why are impeachment hearings not going on for president bush?
442890
1) Why are impeachment hearings not going on for President Bush?\nA) wire tapping\nB) lied to american people to go to war\nC) has been quoted after 9/11 saying, "find a way to get us into iraq"\n\nAnswers:\nA) The wire tapping was legal, and judged so by the courts.  Your efforts to encourage impeachment in a time of war is seditious and a serious condemnation of either the level of your education, or the commitment you have to our country.\nB) Lied? Consider the following: \nKerry, Former President Clinton (during and after his terms), Edwards, Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, the U.N., all of these said Saddam had WMDs (We know he did, we watched him use them on his own people).  President Clinton said in one speech that our experts watched Saddam smuggle weapons out back doors while the U.N. investigators were coming in the front door (during his terms).\n\nThe excuse that they all depended on President Bush's "lie" doesn't work.  President Clinton said Saddam had them before President Bush ever did, and Saddam himself was telling his allies that he had them!\n\nYour seditious rumor that "Bush lied" is seen for what it is by the U.S. citizens, and expect it to be an expensive attempt to undermine our country and our elected leaders.  Not that we will all vote Republican!  I'm a Democrat, but I have no interest in voting for name-calling, seditious, lying representatives who carelessly spread rumors.  I will vote for a Democrat with ethics, or if their isn't one, perhaps whoever has the most ethics in another party.\n\n3) All of us have had enough of people taking sound-bytes out of context.  Do some actual research instead of attacking our country and look at the rest of what the President said.  He did say it.  The U.N. was not getting the job done, Saddam wouldn't allow U.S.A. inspectors to come in.  President Bush wanted to "get into Iraq" to get the job done the U.N. failed to do for a decade.\n\nWe see what you are doing, both Democrats and Republicans.  We know that we (Democrats and Republicans) are not the enemy.  Oh, we disagree, but we stand behind the elected leaders of our country, majority democratic choice, legal dissent and disagreement, and most of all, each other.\n\nWe stand against name-calling of our leaders (Presidents Clinton or Bush, or any other).\n\nWe stand against spreading unfounded rumors and lies.\n\nWe stand against what you are doing.\n\nYou want to actually discuss wire tapping?  Do some research and then dissent, without trying to attack our leader.\n\nYou want to disagree with why we went to war?  Great.  Stop telling us a lie about the President.  He may have been wrong.  That is not a lie.\n\nYou want to quote him?  Quote him in context and at least quote something about the subject you are actually talking about rather than transposing a quote from one subject (getting U.S. inspectors into Iraq) to another (the decision to go to war).\n\nWhat you do sickens us, and our country, literally.\n\nYou may have Free Speech, but so do we.\n\nExpect us to answer you.
608247
Hells yeah. Dubya is widely considered to be the absolute worst president ever. The only reason that he has not been impeached is because he and his right-wing-nut-jobs control the senate. However, with democrats expected to sweep the elections this fall, there is plenty of hope in getting Dubya and his minions out of office and brought to justice. His list of impeachable crimes just keeps getting longer!
710854
Let's see...why should Bush be impeached? He lied in office...just like Clinton just about different things. He also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and had his rubber stamp Republican congress pass laws that basically ignore the law of the land. Spin it anyway you want...Bush should be impeached for his conduct as president...which has been anything but "Presidential".
253130
As long as the Republicans have 34 seats in the Senate, it won't happen. As the Democrats closed ranks when Clinton was impeached, so the Republicans will do if Bush is impeached. \n\nAlso, why would the Democrats want Bush gone? They stand to win in a landslide in the 06 midterm elections, and take back both the congress and white house in the 08 elections. Bush is the best thing to happen to the Democrats since Clinton.
933381
No, i think the fear of having Cheney as president would keep anyone from looking for a reason to impeach Bush......plus we have more pressing matters to attend to... weather or not bush screwed up is for historians ... right now we need to fix what is broken and move on.
534802
Bush needs to be impeached.  We can impeach a president for lying about extra martial affairs (and what man WON'T lie about that) but we don't impeach a president who authorizes the illegal wire taps of AMERICAN CITIZENS under the guise of finding terrorists?  He needs to go!  And don't even get me started on our borders!
845641
I think it is a combination of many factors.  I've heard more than one person express that since experiencing Bush's Presidency they realize how good we had it under Clinton.  Also, it's sort of a wake up call when you compare what Clinton was impeached for and what Bush should be impeached for.  I don't want to see impeachment, it is a waste of time for all involved, but I do think he richly deserves it nonetheless.  People do tend to look back with fondness at some Presidents and Americans can very forgiving, depending on the circumstance and the subject.  Bill Clinton has done some great things since his Presidency ended and he stays in the public limelight.  Seeing him standing next to Bush 41 while they work together affects those ratings too.  I think we long for those in power right now to do the same.  I don't think GW should be looking for forgiveness in the future though.  I believe whether it's 10 years or 50 years after his Presidency, he will still have one of the lowest approval ratings ever recorded.
713408
Don't insult chimps!  Alas, our totalitarian president will not be impeached, as the Democrats are too afraid of disrupting the country despite the fact that Bush broke the law, admitted it and is proud of it.  (If we need totalitarian tools like warrantless wiretaps to fight terrorists, then the terrorists have succeeded in destroying the United States of America.)\n\nHowever, it is important that any impeachment proceedings include the equally evil Dick Cheney.  Bush is bad enough!
