When George bush lied to America about Bin Laden why didn't America Impeach him then?
364161
how about instead of worrying about immigration and making immigrants criminals, we MAKE ALL REPUBLICANS CRIMINALS AND DEPORT THEM? !
669946
In his latest audiotape which was released on January 19th, Osama ben Laden had declared: "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book _Rogue State', which states in its introduction ... " He then goes on to quote the opening of a paragraph (which appears actually in the Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to Arabic), which in full reads:\n "If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America’s global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It’s equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.\n"That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated."\nThe stunning victory of the Islamic Resistance Movement Party Hamas in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration's policies toward the the Islamic World. Hamas' stunning victory underlines the contradictions, hypocrisies and double-standard in Bush's Mideast policies.\nDemocracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has opened our minds to the fact that only militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their honest credentials is only the way forward.
453358
Of course Bush is hiding Osama. Do some research. The Bush and Binladen family have been in business (oil no doubt) for decades. Before Bush, jr took office, Wall Street asked the Bush family to cut all ties with the Binladens. This relationship is documented. Bush needs Osama to do his dirty work to enable him to thrust his will upon the world. That`s why you see him now talking as though he isn`t concerned with him right now. Osama`s job, for the most part, is done. "you play the scapegoat, i`ll play the savior. I`ll fuck up the world, blame you, until we can run it together."
403157
Because not everyone in the country beleives what is spoon fed to them by the media...we aren't all conspiracy theorists and don't publicly hang people without a trial.  If there was 1 shred of evidence to any of the conspiracy theories or "Bush lied" montra, the man would not be in office, he would be in jail.  Truth matters to many Americans, but that number is dwindling.
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.
716561
Lying under oath is why Clinton got impeached.  Apparently, lying about getting head is more treasonous and dangerous to the United States than lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
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!
1160855
I dont understand how any intelligent person  like yourself can beliieve  that Bin Laden and his band of Retards didnt plan and execute  the attacks on 9-11.   He has admitted it many times in his tapes.   American people for the most part are easy going  until savages  try to kill us. THen we will teach you what savage is  :D
358516
First, to answer your question, yes!!!!!!!\n\nNow for the poster that said Clinton was impeached.  He was not.  It was never even put on the Senate floor, it was only a show of force in the Congress.\n\nAs for Bush, he can lie, steal, cheat and do whatever he wants.  The republicans are too scared of him to even censure him.  But just wait until the next Democrat takes office.  They will be investigated if they use toilet tissue instead of a Kleenex to blow their nose.  Lets see, what kind of charge could that be?  Improper usage of government property?  God help this country!!
255892
We are all sorry, but G.W. Bush has not lost his authority.\n\nHe is celebrating the fact that he WAS NOT elected President either time, and he still hasn't got impeached yet.\n \nHe will not his authority until Kenneth Starr or whoever has his job now gets him impeached,\nthere’s still time.\n\nIf they held him to the same standard as past Presidents,\nthey would have done it already.\n\nI mean Clinton only had sex.\n\nBush has committed many impeachable acts.\nSuch as starting a war without the UN.
429101
Bush lied to the American public by saying Hussein was a threat to humanity. He decieved congress by showing false facts. He lied to the world by saying Iraq had WMD, which they dont. \n\nBush wanted to win popularity in America and make a new ally in the Middle East. he failed in both areas.
58612
It was an attempted impeachment by The House of Reps.  Clinton was NOT impeached from his position as President of the United States.\n\nMy, my JETDOC, must be you haven't met up with Monica ;)  Maybe you should.  Your tongue...no, your type is sarcastic and undeserved, maybe such a release would loosen your stiffness some ;).  Must be a BUSH fan =)).  My thought is lying about a little oral sodomy does not compare to what BUSH has done to this country with his continued lies.  Such a comparison of lies..I still know who I'd choose...nothing like the smell of a sweet cigar!\n\njl_jack09, my apology for responding to JETDOC in your space...and I stand corrected by the happy man for my error in understanding.\n\nxo
107135
because our president is a liar
412340
bush should not be impeached
609361
Well, there are a few variables that would need to come into play if that were to happen.\nFirst of all, YES, HE DID LIE UNDER OATH:  the oath he took when "sworn in" as president.. so, I don't want any more comparisons to "Clinton lied, bush didn't".. bacause, again bush has lied to all of us!\nHowever, in order for this (UGH) president to be impeached, we will have to have a democratic (or liberal) congress.  If this does finally take place in November, the boy may be impeached, after all!\nMe; I'm all for it!  \nAnd, by the way:  Nixon was impeached during Viet Nam.. so, yes;  we can impeach him even though we are at war!  Of course, the boy did say the war was over about 3 years ago.. hmmm... rmeember the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco?
428155
Personaly I beleive Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he could read. His advisers tried to tell him that there was an important Alqaida threat. But he didn't listen and he didn't read his important breifings.\n\nWhat a moron, but what's worse is all the morons that voted him back into office after all the stuff he didn't do right. He shoulda been impeached the first term.
955653
Yes I do because at the battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December of 2001, we had Osama Bin Laden cornered, and rather than using Special Forces troops to either nab him or just kill him, our military paid Afghan War Lords to go after him, and god knows where he went or what happened. Point being, he got away. Ever since then, I think America has had a black eye because the rhetoric of our president after 9/11 was we're going to get him dead or alive, and it never amounted to what he promised.