If we as citizens of the US can impeach the president, why haven't we?  Would you sign a petition?
544778
www.votetoimpeach.org
886117
LETS IMPEACH BUSH!!\n\n\n\n(Even though he's done nothing to be impeached for)
1008928
It looks a little scary but the citizens of this country still have the power, just ask the former Gov of CA. protest and crying do not fix things but action will. After a large public outcry the Government is finally addressing the borders and if they think their job is at stake they will do more. We as citizens need to us the tools given to us by our constitution and if need be impeach elected officials. We rule not them they are just our voice.
632645
Bush sure must be desperate to save his job and reputation- but I'm afraid it's a bit too late for that! Calling all Americans- WE CAN STOP THIS WAR IF WE BAND TOGETHER AND PROTEST- JUST LIKE WITH VIETNAM!!! We can bring our troops home- we need to take to the streets and exercise our constitutional rights (freedom to assemble peacefully to protest, and freedom of speech!) F.U.C.K. Congress, and the president- we can (and should!) "override" them both!!! Let's bring our troops HOME where they belong, before any more innocent lives are lost and families torn apart!!! We are AMERICANS, REMEMBER??? Are we just gonna sit back and HOPE for the best while more people die- or are we ready to actually hold our heads up and have our voices be heard, Constitution in hand, hand in hand? WE CAN DO THIS, and, WE SHOULD- NOW!!!
341728
He can't, Bush is in his last of two terms now. George Bush will be out of office in 08, unless America impeaches him from office. I really wouldn't mind seeing that happen.
358999
No.  You can't impeach someone because you disagree with them or because they are unpopular.  The Constituion specifies impeachment only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Nixon's covering for the Watergate Break In probably counts, everything since (the Whitewater stuff is a stretch the evidence was a little thin) just lacks proper legal standing.  Congress needs to stop treating impeachment as a political toy and reserve it for what it is, a very serious proceding not to be undertaken lightly or in a partisan manner.
584564
When a president is elected, they hold the office for 4 years. Even if a majority of the population decides they don't like him, after all, he can't be removed unless he's impeached by the legislative branch of our government.\nHe has to have committed what they deem to be an impeachable offense.\nThen he still may retain the office if not convicted for the offense.\nSo, no, we the people, cannot get rid of Bush.\nAs far as the vote goes, Bush "won" with only a 2-3% majority, and a lot of people here dispute the accuracy of that. There are a lot of people who believe that the election was "rigged" in various ways to ensure that slight majority.
797903
It would restore some of our credibility with the rest of the world to impeach him.  Then they would know America truely repents for being an invading, murdering nation.
148863
Impeached for what?\n\nOh, and the answer is slim to none.  He has to do something wrong first.
167847
It's pretty clear that the president has done some illegal things, such as the warrantless wiretapping.  But only the congress can impeach the president, and as long as the majority of congress are Republicans, they are unlikely to do this.\n\nSo the only realistic way to get him impeached is to elect a majority of Democrats to congress in the fall 2006 election.
948135
The reason President Bush has not been impeached is that he has not committed an impeachable offense. The liberals’ constant rant that he lied is in fact a lie. He acted on the same information that congress did when they authorized the war in Iraq. He did not lie under oath as Clinton did. In fact, his biggest fault is that he has been brutally honest and the liberals don’t agree with what he has to say. That doesn’t make it a lie. I wish the liberals would come up with a meaningful rant, but I don’t think they’re capable of it.
192154
Impeachment is reserved for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Incompetence doesn't qualify - if it did, half of the government would be gone.
472957
because we believe we can't. \nasking "on what grounds" is admitting that we're completely satisfied with the way he (and his administration) are running our government. \n60% of a sampled public disapprove of how Bush "is handling his job as President," with 47% STRONGLY disapproving. \nok... so we all sense something is terribly wrong. now where is our power to do anything? do we have the right to question? to investigate? to subpoena the individuals who should be held accountable? uh... yes. that's the point of a democracy. and yes, we live in a republic... but the beauty of our constitution is that it allows us to question our government and demonstrate our unrest peacefully. \nmaybe impeachment isn't the answer, but at least it reflects the extent to which we, the people, are dissatisfied with the people who govern us. \n\np.s. MAY 1st. don't buy anything. national boycott day. make some noise anyway possible.
