Why Wasn't He Impeached?

My study says you were misinformed.

Then you lied when you repeated it.

Here's your lies:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Please consider emmigration. Perhaps you can find a country that tolerates this attitude.

The Dems won a small majority in Congress last mid-term.

There are still enough Republicans in both Houses to stop any effort to bring this administration to any type of justice.

The Dems do not have the votes to override a veto.

Republicans vote lock-step, not McCain and a very few others but most are party animals who pretty much hold our country's population in contempt.

Those lock-step automatons will vote the way they're ordered.

The American People need to arise from our TV watching keesters and take an interest in our country's business and we can begin by getting rid of every Republican currently in office.

Again McCain and a few others can stay but many need a little jail time for their violation of their commitment when they were sworn in.

It's because the majority of the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach the President. Afterwards, there has to be an impeachment hearing in the Senate, at which at least 2/3 of the Senators have to be present. Of the Senators present, at least 2/3 have to vote to convict the President. Since the Democrats hold both houses of Congress by only a very slim majority, it would have been pointless to try to impeach the President, since it was obvious that there wouldn't be enough Senators who would vote to convict him.

Good question as usual, good support with links, but the short answer is, the majority of the people don't really care. And won't care, until it's too late.

Remember, even with the shenanigans with Diebolt, 59 million people still voted for this cretin and his administration.

One could almost say we get what we deserve. As long as people keep shopping at China-Mart and can keep buying their lottery tickets and six packs on Friday to sit in front of the tube all weekend, all is right in America, right??

<sarcasm>

Jim, I've thought the same question for so long. I wish I knew the answer but we live in a very quirky world. I'm not going to worry about it. Karma. What goes around, comes around. Let's just keep reading more into wisdom like Confucius and live our life the best we can.

first of all, keep in mind i'm a moderate-liberal, a little leaning towards the left however...

if you're asking why bush hasn't been impeached under the democratic legislature, you must ask a question of what good would it do now? impeaching only proves him guilty of a certain act, yet it does nothing as far as making sure he steps down.

well for argument's sake, let's say congress impeaches bush. would bush step down? probably not. he's nearing the end of his term, what good would it do the american public.

well let's take another view: bush is impeached, shames himself into resigning his post. here comes cheney for a year until the next elected official's inauguration. would the dem's really prefer cheney over bush? personally... no.

we can all hail him as a bad president, but could we personally do better in a situation that he has brought us into now? hard to say.

okay now give the crazy notion that the republicans decide to hand over control of the exec. branch to the democrats (yes i know that is impossible...), who do we elect to be our leader? Barack? Hello racial tensions. Hillary? Hello gender tensions. Edwards? Personally, I'm from NC but Edwards really is not suited for this job... yet.

my two cents :)

The Congress authorized offensive military operations against Iraq in October of 2002. The reasons set forth in that law were a mirror of reasons set down in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Links to both laws, respectfully, are in the source box below.

Josh says WMD were found. That is like saying, "i'm a man but i just like to dress in skirts because that suits my gender better"

When you are enlightened it all makes perfect sense.

Shall we say that congress are among the few who are enlightened.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

So what political body did this study

well first of all, the president has the authority to tell the military to do what it's done.

Secondly, what would the false pretenses be? We found WMDs, and i assume that's what you're refering to.

Meaning he's done nothing impeachable...

So if your refering to something else, add details.

Edit: I have read it.

"The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." "

And this article is blatantly false, seeing as we HAVE found chemical WMDs in iraq.

You cant say 'bush lied and people died' when we DID find WMDs

Now i know the word "FOX" is like "The living Satan" to extreme liberals, but CNN sure as hell isn't gonna publish anything that say's bush was right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

SX24: What are you talking about? A WMD can be a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. We found Chemical WMDs. Not, "they might have them" and not "ill say something random to make you look stupid"

Questioner:

I -don't- like bush

I also don't like people saying there were no WMDs when we did find them, then saying "well they dont count. They wern't nuclear either. so they 'double' dont count"

And yes, fox is legit.

Yess, cnn is legit.

Is fox conservative? yes.

is cnn liberal? hell yes.

Are there news reports biased?

* yes.

Is there also some truth in them?

Yes.