Why wasn't Pres. Bush impeached for lying to the American people about WMS? Do you think he is a honest guy??
109953
yes, he should be impeached.  The reason why he hasn't been is due to the fact that he is a powerful businessman(corporate owner) and also that Republicans do a better job supporting each other and sticking together.  But why would Bush waste and year a half's time preaching to the public about taking Saddam down when 75% of 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and Bin Laden is a Saudi?  After the 9/11 attacks happened, 26 members of the Bin-Laden family were allowed to get on a flight out of the country.  It's just like this:  Bush and his father are very close business partners with the Saudie.  They have given the Bush family billions of dollars towards their business efforts(oil).   Taking acttion against an allied nation, regardless of the reason would have ruined our reputation in the world, and since 7% of economy is owned by Saudis, it would have been a devastating blow to the economy.  So Iraq was the next best thing.
1082038
I personally think we should have not allowed it to go on this far. He and his henchmen should have been impeached and thrown out of office when we all found out it was not the truth that we went to war to get the bad weapons out of Iraq. This was a blatant lie to the american people and should have been dealt with right then. But we have a wishy washy congress that is afraid to do the right thing for the American people and they should all be voted out in the coming elections
275297
For those who still say Bushy is not lying:\n\nIn the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies.\n\nBush Lies In State Of The Union Speech\n\nBush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."\n\nIn what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n29 Bush Lies About Iraqi WMD\n\nbush lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... not lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... lies... \nBush Lied About Lots Of Things\n\nSure Did. Here's Even More\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nToday's Bush Lie\n"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"\n\n"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.\n\n"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"\n\n"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's [plagiarized and "sexed up"] work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n10 Minute Rice: Three Lies And No Apology\n\nCondi Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, appeared on 60 Minutes Sunday evening, but, unlike Bush anti-terrorism adviser Dick Clarke at the 9/11 Probe, she did not swear on the Bible that what she would say would be the truth. While Clarke on 60 M
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!
252568
hate to give you the bad news but Clinton was never impeached....he faced an impeachment and he did lie but you know what you are right he did a lot more for this country than our current president has....I'd imagine he is still in office because the political heads in office wanted a pawn or a puppet....the man is a moron and it is obvious when he speaks.....one of the favorite things I heard that short little bastard say is he doesn't have to answer to anyone or explain himself to anyone.....he must have forgotten who he was working for for a moment.....but thankfully he will be gone in two more years
914811
Why haven't we impeached the man yet?  I thought that's what we did to lying presidents...
668692
Instead of impeaching them, I'd get more satisfaction at throwing peaches at them. But, I don't see how we can try to impeach Clinton because he lied about his personal life (something the press should've never gotten into), but impeachment is impossible for a man who is ruining the country. What a place!
621311
See, that's what I'm saying.  Clinton was nearly impeached for getting head, and Bush has done so so so much worse.  I wish he could get impeached.  We should find out how to get it started!
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
411713
Following your logic there would seem to be at least three possibilities:\n\n1) America is not, in fact, such a great place\n2) America does not have "such a lying President"\n3) America can be a great place, even if it has a lying President.\n\nI think most Americans would agree with #3, though we might differ on who would be examples of a "lying President".   I, for instance, believe America was great even when Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were President, though I trust the honesty of neither.\n\nAnd then there's the problem of lying Americans (not all, of course), or perhaps those who just fool themselves or presume to speak for everyong else... such as someone telling you that "most of the people here don't endorse him", which is based on. . .?   (certainly not the polls), or those who declare that 'he cheated to get into office' when they have not a SHRED of evidence, only nasty accusations.   Or someone who arrogantly proclaims "I am better than the ones [millions upon millions!] who voted for him. . .   or our cut-and-paster who gave you a litany of Bush's supposed faults which is littered with outdated numbers, misinformation and innuendo.  (Sadly, it takes a lot of space to correct one-sentence errors.  But I've followed the news, read original speeches, reports, etc., enough to know that many of these claims are dubious or distorted.)\n\nSo, just who is it that has an issue with TRUTH ?     I don't think it's the current President.  Nor would I dare say it's the millions who voted for someone else.  Most of them, I am sure, did what they thought was right.  I also believe most of them, though they may disagree with Bush in small ways or large, do NOT simply dismiss him as a liar.   (Don't be fooled by those who make the most noise!  And I'm not even saying THEY are all liars.  I believe some are simply and sincerely mistaken.  I would hope they would show the rest of us, with whom they disagree, similar respect and not assume base motives and stupidity.)
