POLL: Bush and impeachment

Remove all ads!

This poll is suggested by the following excerpt:

from here (toward the end of the page).

So, do you think Bush has knowingly lied in selling the war in Iraq, and should he be impeached about it?

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 30 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Bush and impeachment (30 votes.)

Did Bush lie (knowingly) about the reasons for going to war in Iraq? (Choose 1)
* yes - 80% (24)
* no - 20% (6)

Should he be impeached about it? (Choose 1)
* yes - 67% (20)
* no - 33% (10)

 

Yes in both questions. Some one who lies in such serious matter's shouldn't be a president (and that applies to all politicians)

 

I have no doubt he lied about it, but the Downing Street memos don't prove that. It does prove that Bush wanted a war regardless of what proof there was regarding weapons of mass destruction, but they do not specifically state that the U.S. had absolutely no evidence of Iraq possessing said weapons. So good luck proving it, and without proof, no impeachment.

Anyway, with a Republican controlled Senate, there's no way you'd get the 2/3 necessary for the impeachment. And even if they did, that would mean we'd be stuck with Cheney through 2008, and I shudder at the very thought of that.

 

President Bush used the argument about weapons of mass destruction as a cassus belli. He had no evidence to proove this yet he claimed this in TV,press etc. PM Tony Blair admitted that the there were nosuch weapons.

 

There's not much chance of impeachment, not with a Republican congress, although there should be a public hearing on how we became involved in Iraq. I think that Bush felt there were WMDs in Iraq - a lot of others, including Al Gore and Bill Clinton felt the same. With that said, I think he lied about the strong evidence that indicated that they were definitley there.

But the Bush White House is in a melt down of its own accord and making at the moment. Still, things may get much worse for them before too long. They are proving to be their own worst enemies.

[ October 12, 2005, 22:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, I'm not a huge fan of politics, but I do know one thing: Bush guaranteed us weapons of mass destruction, he invaded, and found nothing. Do I think he knew beforehand? Yes. Do I think he should be removed from office solely on this fact? Lying to one person can be forgiven. Lying to an entire nation, I don't think so. Sack him.

 

Yes he lied, and yes he should be impeached. Not for lying, but for the result of his lie. You must expect politicians to lie, but they should still be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Going to war for a good reason can be forgiven, if only to the point that it's not an impeachable offense. Likewise, lying can be excused if it doesn't do a large amount of harm (i.e. the Clinton sex scandal didn't get anyone killed, and his lie was not the method by which he screwed Lewinski). But if you put both together it's simply unexcusable.

 

Yes he lied, and yes, he should be impeached. Clinton were, and he did a thing that is NOT a national affair and have made not only one, but two nations suffer horribly.

 

Bush lied about the strong evidence or made complte disasterous error with claiming the evidence to be strong. I think the man has taken far too little damage to what he should have in political terms. A man in that position should not afford to throw dice with war. On the other hand I'm not sure if impeachment is required, he is afterall a democratically chosen president and has won over two elections and considering that the latter came after the truth about the Iraq war came out tells more about how the democrats are a horrible mess right now. He might be unpopular right now but it makes no difference what so ever if the opposition is weak and broken.

 

I also think that he lied about the evidence (well, willfully overlooked evidence to the contrary). However, I think it is not a good ideea to impeach him (even if this would be possible; as others have mentioned, with a Senate controlled by the Republicans, looks very improbable). After all, it is true that people voted for him, and only those wilfully ignorant did not know by that time that he had made stuff up.

I guess I also don't want him to appear like he's being victimized by the left. He's in a pretty bad position at the moment (entirely as a consequence of his choices, of course), and I don't feel the need to pile up on that.

On the other hand, I also agree that he (and his gang) should be held accountable for his actions. For him, this probably means accountable in the history books; because, lets face it, as a former president, he will probably never hold any public job of importance. For those in his administration responsible in part for the debacle, I also hope they will never be entrusted with anything of consequence.

 

I personally do not think he lied about WMD. There were many who thought Iraq had them, and Saddam didn't go out of the way to disprove them. He jerked weapons inspectors around for years, why do that unless you had a reason?

As far as impeaching, that would be silly.

I read a lot of gnashing of teeth about Iraq. The only thing I can say is that time will be the true judge of it was worthwhile. I hope, and so should people from both sides of the political spectrum (hey it is my fantasy so leave me alone ), that in twenty years we will look back at a democratic and free middle east and be thankful for the sacrifice the U.S. made to make it happen. On the other hand, if it remains a despotic hell-hole then the world is in the same place it was and we are short many a good man and woman. Only time will tell.

 

I'm with Snook on the WMD thing. I think that Hussein really did have them, but all the jerking around gave them time to get rids of them, but Hussein being a dick lead to the war. Further, where did bush get the information. If he was just making that **** up, wouldn't he have confessed by now?

 

Good one. If you ever came to the US, you'd get eaten alive.

 

I believe that, come hell or high water, the current administration wanted to find a reason to nail Saddam. That other countries - including my own - were complicit in the fabrication of a case for war is utterly repulsive. I think Aldeth has it, though; Bush & Co. may be unconscionable warmongers in this matter, but good luck proving that, and even if you can, good luck getting a Republican-controlled Congress to impeach him and his associates.

Re: the future of the Middle East - I hope you're right, Snook. I really, really do, because at least then, people will be able to support the ends even if the means were deceitful and/or amoral. Otherwise, many thousands will have died needlessly and the only ones to have benefited will be groups like Halliburton. It's hard to see benevolent motives when pricks like Cheney are behind the wheel and stand to make a killing (pun intended) on their policy decisions.

 

That 'sacrafice' cost thousands of Iraqi and Turkmen civillians lives so far.

 

Not to mention US and other countries soldiers

 

Well a lot of soldiers deaths are the result of 'friendly fire' and the overall percentage is much smaller than the civillian deaths.

When you are a soldier, you should not assume that you will live to see the end, but civillians should not be discarded because of trigger happy idiots, 'percision bombings', cluster bombs etc. I have served in the army during troubled times in Belfast and Derry City, and while I have not be involved in a outright war, I would have a better idea of the conditions than the average 'arm-chair general'.

 

He should be impeached if there's a proof of lie and all signs point what he said not being true. Next problem is if it was a lie, consciously misleading the nation, or wishful thinking deceiving himself. In the latter case, it would mean he's incompetent but it's not the same as flat out lying.

 

Well, that he's incompetent, I think there is not much doubt about. Still, there must have been people in the administration who were smart enough to realize that all is bull; at least Colin Powell, if nobody else.

Snook

Come on. All you needed was to read the newspapers, and some basic reasoning skills. It was evident in the months before war that the administration was making things up; the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague; the stuff about Saddam buying high grade aluminium tubes for missiles (when it turned out they were normal stuff useful for some innocuous purpose); the Nigerian yelowcake affair. In all these cases, the administration come up with a story to suit their purposes; independent analysts said it was bull; the administration tried its best to shut them up and discredit them (does anybody remember the Blix report).

As about the argument that Saddam had weapons and got rid of them... well, you really need faith to believe that

To make things clear: I don't object to the war per se. Saddam was a tyrant, and he should have been deposed. I object to the way the Bushies went about it; and I think it is mostly their fault the situation is so bad now.