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.
335795
Well, first of all, to impeach a president, they must be guilty of a "high crime or other misdemeanor" as stated in the U.S. Constitution.\n\nFor:  Failure to secure America's borders (ultimately national security is his responsibility).  While I'm not sure this is a good idea, it's probably the closest thing to an impeachable offense Bush has actually done (from a legal perspective).\n\nAgainst (and understand, this is where people get their facts wrong.  Extremely wrong).\n\nThe CIA 'leak':  First of all, the president is the one who decides what can and cannot be declassified.  So, how can he leak if he's the one who makes a determination of what is legal to disclose & what is not?  Also, it wasn't done to get back at Plame; it was done to expose a violation of CIA's anti-nepotism rules (though it was handled badly, I think).\n\nThe 'warrantless wiretaps'.  Oh, is this ever misunderstood.  For a wiretap to require a warrant, it must originate AND terminate within the United States.  This is not the case with these intercepts, which involve overseas calls.  And we're not talking Grandma Edith calling over from England to her twelve-year-old granddaughter here in the States.  What happens is this:  Based on the information gathered from captured terrorists' computers, we input the information to our supercomputers at the NSA.  Those computers then spit out who those numbers belong to, and we see why these people were in contact with the captured terrorists.  Also, the senior Congressional leadership *was* briefed, as were the chief judges of the FISA courts -and guess what?  *All* of them agreed the president has inherent authority to conduct such programs, and that FISA does not apply here.\n\nStarting a war based on false premises:  Well, what were the premises?  Specifically, that Iraq had and was trying to develop WMDs, and was becoming a real threat.  Joe Wilson (who by the way has been totally discredited) notwithstanding, the president never actually said Iraq was an imminent threat.  It was a building threat, and one that could have turned out much worse if we waited, but it *was* a threat.\n\nTies to the bin Ladens?  What the hell?  There's like 54 of them just in Osama's generation, for crying out loud.  There aren't all that many Saudis, and in the oil business in general it's tough to avoid even making an acquaintance.\n\nFalsifying intelligence?  That's kind of tough to do when you have no actual input on what is collected, how it's collected, and the analysis of it.  Besides, intelligence isn't perfect; otherwise it would be predicting the future, which intelligence does not actually do.  And when the CIA, MI6 (British), DGSE (French), and SVR (Russian) *all* agree on something, you can generally assume they know what they're talking about, especially Britain & Russia, who are probably the two best in the world.  Besides, Team B hasn't existed for like 20 years, and AIPAC doesn't have any real influence here.\n\nFailure to properly assist in the Katrina disaster.  Well, given the fact that the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) restricts the feds' ability to act until they get a request for assistance from the state governor -which by the way happened AFTER the hurricane hit.  Sure, FEMA screwed up, but I'd say that was a failure at the local & state levels as well, not just federal.\n\nWar crimes?  Oh please...the only mass graves in Iraq are ones Saddam left (you know, the guy we caught in a spider hole).  I don't know *where* one would get these 'atrocity' stories from, but what seems to be the problem here is a fundamental opposition to anything any military does as 'war crimes'.  By the logic imparted whenever Bush is accused of 'war crimes', these same critics could be labeled 'traitors' or 'spies'.  Sheesh.\n\nFailure to get peace in the Middle E
988273
First off thank you very much for telling the truth on here.  Bush is a great president and there is no reason to impeach him.  Liberals are so unhappy that there is no decent liberal cadidate for president they have to rip apart ours in any way possible, sad huh.  It is worth it for the libs to lie about our country so it looks bad making our president look bad, pathetic.
203338
He lied under oath.  A president can only be impeached when he breaks the law, and this was (as far as we know) the only law Clinton broke while in office.