ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Impreach George W. Bush

Do you favor impeaching George W. Bush the president of the United States?

Moderator - On what grounds?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Patriotic Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 11/9/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (14)

Post a New Blog

Hit term is almost up. Why bother now? His damage has been done. We need to prepare for the damage the next one will bring with his/her administration. They all are about the same. Big promises,small delivery. Very little. God help us all. Keep praying and waiting on Jesus.
---Robyn on 9/18/07

Alexia, As I stated the executive branch of government deals with foreign policy. I find it comforting that the elected officials and their appointees had strategic plans of who American enemies are when they took office, that shows a level of competancy, contrary to your belief. Or would you rather have leaders that lead by shooting from the hip with no prior planning?
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

Alexia, I would also hope that the executive branch has plans for defense and invasion of other countries that are hostile towards America such as China, Russia, Korea and countries to the south that belong to men like Chavez. By having goals and contingency plans that means the executive branch is competantly doing its duty to the citizens that elected them into office. By having interest in our foreign affairs and resources the executive branch is fulfilling its primary duty.
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

ryan, The bushies are simply incompetent. Havent you learned yet that Iraq was on Cheney and Rummies list BEFORE 911. It has nothing to do with terrorism Emcee: we have a democracy, its our duty to oversee the people we elect.
---alexia on 9/11/07

#1 Mary, the primary duty of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is to secure the borders and deal with foreign policy. Bush is not responsible for individual security, or in large part, domestic policy. He does have the right to veto but domestic laws are generated by the legislative branch. Bush has used his Commander and Chief position to the best of his ability. The war, although controversial and questionably managed, was a wise decision.
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

#2 Mary, Bush brought the fight to the people that desired to do harm to America. Saddam Hussein was no friend of the U.S. and Afghanistan is a strategicaly brilliant position. When you look at the position of Iran & Afghanistan in the Mid-East they are perfect strategic positions against Iran and a host of other nations hostile to America. The U.S., strategicaly speaking, needs a prescence in the Mid-East.
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

#3 Mary, Bush and his advisors are not just looking at the now they are anticipating the future like competant leaders. I do wish Bush paid more attention to securing the U.S. borders with Canada & Mexico. If you are upset with domestic policy blame congress. The executive branch is responsible for foreign policy and the legislative branch is responsible for domestic policy.
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

#4 Mary, Also keep in mind that the American economic model of capitalism does not guarantee security it guarantees opportunity. If you prefer an economic model that guarantees individual security I suggest moving to a communist or socialist state.
---Ryan_Z on 9/11/07

Mary::an opinion is a judgement.You have just clarified what I said.Leave Politics to the politicians as it is a game For some Liars.we appoint people to office so we must trust them, if not, wait till the next time around & then excersise your franchise.
---Emcee on 9/10/07

Emcee, how am I bearing false witness? I am not lying about Bush, it's just my opinions of the mess he has gotten us into--another country's civil war! We're over there "baby-sitting", our soldiers belong in our own country, not fighting another country's battles. If Bush would deal with America's problems instead of Iraq's, we would be in a better place, I'm sure.
---Mary on 9/10/07

The only reason al quaeda is in Iraq is because we are...
---alexia on 9/10/07

I agree - if we were not in Iraq maybe they would be in NJ
---Andrea on 9/10/07

In my opinion, GW Bush went too fast and he did so to show he's the boss. Many imprudent decisions have been taken. A mess created another mess and another and now the mess is not easy to rectify.

I wish he was not re-elected and thanks God he cannot be re-elected.
---Caring on 9/10/07

Mary:: With due respect How many Millions of people did Satan lie to YET there are many, who follow Him in falseness. Do you still want to bear False witness. 2 wrongs dont make a right.
---Emcee on 9/10/07

Yes. His deceptions about the war and costing so many lives and suffering is not Godly. The previous president may have lied but it did not cost lives. This president lied about weapons of mass destruction and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. This man has destroyed our country. We may never pull out of it. Big spending, arrogant to the point of not negotiating peace with anyone and an attitude of "My way, or none at all."
---Pernice on 9/10/07

