Should Bush Be Impeached And Convicted?

[adios]

The investigation for WMD's in Iraq has not turned up a "smoking gun." Several are claiming on this forum that it was a facade i.e. the justification by the administration for invading Iraq was bogus from the git go. Those who are making these claims on the forum are not alone. Apparently this signals a dangerous abuse of political power to many. Is this action(s) by Bush an impeachable offense? If so should he be removed from office? I know the investigation is ongoing but say that a "smoking gun" is never found. Personally I don't think so if for no other reason that he broke no laws that I know of. At least not US laws. I suppose one could argue that he broke international law but if he did I don't think that that's an impeachable offense. Could be wrong though. I believe the wording in the Constitution is High Crimes and Misdemeanors so perhaps but it doesn't look like it to me. If Bush acted in a way that is dangerous and abusive of his political power it seems to me that there ought to be more than outrage directed towards Bush. There ought to be at least some sort of criticism and outrage over the process that led to this course of events if citizens believe that the administration's actions were a travesty. Personal attacks on Bush will fall on many deaf ears and I daresay won't accomplish very much if those that criticize see a need for change.

[Bob T.]

I'm not sure that the absence of a smoking gun, would be a useable justification for impeachment. The administration could claim that their intelligence indicated that the WMD existed, and they acted in good faith based on that information. I think that if it could be proved, that they knew that the information was false, and used the incorrect information to justify the war, then there might be some chance that the threshhold of High Crimes and Misdeameanors might be justified.

[andyfox]

Apparently, thus far 90 suspected locations have been inspected without any evidence of WMDs. But the search has apparently been stymied by disorganization and bad intelligence.

Surely they'll find something to hang their hat on. And if they don't, they'll make it up, or take very thin evidence and fatten it up. All governments do this.

The congress voted thumbs up for the war. No impeachment.

[Chris Alger]

No statute or treaty makes it a crime for a US politican to simply lie. I can't imagine that one would ever exist. If Bush is guilty of crimes, they would concern the war's violations of the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and other treaties. While it isn't any defense to point out violations by others, it seems to me that every President since these treaties came into being, including Clinton, is guilty of something similar, sometimes much worse.

So while people should be properly terrified of Bush's "preventative war" doctrine, the basic problem isn't Bush or one that can be solved by getting rid of him. A reasoned debate about his culpability, however, might liberate some of the public from a tendency, whether based on fear, ignorance or misguided "patriotism," to constantly defer to officials and their unofficial spokespeople in the media in matters of foreign and military policy.

[BruceZ]

Even if no WMDs are ever found, the inspector's failed to verify that Saddam destroyed the WMDs that it had. It was stated several times that this verification by the inspectors was a requirement for Iraq to be in compliance with the UN resolutions banning WMDs. If compliance could not be verified, that is the same as not being in compliance.

Further, it was all too easy for Iraq to have moved these weapons into Syria or elsewhere, and they had ample time to do this. Weapons or no weapons, there is ample evidence from interviewing scientists that they were working on these weapons, and that they were purchasing precursors to make these weapons.

The US acted on the evidence it had. If you think there is a 90% chance your opponent has a hand, and you act in accordance with that percentage, your actions were not wrong when it turns out in fact he did not have a hand.

We DID find a smoking gun linking Iraq to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[Dynasty]

No. He should be re-elected for making the right decision and leading the country in war.

[MMMMMM]

90/1,000+. And that's just locations already designated for search.

[MMMMMM]

I think there is a good chance that history will come to regard Bush as a visionary, somewhat similar to Reagan in this regard, and with perhaps even greater scope.

[andyfox]

Reports of Reagan's "vision" are greatly exaggerated. The man was a colossal ignoramus of galatic proportions. Virtually all Republicans who worked with him are in agreement on this, including Bob Dole, Henry Kissinger, and Colin Powell, to name just three.

[IrishHand]

I think he meant that Bush will go down with a similar legacy, which you have aptly described. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]