Is President Bush likely to be impeached before he leaves office? Why or why not?
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?
950143
Bush never worked with his own party so I don't think his brain is going to adjust. He will maintain his "stay the course" attitude and veto everything the Dem's try. I think he should be impeached but the next to go will be Denis Hastert when the page porn investigation is completed.
597624
Actually, you may not have to wait, with about 1/2 of the Republicans against George W. Bush now,     1ST Stage: the House of representatives can vote to impeach, "articles of impeachment", 2ND Stage: the Senate actually tries the case, with a two-thirds vote required for conviction.\nThe Vice President can be impeached as well. \nBill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
819946
yes the president should be impeached.the lies he has told are far more damaging to this country and this country's credibility throughout the world than the lie Clinton told about an affair.goes to show you what too much power in the houses for the republicans will do.i believe since this administration has failed our country that they blew their chance and the democrats should be voted into power.but i think if we can survive the rest of this president's term,we should impeach when his term is up.just like they did to Clinton.i think this would be the best way because :do we really want Dick Cheney running this country?in my opinion attacking someones country under false pretenses no matter how bad the leader of that country is is a far more greater crime to warrant impeachment than a man not telling the truth about an affair with a woman.
68427
I would like you to post references to the evidence you have that would warrant impeachment. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm also not a Bush basher. I will judge him on the fact, not speculations. Some people say he lied, others say he had incorrect information. Some people say his domestic spying program is illegal, others say it was all done within the law. I'm waiting for the facts to come out before I make up my mind.
1140866
I estimate it to happen after the Nov. elections and YES Cheney will be impeached as well.  They will receive life in prison for their crimes against humanity.
738677
No, its unlikely to happen, unfortunately.  It was mostly a politcal tactic to get conservatives out and voting.  There was a move a while ago, but Pelosi recently said that the Democratic House would try to reach across party lines.  Given that statement, and the fact that a move to impeachment would probably hurt the democrats politically, its unlikely, I think.\n\nBooger: you do realize that the vice president is impeachable?  A move to impeach Bush would likely impeach Cheney as well since he has had such an active role in Bush's policy.  Even if Cheney did become President, liberals should look at that as a good thing.  Cheney is not nearly so charismatic as Bush, and would be completely unable to pass a conservative agenda.  Bush's strength is in his role as cheerleader.  Cheney's strength is in his role behind the scenes.  Impeaching only Bush and making Cheney president would actually be desriable from a liberal perspective, I think.
938996
Yes. But I doubt anything gets done until after his term is complete impeachment isn't going to help much and we need a good long investigation into possible war crimes and human rights violations.
991739
I think you mean "impeach". It means to remove from office.\n\nA lot of people don't like Bush, and want to have him removed from office.
308736
I certianly hope so.\n\nThe current President of the United States has shown little regard for out 3 tiered system of government and has done quite a few things that are impeachable.\n\nPresident Bush (acording to Libby), authorized the leak of classified information (in effect de-classifying parts of it), which resulted in the outing of a CIA operative as well as her contacts and assets.  He did this to defend the assertion that Iraq was attempting to aquire WMD's.  We now know that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and in retrospect we can see that the President sold out a CIA agent for a lie.\n\nAs Iraq disintegrates beneath us, as Afganistan fades into obscurity, as Osama Bin Laden roams free and we talk about dropping nuclear weapons on Iran, we need to step back and really look at this spoiled child that somehow got into the White House.\n\nCan Bush be impeached?  Oh, yes.  He sure can.\n\nShould Bush be impeached?  Absolutely.  \n\nWill he be impeached?  That is up in the air.  Let's see how the elections go.
476774
I've never liked Bush, but thanks for summing up all of the reasons, and yes he should be impeached if you're interested. Clinton was a much better president.
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
939200
Yes, I would protest the action for several reason:\n1.  You may not like his politics or think he's a fool, but he has not broken any laws.\n2.  To unseat a president shows America as weak, leaderless and vulnerable to other nations.\n3.  To impeach Bush would be to leave Cheney in charge ... (think about it ..)
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!
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!!
901712
No.  Nixon resigned before impeachment was voted on in the House.\n\nClinton was impeached, and aquitted in the Senate.
849878
Why would you want to waste taxpayer money doing this? Yes, once the Dems take office in January, there will be enough votes in the U.S. House for impeachment, but to impeach a President (or any federal officer) is only to bring charges against them. It is like an indictment in criminal court. It does not remove the President from office. They then stand trial in the U.S. Senate, where a 2/3 majority is needed to convict and remove him from office. The Dems do not have the votes needed for that. \n\nI will be writing my newly elected Congressman and telling him NOT to pursue impeachment against Bush because the money can be used elsewhere (like healthcare).