I dont hold bushie accountable for 911. He's accountable for everything following. Thousands of innocents have died at his hands. Clinton? he was out of office before 911 andrea. The only reason al quaeda is in Iraq is because we are...
---alexia on 9/10/07

I agree, leave this poor human being alone. Most likely if we had had a different president who knows what trouble could have befallen us since 9-11. Those terriorst just happen to hit us at a time, not realizing that we had a president that would not just stand there and do nothing. And look stupid. Praise God. I know that President Bush realizes his judgement was not a keen one. Could anyone had done better? WE NEED GOD. Man, do we need GOD. That is a statement of fact and not a question.
---catherine on 9/10/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

3000 people died under Clinton - how many terrorist attacks have we had since Bush was in.
I pray for the return of our troops too but I think they are keeping us safe and now the Iraqi people.
Fightem there or fightem here. Its not the fight we picked - its the stage we picked. You do see that all their efforts are aimed at our soildiers and the Iraqi not at unarmed American citizens.
Tomorrow is 9/11 - please remember to pray for the families of the victims, heroes and our enemies. Thank you
---Andrea on 9/10/07

Sure, Mima, why not??? And while we're at it let's replace him with Vladimir Putin and make Osama bin Laden Vice-President!!

"Ya say ya wanna a revolution....
We-ell ya know, we all wanna change the world
Ya say you'll change the Constitution....
We-ell ya know, we all wanna change the world
But if ya want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell ya is, Mima, you'll have to wait......."

Don'tcha know it's gonna be all right?????
---berf on 9/10/07


Under the US Constitution, government officials (such as the president) are exempt from many legal processes. However, if they commit "high crimes", they are subject to impeachment (trial by senate). If successful, the officeholder is removed from office. This is rarely done, and succeeds even more rarely. Bill Clinton was impeached unsuccessfully. Richard Nixon would likely have been impeached successfully, but he resigned before any charges could be brought.
---StrongAxe on 9/9/07

George W. Bush has been accused of starting a war with Iraq over the presence of WMDs, evne though he knew beforehand that no WMDs were present. This would be an impeachable offense.

Whether this was, in fact, the case, is not a matter of law, but a matter of fact to be determined by a trial. So whether or not you think he should be found guily, an impeachment would be in order to settle this issue.
---StrongAxe on 9/9/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation

Absolutely NOT. I believe that President Bush has done a fairly good job as our President. He has made some mistakes, maybe a little bad judgement at times, but how many of us haven't, including Presidents in past times? I think Congress needs to leave him alone and let him do his job and finish out his term. No one is perfect except our Lord, Jesus Christ.
---Cynthia on 9/9/07

With all due respect, Emcee, if not crime, what would you call a president that has lied to the American people, cost thousands of Americans lives and countless Iraqi lives in the process, and has in many ways acted like he is above the law of the land?
---Mary on 9/9/07

Impeachment is bringing a charge against some one in Public office for a crime
comitted.Question DID they commita crime.
NO therefore those who suggest impeachment bring false witness against their neighbour.
---Emcee on 9/9/07

High crimes and misdomeanors,which is pretty broad. There are some very serious conservatives calling for impeachment. The religious right is furious being taken in so badly twice now, and used for the Cheney-Rove power grab attempt. Guess the Dem's will be getting a lot of new power come 08..
---alexia on 9/9/07

Locate Education Jobs

AlanUK, Impeachment is simply to bring formal charges against someone holding office. From that point, there has to be a vote to convict.

The president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." If you can be convicted in a court for a crime, you could be impeached. A president cannot be impeached for a policy mistake, unless he broke the law.

