Why Bush should be impeached NOW

[varun]

In light of the latest findings by the 911 commission that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, it is time we start impeachment proceedings against George Bush.

Bush lied to us about these links, and also about weapons of mass destruction. He sent hundreds of American to death, and spent billions of dollars of taxpayer's money for a war that was not necessary.

Clinton was almost impeached for something that was a private matter, and that did not affect anyone other that Clinton and his immediate family. Bush has caused loss of life and property by lying to American people.

Its time to start the impeachment proceedings!

[LTR]

1. Hate to be negative, but...

...Impeachement won't even be a whisper with a GOP-dominated congress.

I'll be satisfied with just a humiliating defeat in November. That's all I really want.

[Cocoa]

2. I disagree

I think he should have been impeached over a year ago, when it was found he lied in his state of the union speech.

[physioex]

4. I disagree with your disagree....

What is the point of impeachment?....We would only remove the dummy and replace him with our prime minister. Would things be that much better or would our policies be changed in some ways?

[Terry_M]

9. The point is to successfully punish the criminal

So that future presidents don't try to get away with the same thing. If there is no impeachment, and if Bush doesn't end up in jail, what's to stop the same thing from repeating?

[physioex]

11. I can agree with that...

But I am skeptical he would end up in jail....He might be found in contempt and resign...Unfortunately all of this might part our fantasies (would be great if it happened)......

[bryant69]

3. Agree and Disagree

On one level I agree; certainly he deserves on it. But the question is what will be the most effective thing to do to end President Bush and his gangs control over our political system. Trying to Impeach him wouldn't go very far, even if the Senate and House Democratic Leadership put their weight behind it. And in the campaign, it might drum up support for President Bush. So I think we are better off focusing on the campaign.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Massacure]

5. Wouldn't impeachment remove support for him in the elections?

[bryant69]

7. Well no

Why would it? Particularly if he's able to say "Hey they did their best to bring this presidency down, but they were unable to build a case."

Impeachment would not succeed!!! We don't have the votes. So he'd survive and it wouldn't take Karl Rove to figure out ways to turn that situation to his advantage.

[Maine-i-acs]

6. War Crimes Tribunal would be better

And some satisfying trials here at home. Post-election, perp-walk all of them. Bush can't pardon anyone if they are prosecuted after his butt is whipped in November.

[jobycom]

8. We should at least try

A lot of the evidence against Bush is troubling to the Republicans, too. We could get enough crossovers with a well-presented case to impeach him. Whether we could actually remove him is a different story. But this isn't like Clinton, where a bogus case was used to smear a popular leader. Bush is unpopular, many people don't trust him now, and at least trying to impeach him would allow us to present the evidence on a national forum.

This is our best chance so far. He might win re-election, and then we'd have four more years of a president unafraid of political retribution. Then we'll wish we had.

The Republicans are good at keeping the foot on our throat. We are weak in that area. We trust people's memories too well. The Reagan nonsense of last week should prove that we are wrong to do so.

[drthais]

10. herein lies the problem

The House must begin impeachment proceedings
think about it
this will not fly - ever
with the foam-at-the-mouth bunch in that body