448643
well i sure dont.his political ettiquette is horrible,as well as his controlling attitude of himself as world leader.\n  his choices are weird and forcing america to stand alone more andm more.\nwe have lost many friends and still loosing more due to his decisions,and it hasnt mattered what the world thought on any thing.\n  im not sure where or what the problem is,but its a big one\ni have never supported g.w.bush and never will.\nthe iraqi war was uncalled for, but now there we must fight it over the mess it drew but it does allow a front for the terriost war in anotehr country now,but there are alot of men dying for errors and false intel.and americans are not thought of well much of any wehre these days because of it,and we the people didnt do it. it was done outside of the un and world backing for false reason,and more has just piled upon them on many fronts in our government.\n  he should be impeached but the rep control will not allow it.\nso what are we to do start another revolution to get our government straight, we would be held as terrorists in guantanomo????????????????
1153597
Bush should be impeached for the following reasons:\n\n1.) Lying about the reason for the war prior to invading Iraq:  \nBush and his team deliberately misled Congress and the American public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda and responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the evidence shows that Iraq was not involved. Bush said in his State of the Union Address that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to build nuclear weapons. But he had already been told by the CIA that the evidence was forged. Former Ambassador Joe Wilson challenged Bush about the falsity of these State of the Union claims and, in retaliation, senior white house officials outted his CIA wife Valerie Plame.  Bush claimed to have hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the UN investigators could not verify any of these claims and searches of Iraq revealed no such weapons.  Furthermore, the recent "discovery" of more than a decade old chemical weapons, despite the rhetoric, does not signify that weapons of mass destruction have been found.  Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq possessed deadly weapons of mass destruction that were a grave threat to the security of our nation.  The weapons that were found recently were unuseable and no longer effective due to the age of the material.  Chemical experts have stated that they were no more dangerous than a typical household cleaning substance.  Bush knows that he cannot use this insignificant find to justify his war, other wise he would be doing so...\n\n2.)The illegal wiretapping of American Citizens: \n"George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. Bush claims he has authority to wiretap anyone he wishes but legal scholars, including some Republican lawmakers, disagree."\n\n3.)  Torture of Prisoners:  \n"Bush and his team have set up a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention."  Alberto Gonzales, our Attorney General, is famous for referring to the Geneva Convention as being "quaint and obsolete."  Just recently, the bodies of 2 American soldiers were found, who had been brutally tortured before eventually being killed.  Policies supporting torture are a direct threat to the safety of our troops in the field and need to be stopped!!  Come on all you troop supporting "Patriots!"\n\n4.)  Violation of International Law:\n"According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". They are not something that can be ignored when they are inconvenient. Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses."\n\nOf course, despite all of this, you will not see a movement towards impeachment in Congress due to the simple fact that the majority party is none other than the Republicans.  They will not impeach Bush because it will reflect poorly on themselves and their party.  Yes, it is disgusting that rather than caring for the security and dignity of our nation and its people, they are worried for their own careers and reputation...but, sadly, its
496040
I think you'd call him (Bush!) a "terrorist"!!! I think he should be impeached. This whole ambiguous war was wrong from the start.  How do you stop people from hating you by waging war against them?  What do you get when you fight fire with fire, except MORE FIRE? \nI think we should SEND BUSH TO IRAQ- and he should stay there himself until he thinks the war "should end".  (Bet it would be over by tomorrow!)\n\n                                    -Tera\n                                    (time4u420@yahoo)
544233
I'm glad you narrowed your question a little bit.  Of course Bush Lies about practically everything.  Iraq.  Social Security.  His tax cuts.  His National Guard Service.  For the love of GOD the man cannot speak the truth about anything.
572218
I totally agree with you but he would have to lie under oath to be impeached for his fish story. Here's a bigger reason: He swore to defend, protect and uphold the constitution but he is violating our constitutional right to privacy by tapping our phones. That's only the tip of the ice berg. This administration is the worst in American history.
51940
First, I think Osama has been dead for a long time.  (Notice that right before the 2004 elections, we "heard" from Osama.  Now when the illegal wiretaps come to light, Osama again.  He is the CIA's new Boogeyman.)  Now ask yourself this question: if it was Clinton lying about WMD, torturing his enemies in secret prisons, spying without warrants, would he have been impeached?
644138
He should be impeached for letting the United States  suffer an invasion from a foreign country. Our southern border is flooded with illegal immigrants. Tho it is a passive invasion, the goal is still the same. To take over the USA. And they will do it, thanks to George Bush.  Heck, maybe George W will commit suicide when he realizes what he has done.