Vice President, as Nixon did with Ford when Agnew resigned. Nancy Pelosi would not be Vice President as one poster implied. The house or senate would not impeach Cheney on the grounds you suggest so it's a waste of time to even ponder such an idea, because it will not happen.
2007-11-07 09:42:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
4⤊
8⤋