Bill Clinton was impeached but there was insufficient votes to remove him from office.
---NurseRobert on 9/9/07

I wish Bush and Cheney WOULD be impeached, can't think of two people more deserving, other than Bin Laden, who still runs free! :( Sorry but I have the right to the way I feel, we all do. :)
---Mary on 9/8/07

AlanUK_quent5969, Bill Clinton (a.k.a. Slick Willy) was impeached and he was dibarred as an attorney, however, he was not removed from office.
---Ryan_Z on 9/8/07

alan - did they want to impeach Tony Blair?
I really liked him and I don't think he was led around by Bush. he was quite a formidable figure in his own right.
I use to watch the the UK Parliament debates - they're a riot. I'd love to see our presidents have to answer in public and be answered.
---Andrea on 9/8/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages

What are the official grounhds on which a president can be impeached?
I know they tried to impeach Clinton for immoral behavious and.or lying about it. Can a president be impeached for making a mistake in his policy?
---AlanUK_quent5969 on 9/8/07

Alan of UK, Maybe we are all supposed to go to the Whitehouse and preach the Word to him. Couldn't find the word in the Word or in the dictionary so I guess we will have to wing it. See ya'll there tommorrow. teehee
---MARK on 3/25/07

Josh ... What does "Impreach" mean?
---alan_of_UK on 3/25/07

Susie, I don't think the title is a mistake.
It doesn't make any sense to say or want to 'impeach', impreach is accurate.
---Josh on 3/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans

All I can say to this blog is: I'm glad I didn't vote for him!
---sue on 11/21/06

1/Since this *is really simple,* let me keep it that way! Article III to the Constitution confers ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTIONS to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to hear certain cases. Outside of these cases, the Congress legislate the jurisdiction of the courts, including the Supreme Court. The Congress passed the torture bill, September of 2006, which usurped the federal court's power to hear habeas corpus proceedings for foreign nationals (green card holders and foreign visitors).
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

2/ Under the torture bill, sham and secretive military commissions will hear habeas corpus petitions from foreigners on Guantanomo Bay who are declared enemy combatants. The Supreme Court will rule on this aspect of the law down the road. However, prior to this torture law, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the White Houses sham and secretive military commissions used to try unlawful enemy combatants were unconstitutional.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

3/The decision was 5-4 from the Court, with one justice intimating that the practice may be acceptable with congressional approval. The torture bill hurriedly passed in September with the November 7th election in mind gave the White House congressional approval. Under this torture bill Jose Padilla as a U.S. citizen enemy combatant is clearly entitled to a habeas corpus proceeding.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance

4/HOWEVER, as we all know, the White House declared Jose an enemy combatant and summarily denied him his right to an attorney, to have charges filed against him immediately and to be granted a SPEEDY TRIAL. This was done in clear violation of the 5th Amendment and countless Supreme Court cases governing the rules of criminal procedures. Jose was in jail for several years before he was allowed to speak to an attorney for the first time.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

5/He spoke to his attorney one week before his case was scheduled before the Supreme Court. The White House then argued that the case should not be heard before the Court because Jose was given an attorney. The meaning in the Padilla case is that the White House can and did suspend the constitutional rights of a citizen without due process upon declaring him an enemy combatant. The Court did nothing for quite a long time!
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

6/ Even today under the torture bill a naturalize citizen of the U.S. can be denaturalized and be treated as a green card holder and thus be denied a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court. Someone like this (who initially is a citizen) can be held for years without seeing an attorney or having charges filed against him. This is why the Court must assert its constitutional power and tell the Congress it cannot usurp its JURISDCITION! THIS IS A CRISIS!!!!!
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

7/ Indeed, prisoners of war are governed by the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. wanted to circumvent to torture unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield (Iraq and mainland U.S.A.). Senator McCain, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and a bi-partisan coalition in the Congress had to pressure the White House not to treat unlawful enemy combatants caught on the battlefield contrary to the Geneva Convention. The torture bill that became law spurred this debate.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays

8/ The torture law had a retroactive effect to 2005, essentially absolving the U.S. from previous torture of unlawful enemy combatants. The torture law explicitly states that it does not violate any international law or treaty (Geneva Convention). The torture law gave the president tremendous flexibility on the application of certain methods to extract information detrimental to our national security. The COWARDLY and POLITICAL Supreme Court will examine this down the road.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

9/ We do have a constitutional crisis! We have a dictatorial executive who has no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. Up until December 31st of this year, we have a GREEDY and a $$ first Congress, democrats and republican alike, that rubber-stamps whatever the executive wants. The Congress is not serving the people. It is serving the executive. The Supreme Court has idly sat by and watched our rights under the constitution get trampled upon at-will.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

