Question:
Should President Bush be impeached yes/no?
angelikabertrand64
2006-12-11 14:07:43 UTC
The congress is debatting whether or not they are going to impeach President Bush for the handling of the Iraq war and other consequences of his years in office. What do you think, should they or shouldn't they?
21 answers:
anonymous
2006-12-11 14:11:03 UTC
Yes, they should.
lotstodo
2006-12-11 22:52:53 UTC
For what? First, the only people tailking about his impeachment in Congress is a disgruntled outgoing congresswomen. The Iraq war is a legal war approved by Congress. Us along with other countries used the best information we had in going to war. Saddam violated countless treaties that he himself agreed to after the first Iraq war. If he would have allowed us in to inspect his facilities, per these treaties and UN resolutions, the dictator would still be in power.



Now instead of terriosts atacking American civilians here they are able to attack American troops in Irag and Afgahnistan. As bad as it is to see an American soldier die I would rather that than an innocent person on their way to work. We are at war with Islamic extremists and I would rather fight that war in the Middle East than on American soil.



As far as other laws he broke I am not sure what you speak of.



Perhaps it is his so called "illeagel" wire tapping program. The Bill passed by Congress including a vast majority of Democrats. This bill expires every three years and must be renewed by Congress. Even after this story "broke" and countless Democrats came out oposing the Bill, when it came time to renew a vast majority of Congress including most Democrats voted to renew the Bill. So are they for it or against it? Looks like John Kerry politics hard at work.



Or perhaps you speak of President Bush suspending Habeas Corpus. Something that every President has done during a time of war to protect American citizens from its enemies. Most notably Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.



Or perhaps it is that you simply disagree with his policies, and instead of voting him out of office, which could not be done, you get desperate and speak of impeachment.



Many liberals bring up the subject of a Bush impeachment, but give no legimate reason to do so. Democrats have no original ideas. The Democratic agenda has nothing on it except to be against everything Bush does. What will happen when Bush is out of office? What will your policies be then?
Cinner
2006-12-11 22:48:21 UTC
No he should not impeached. The bill was authored by Cynthia McKinney, the biggest fruitcake in Congress, who is on her way out after failing to win re-election. This is the woman who physically attacked the Capitol Hill police. The President has broken no laws, you can't impeach someone just for disagreeing with him/her. It's just a big waste of time and tax payers dollars.
dakota29575
2006-12-11 22:20:28 UTC
All the Bush haters can claim he broke laws all they want to, but the fact is he didn't break any laws.

Many people actually agree with the Presidents policies. I guess in the Bush haters eyes that makes them all criminals. The President didn't lie to the American people or Congress. The Patriot act was made into a law, so it did not break any laws. Just not liking The Presidents policies does not make them criminal. Thank God Pelosi recognizes this.
SeahawkFan37
2006-12-12 01:54:45 UTC
No. The president has broken no laws, unlike President Clinton. Also, you have to understand that President Bush gave Saddam two days to get out of Iraq. That was plenty of time for Saddam to smuggle the WMD's out of Iraq and into another country.
anonymous
2006-12-11 23:57:18 UTC
And the right-wingers jumped to the defense of "W" on this one didn't they? Yes, Bush should be impeached for his actions in office. He lied plain and simple. That fact alone should be enough to get the ball rolling.You can debate the technical aspects all you want but I was brought up to believe a lie was a lie...no if, ands, or buts. All I can say is "when Clinton lied, nobody died".
MikeGolf
2006-12-11 22:42:03 UTC
Before you ask whether the president should be impeached you should be able to quote the text of the law that was broken.



If you cannot quote the text of the law that was violated then you have just become a danger to our Constitution and our freedoms.
dancingwillies
2006-12-11 22:18:34 UTC
No, he is our president, despite what people think of him, it is the people who put them there. The people who hate Bush or are angry by the voters decisions, probably didn't vote in the first place and should stop complaining because they have no right to. Also, I think people forget, it was Congress who put us in the Iraqi War, not Bush.

Before anyone accuses me or starts getting heated, I'm a registered Democrat...and yes...I did vote last election. ^_^
Mordent
2006-12-11 22:13:20 UTC
Yes. He should also be sent to the Hague for trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, by starting an illegal war, bombing a civilian population, and murdering (as it's not war) - or at least being responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Whether it was approved by congress (after congress was lied to) is irrelevant, because it's still illegal under international law. The Bosnian genocide was legal under yugoslavian law, yet that doesn't stop Milosevic being a war criminal. However - fat chance of him EVER facing up to his crimes.
anonymous
2006-12-11 22:33:58 UTC
Absolutely not. Do you really want Cheney as President?
?
2006-12-11 22:10:45 UTC
N O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
aligrespeq
2006-12-11 22:10:23 UTC
yes

and its only one women doing it. It wont be approved shes just taking one last shot b4 her term expires. this is also the same lady that hit one of the security men trying to get in the congress building



Funny how all the repulsivcans are giving thumbs down to everyone except the one thats pro bush. Dont give a thumbs down dick wads post why and answer it
boonietech
2006-12-11 22:12:32 UTC
No. But the democrats who have sided with our enemy should be tried for TREASON.
truth seeker
2006-12-11 23:03:25 UTC
Yes



LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." � President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.



FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."



LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." � President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.



FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."



LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." � Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."



FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.



LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." � CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.



FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.



LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." � President Bush, Oct. 7.



FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.



LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." � President Bush, Oct. 7.



FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?



LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." � President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.



FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.



LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." � Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.



FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks � if they existed � were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.



LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." � Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.



FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.



LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." � President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.



FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts � including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week � have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
anonymous
2006-12-11 22:12:16 UTC
Yes, he has commited crimes against the American people, crimes against the Iraqi people and crimes against humanity, he should be impeached, and then arrested and put on trial for his other crimes.
Dennis_Yates
2006-12-11 22:10:29 UTC
Yes, they should. Bush greatly exceeded his powers and broke the law.



However, no, they won't. Nancy Pelosi already said she won't get into that.
naturalselection
2006-12-12 09:49:12 UTC
YES!!!
Brite Tiger
2006-12-11 22:15:34 UTC
OMG, YES, no one in U.S. history is more deserving!!
gaiagurl
2006-12-11 22:14:55 UTC
Yes - or shot
anonymous
2006-12-11 22:21:55 UTC
YES ! YES ! YES !
anonymous
2006-12-12 01:09:15 UTC
NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...