Should Bush be Impeached??

Byrnzie

The Bush Administration, along with Tony Blair and a couple of Blair's sidekicks, lied to their populations and then defied the U.N security council and invaded Iraq illegally. It is estimated that over half a million Iraqis have since been killed and the country has been devasted.

They also bombed Afghanistan and killed countless thousands, in order to capture and arrest one man. Osama Bin Laden is still at large.

Question 1. Should Bush be impeached.

Question 2. Should Bush et al, and Blair, be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

no
no

redrock

Why bother to 1)
and difficult to 2)

BUT.... lots of questions asked and answers sought, scrutiny and transparency, heads rolling are in order. With both the House and the Senate under Dem control, hopefully this will happen.

Byrnzie

redrock wrote:

Why bother to 1)
and difficult to 2)

1. So that justice can be done? And to give a warning to other heads of state who think about defying international law and who are responsble for the murder of half a million civilians of a sovereign nation. This isn't some petit tit-fot-tat situation. We are talking about the biggest crime of the 21st century to date.

2. Difficult isn't a satisfactory answer. Would you have been satisfied if the Nazis had been cleared at Nuremberg due to it being 'difficult'?

evenkat

#1 - I think yes. The dems now have the power to subpoena Bush and Cheney. They will be able to read emails and everything. I'm actually not sure if the dems will impeached Bush because of our troops but we'll see. We'll have to see what comes out of the hearings and investigations.

#2 - I don't know what will happen to Blair but I really doubt that will happen to Bush. We usually protect our own even someone like Bush. I'm not saying that is acceptable and the right thing to do but I'm just stating what I think is fact. This is where our arrogance will come into play. It must be totally frustrating to be a non-American in situations like this. However, Bush probably has committed crimes against humanity and should be tried. I think we'll have to see what happens with question #1.

know1

I view it as very juvenile to even talk of impeachment.

EvilToasterElf

If the Democrats had the same majority after the mid-term election as the republicans had during the Clinton impeachment, the gears would already be turning. There's no way in hell they'd get enough votes to impeach and they know it, it would be politically unwise. The majority they have now is hardly a mandate to go on a crusade, not to mention most of the seats were still highly contested, they barely squeeked out their majority, how will they get 2/3 on an impeachment vote?

Abuskedti

Launch a few investigations and go from there.

Odds are he'll resign.

jeffer96

Byrnzie wrote:

The Bush Administration, along with Tony Blair and a couple of Blair's sidekicks, lied to their populations and then defied the U.N security council and invaded Iraq illegally. It is estimated that over half a million Iraqis have since been killed and the country has been devasted.

They also bombed Afghanistan and killed countless thousands, in order to capture and arrest one man. Osama Bin Laden is still at large.

Question 1. Should Bush be impeached.

Question 2. Should Bush et al, and Blair, be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity?

1. No chance Bush is impeached. Ever since the end of Gulf War 1, intelligence showed Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Obviously, intelligence was wrong. Remember, a bi-partisan Congress backed the invasion of Iraq, including traitor extrordinaire John "I'm a Robot" Kerry. An impeachment attempt would further divide the US. In my opinion, this would cause the average citizen to see the Democrats as petty, hypocritical, and bury them for any chance at the 2008 elections.

2. No chance Bush, Blair, or anyone else involved is tried for crimes against humanity. The US, UK, or anyone else for that matter cannot be held accountable for Iraqis killing Iraqis (i.e. suicide bomings). The citizens killed during air strikes are considered collateral damage.

Here's the kicker for some of you. The US will never leave Iraq. There will always be a military presence in the country. Every country we have ever been in conflict with has at least one US military base. Japan, Korea, Germany - all have US military presence.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

I view it as very juvenile to even talk of impeachment.

Really? You often encounter children discussing the impeachment of a head of state for crimes against humanity? Interesting. You must live in a more highly evolved place than one I've ever visited - or even heard about.

Please elaborate, oh solemn, and mysterious one...

Byrnzie

jeffer96 wrote:

1. No chance Bush is impeached. Ever since the end of Gulf War 1, intelligence showed Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Obviously, intelligence was wrong.

2. The US, UK, or anyone else for that matter cannot be held accountable for Iraqis killing Iraqis (i.e. suicide bomings). The citizens killed during air strikes are considered collateral damage.

1. Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Yeah, so is Papua New Guinea, and tierra del fuego.
The intelligence was doctored and manipulated. This has already been proven, although two non-independent inquirys in the U.K - the Hutton report and the Butler inquiry were both complete white-washes.

2. Says who?

miller8966

a) if you try an impeachment expect to not be re-elected in 08..the country doesnt want to be torn apart.

b) instead of impeachment maybe the dems can actualy try to do something..ya know for the people.

mookie blaylock 10

Byrnzie wrote:

Really? You often encounter children discussing the impeachment of a head of state for crimes against humanity? Interesting. You must live in a more highly evolved place than one I've ever visited, or heard even about.

Please elaborate, oh solemn, and mysterious one...

indeed, he is a wise old one with sage words and wisdom to share..."no one" knows better...;)

i would say a public hanging would be good send off for the brush cuttin' country boy...:D

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

a) if you try an impeachment expect to not be re-elected in 08..the country doesnt want to be torn apart.

I don't understand how impeaching Bush would tear the country apart. Nixon's impeachment didn't tear the country apart, did it?

Byrnzie

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

i would say a public hanging would be good send off for the brush cuttin' country boy...:D

Talkin' of redneck money-Nazis, I learn't a new term today: Goat-Roper.

'The term "goat roper" is sometimes used as a term of derision for unsophisticated rural people in the Southwestern United States, Arkansas Mississippi and Louisiana. It alludes to the belief that a person who raises or "ropes" goats is inferior to a cowboy or cattle rancher. This term may have roots in the range wars between ranchers and sheep or goat ranchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

Outstanding!

callen

but there is need to let the American people know what really went on...how they were lied to...and the billions wasted by lining Halliburtons pockets. We as a country need to learn from this..as we forgot what happened with Hitler in WWII......and the right need to realize they were suckered.

polaris

impeachment at the very least however, the democrats were complicit in the grand scheme of things and they are not likely to do anything of the sort ...

Byrnzie

polaris wrote:

impeachment at the very least however, the democrats were complicit in the grand scheme of things and they are not likely to do anything of the sort ...

That's a fair point.

JaneNY

No - he has 2 years of presidency left so what's the point. I think a worse punishment will be having to work with and compromise with (and he will HAVE to if he wants to accomplish anything in these 2 years) the very people he has maligned and excluded for the last 6 years. He's done a lot wrong, but I don't think he should be impeached. I didn't think Clinton should have been either (his misdeeds were considerably lesser in stature), but the democrats doing it might be viewed as tit for tat.

norm

Byrnzie wrote:

I don't understand how impeaching Bush would tear the country apart. Nixon's impeachment didn't tear the country apart, did it?

Old tricky Dick resigned before he could be impeached

YieldInHiding

cutback wrote:

Old tricky Dick resigned before he could be impeached

Why do I have the feeling we'll say this about another Dick?