• Yes, the man broke the law

    When you are the commander in chief, you have to be responsible for the decisions you make. The decision to go to war is not an easy one and should be one of last resort. What Bush did was to look at the intelligence he wanted to see and ignore the intelligence that showed there were no WMD. He made sure the UN inspectors couldn't finish their jobs inspecting for WMD and started a war based on faulty intelligence. During his State of the Union address, he mentioned things like yellow cake in Africa that created a false concern for the safety of our nation. Many Democrats voted for the war based on these lies. Nobody thought a president would lie over something that serious, so they fell for it. The war costs us over a trillion dollars and killed over 3000 of our soldiers. Going after Saddam, knowing he had nothing to do with 9/11 and ignoring bin Ladden was also beyond any reasonable action. The man should be in jail.

  • He tortured, end of story.

    Torturing human beings is never acceptable. Especially when we wouldn't want Americans tortured. So far, everybody is being hypocritical about this matter. Nobody would have had the courage to attempt to impeach this human being so it doesn't really matter. Condoning torture is absurd. I used to, if it were successful, but data often does not prove that to be true. However, most people arguing pro torture have their arguments all wrong.

  • Bush should be tried for war crimes

    George W. Bush should have been impeached because he created a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq, he falsified accounts of US troops death and injuries for political purposes, REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 911

  • Lying to Congress and UN about Iraq nukes and 45mins warning

    Illegal war with Iraq, rendition and torture programs, lying to Congress, US public and the UN (Iraq nukes and 45mins warning speech) to support his case for Iraq invasion (was really about oil, US petro-dollar/euro-dollar threat made by Iraq and Libya). He authorised spying on his own US citizens and residents.

  • Bush/Cheney are war criminals, destroyed economy

    Bush Doctrine of preemptive war is illegal. US invasion of Iraq was immoral, illegal, and strategically stupid. Bush destroyed economy with 2 wars on the credit card, undeserved, unnecessary tax cuts for rich and Medicare part D was give-away to big Pharma. A massive corporate welfare program. It's bankrupting the US and elderly who are ill. Bush and Cheney ignored repeated vociferous warnings from CIA and so are responsible for 9/11 attacks. Secret, global CIA prisons used for torture are more war crimes. Cheney approved global torture and lied to Bush to trick him into supporting it as well.

  • He sucks balls

    He did 9/11 and that killed a lot of people. He knocked down the first tower and that killed a bunch of people. He knocked down the second tower and that killed even more people. He also killed all those people in the plane headed for the pentagon and stuff.

  • An Unlawful War

    Sure, the congress voted to go to war, after Bush and Cheney lied about the threat of Iraq. Can there not be anything clearer than this? They had no justification for a war, made one up on lies, then invaded because the wanted to. Is not killing thousands of people and wasting billions of dollars a good enough reason to impeach someone? He made a bad situation worse. And Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but Cheney lied his ass off about that. Bush had no plan for when he won, so the mess and ISIS that showed up AFTER are HIS fault.

  • Without getting into ideological debate the facts support impeachment.

    1- The Bush administration had a plan for preemptive war in the Middle East. --READ THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY written by neocons that populated the Bush government. Connect the dots of ideas plans and the following events 9/11 was the excuse to do what "they" wanted.
    2/ the Bush family's longstanding ties to the Bin Laden family emphasize how oil played a factor in why IRAQ was chosen for attack. Saudi ARABIA (the BIN LADEN'S are Saudi) is said to be a friend of US (protection for OIL) . THE SAUDI'S ARE WAHHABI (extreme Sunni sect Muslims--- Saddam was from a different Sunni sect and competed with Saudi Arabia for power in the region.. The financing for Al Qaeda came from wahhabi extremists likke the Bin ladens and others Saudis thanks to being awash with OIL MONEY. Essentially the US funds the ISLAM extremists it fights --- thank you Saudi Arabia --- our "friends".
    NO HIGHJACKERS CAME FROM IRAQ. MOST WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA. Bush knew then when he declared war- so every justification fro directing war to IRAQ was a lie.
    3/ His admin outed one of their own spy's (Valerie Plame) to get revenge for her husbands(former Ambassador Wilson) 'truth to power" revelation that the administration was lying about yellow cake .
    There are many more good reasons but I think this is enough for now .