650653
he is the worsdt president ever. He isn't even technically president, since he only got into office by cheating.\nHe is an evil fascist, and a wannabe dictator. He is running our country into the ground financially, and ruining americas standing as an ethical country by making us into a protofascist nation.\n---------------The article mirror\nProponents of the impeachment, (Specifically, several different legal efforts, and a very large internet community) of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]\n\nThis article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. (This article is simply and only a report of those rationales to impeach generated by those who favor impeachment, and, in order to conform to Wikipedias NPOV standards, a rebutal by those who are opposed to impeachment.)For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]\n\n[edit]\n\nSuggested reasons to impeach\nSeveral individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.\n\n[edit]\n\nNSA warrantless surveillance controversy\nMain article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy \nIn the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[5] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[6] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)\n\nIn January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[7] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[8] Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [9]\n\nSome commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its inter
679425
I don't know why he hasn't been impeached yet, except for the total lameness of the Democrats. Imagine what the Republicans would have done to Clinton if he had done the things Bush has:\n1. Totally wrong about WMDs (I'm being charitable here, I actually think he lied through his teeth).\n2. Sanctioned torture.\n3. Sanctioned kidnapping of foreign citizens.\n4. Established secret prisons outside the US so he could torture the kidnapped foreign nationals.\n5. Established public prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to hold people without trial, apparently forever.\n6. Used the NSA to spy on American citizens, contrary to law and the Constitution he swore to uphold.\n7. Lie about EVERY SINGLE ONE of the points above.\n\nHis claim: "I talk to God." I am sure he's talking to SOMEONE, but I don't think God told him to do all that.
492340
First of all "everyone" doesn't say it.\n\nSecondly, most of those who do want Bush impeached attended a government sanctioned child abuse center (public school) and don't have a clue about what it takes to be impeached.
277125
The current Congress will not impeach Bush, however, with the midterm elections this fall, we may have a whole new power structure in Washington come 2007.  The Republicans will probably lose their majority in the House and Senate this year and then the Democrats will have the ability to start the long impeachment process.\n\nIt’s very probable that the President did break the law in respect to this recent wiretapping fiasco, maybe so egregiously that he will be removed from office, but this raises another problem.\n\nDick Cheney.\n\nDoes anyone out there think the Democrats want to put Dick Cheney into the White House where he could run as an incumbent in 2008 if he decides he does enjoy being President after all?  On a number of occasions, the V.P. has said that he doesn’t want to be the Commander in Chief, but do the Democrats really want to risk that?\n\n\nOn top of that, the country is developing a dangerous trend of impeaching or recalling our elected officials when we do not like them.  One must look at Italy, California and much of South and Central America to realize that this is not a path that the Federal government should walk.\n\nNo one has a crystal ball here, but the end result of an impeachment is probably going to be worse than sticking out a few more years with our current President.
470862
We can't. This administration is really makin it hard. Sorry there is no answer. It would be alot easier if we Impeached BUSH though!
952942
Too late kids. It amazes me how so many people are clueless to how impeachment works. There's not enough time to impeach Bush plus he hasn't done anything you can impeach him for.\n\nDon't give me some whiney hack rhetoric about "starting an illegal war". The Gulf War that started in 1991 legally speaking never ended. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement UNSCR 657 and in short order violated it. Under cease fire terms the nations are still at war they just aren't fighting. Saddam also violated UN Charter 51 by authorizing assassination attempts on US diplomats and on former President Bush. You'd have a hard time making a case based on that because by right the US could have invaded Iraq at anytime. Saddam has only himself to blame.\n\nCongress gave Bush approval for war even if the evidence had been tainted Bush could just invoke UN Charters and security council resolutions plus the fact we were already at war with Iraq. Bush is not as stupid as you would like him to be the only thing they can get him for would be falsefying a document submitted to Congress.\n\nWiretapping?? So? There were already wiretap laws in effect approved in the 70's the new laws approved by congress just shortened the time frame and remember these were not domestic calls they were international. A call from Syria to the US is not a domestic call. \n\nIt took Kenneth Starr 5 years to impeach Clinton for perjury...let me repeat that. Clinton was NOT impeached for having oral sex he was impeached for perjury and even though he was impeached he was not evicted. \n\nThe numbers aren't there. You need 2/3rd majority to impeach Bush and remove him from office and the numbers just aren't there. The democrats have a tiny majority and not all of them are willing to impeach.\n\nBush will not be impeached so put it out of your mind hippies have been calling for it since he won back in 2000 and 6 years later he's still here until 2008 when his term ends and John McCain becomes the next president.
29129
The Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton for what he did...  What Bush has done ranks much higher on the reasons for impeachment
6979
Well we kinda do every November.  It's called an election and that's how we decided to structure our electoral process.  There are mechanisms to impeach members of the administration but you'd need to do it in the order of succession.  At this point, it would take too long to get this administration out.  Remember how long the Clinton impeachment took?\n\nPeople here seem to forget that there were actual criminal proceedings against the Clintons.  Bush really hasnt done anything that's illegal.  You might not like his foreign policy, but that dislike probably doesn't extend too far beyond Iraq since that's ALL that's covered by the mainstream media.\n\nHow about what the Bush administration did for the Pakistan refugees after the earthquake?  The approval ratings of Americans skyrocketed after that.
488173
This is a dictatorship. Presidency R, House R, Senate R, Supreme Court R, = Dictator. Nobody to oppose him or their party right now. No vote from the people. The mans ratings are 30%, and in Congress it's only 35% that are really supporting president Bush. The Republicans are bailing daily on his Presidency. I look for indictments coming after the November elections. Impeachment could be imminent.