  • Yes! He should have been

    Any president that was warned repeatedly about a possible threat to the USA (9-11) but instead decided to choose vacation over even looking into the threat which caused thousands of Americans to lose their lives and more are continuing to loose their lives ..Because out of vengeance he attacked the wrong country and lied to America about it. Had no plans besides killing. I feel this is criminal. His first priority is to the people who elected him not to his personal life.

  • YES! He should have been

    When a president is warned repeatedly about possible attacks (9-11) but ignored them and choose vacation again instead of even looking into it, He chose taking your personal time OVER the country and the people you were elected to serve. If ignoring a threat to the USA by a president is not treason, I am not sure what is

  • Bush should not have been impeached, he did nothing illegal.

    Bush did nothing illegal during his time in office. Due to the fact that the country was in a time of war, he legally had the freedom to protect this country. I do not fully agree with all of his opinions or acts, but overall, he did not deserve to be impeached.

  • Lol, no and anyone who thinks he should have no idea what theyre talking about

    Name a single thing that Bush did that hasnt been done by just about every other president already... When people dont like a president, they will find any possible rule to call for his impeachment, but these idiots often fail to argue why he SHOULD be impeached, and usually just give reasons for what he could be impeached for, which is a massive difference. Bush didnt do anything that other presidents also havent done at one point or another, and even if his approval ratings are like 10% he still shouldnt have been impeached because he did nothing out of the ordinary compared to other recent presidents.

  • Just Because You Dislike A President Doesn't Mean He Should Be Impeached.

    I'll admit, George Bush was a pretty bad president. However, to my knowledge, Bush did nothing that would have gotten him impeached. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The entrance into Iraq was neither treason nor bribery so those two are ruled out. The latter deserves some attention though. It's important to remember that Bush was not entirely at fault for the decision to enter Iraq. He was acting on incorrect information that Iraq had WMDs. The CIA later admitted this. He also did not falsify statistics. So it's easy to see the accusation you bring up doesn't fit the criteria of the latter either. Finally, many presidents have ignored intelligence warnings, such as FDR on Pearl Harbor, and there are many other incidences like this where the intelligence was actually false. It's nothing special that Bush ignored a few warnings about 9/11. All and all, Bush was a bad president, but based on the accusations you provided, he shouldn't have been impeached. There was no grounds.

  • No, Bush shouldn't have been impeached - what did he do wrong?

    First of all, can you explain what Bush even did wrong, or do you just assume that the problem was him? Waterboarding gained valuable information from terrorists, whereas Obama just kills terrorists who have good info. The war he entered into started because Iraq's leaders would not let us check whether they were hiding nuclear weapons. Many democrats also voted for this war. The reason there was a recession was the housing market. People bought houses with extremely low rates. Then the rates were increased dramatically as part of the contract.

  • Even asking this is pure idiocy

    Why would someone feel the need for Bush to have been impeached? Just because you MORALLY object to someone (doubtingdave), doesn't mean they deserve to be impeached. In the Iraq War, he acted on solid Intelligence, he never distorted any statistics either. Also, presidents ignore most intelligence warnings, there were intelligence warnings about Pearl Harbor, should FDR have been impeached? Bush wasn't a great president, in fact he kind of sucked, but most presidents do suck to start.

  • Those who said yes probably would have voted for hitler too.

    He did the world a favor. We lost almost as many people in the World Trade Towers and in the Pentagon as we lost soldiers over 10 years of fighting...In the same time period we killed over 350,000 of our citizens on the highways. Buckle up and shut up. Get real.

  • Because he wasn't

    If he could have been impeached, he would have been. Democrats were (still are) eager for payback for the Clinton impeachment. What better opportunity than Bush? They had the Senate and the House as of 2006-two years to make their case. They didn't. Why. Because most of them voted (on two separate resolutions) to permit him to go to war. Pelosi, both Clintons, Gore, even Kennedy, all stated that Hussein had WMD (before Bush took office), that he sponsored terror, sought nuclear war. All agree with Bill Clinton who stated publicly that US policy was to achieve "Regime Change" in Iraq. If they impeached Bush, they would indict themselves. Why do that that when the media allowed them to get away with the lie that they were innocent sheep beguiled by the evil bush/cheney duo? Pelosi said they opted against impeachment because it was too costly and would be destructive. That's complete BS. If you're confident you could impeach a president from the other party, you don't hesitate. If you're not, you don't. It's very simple.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.