10/ Finally, even several senators in both parties were reluctant to vote for the terror bill because of the denial of habeas corpus relief to EVERYONE, nationals and citizens alike. Political pressure changed their minds! In state courts, nationals and citizens have a right to an attorney, to have charges immediately filed against them and to bring a habeas corpus proceeding. Until the war on terror with its UNIQUE battlefield all over the world, this was the same in the federal court system.
---I_AM_I on 11/21/06

we aren't in a constitutial crisis we are in a political party crisis. We have 2 parties that believe vastly different things and the country is divided in half (literally) I see a political civil war, not a constitutanal crisis. the constitution is still as powerful as it was when it was ratified. THe biggest problem is the court isn't checking the Legislative branch. they should tellthem to back out and let the court do it's job
---Jared on 11/20/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance

The argumentation is specious.

If you are an American citizen, you are protected by the US Constitution. (Jose Padilla or Walker Lindh)

If you are in uniform of an army of a nation at war with another country, you are protected by the Geneva Convention.

If you are neither, (Richard Reed) then you are an ordinary schmuck who wants to kill US citizens. You take your chances.

It is really simple, ya know.
---John_T on 11/19/06

1/"Enemy combatants" are people captured during a war, whether on or off the battlefield. In every war there is a designated battlefield. However, the WAR ON TERROR has no designated battlefield. The ENTIRE world is the battlefield in this war according to the White House. Therefore, if I am in my family room on the computer and am arrested as an "enemy combatant," I have no right to an attorney or to have my day in court, even though I am an American citizen.
---I_AM_I on 11/19/06

2/ I can be imprisoned indefinitely without knowing what I am being charged with! Prior to the war on terror, this was unthinkable. Prior to the war on terror, anyone arrested in the United States, whether a citizen, green card holder or foreign visitor, had a right to an attorney and to go before a judge to hear his or her alleged crimes. Since the battlefield of the war on terror includes the ENTIRE United States, there is a serious constitutional question on these types of arrest.
---I_AM_I on 11/19/06

The writ of habeas corpus [you have the body] serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights.

Habeas petitioners are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in actual prejudice.

Habeas is the right of CITIZENS against arbitary seizure inside the US. Enemy combatants in Iraq are neither US citizens, nor on US soil.

They are not protected by the US Constitution.
---John_T on 11/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating

1/Jared, YOU WROTE: it's clear most of us don't know what the patriot act is what it did and what it's used for. if there is a problem the Supreme Court will take care of it. 11/14/06

We are in a constitutional CRISIS now in this country. There is a debate right now as to whether Congress can usurp the constitutional powers delegated to the Supreme Court in the context of habeas corpus proceedings of "enemy combatants."
---I_AM_I on 11/16/06

Tapping our phones? "Give up a little freedom for security and you will end up with neither."

If Bush were impeached, who would replace him? There is not the need or political to do this. As for me, abolish homeland security, it is dangerious.
---MikeM on 11/16/06

No Jack, they're not. I don't want to hurt anyone out there, but the coverage is not the same.
---R.A. on 11/16/06

**Why don't we see footage of the troops coming back from Iraq like we did in the Vietnam era? **

As a matter of fact, RA, such videos are frequently shown on TV news shows.
---Jack on 11/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments

He could be impeached but He would not be removed from office. that's for sure because there is not a law that he has broken.
---Jared on 11/15/06

To All:

IF the attempt to Impeach Our President were to be successful, WOE to America...because her oponents would use this time in history, when Americans turn on their own Leader, to assault our Homeland. Please see the Whole picture. As for our American Rights, we the American People are under a very Liberal Constitution and Law. When we travel certain parts of the world we sacrifice our American liberties and learn how it's Cake to be an American.

---Reiter on 11/15/06

it's clear most of us don't know what the patriot act is what it did and what it's used for. if there is a problem the Supreme Court will take care of it. and until then The President the head executive who is in charge of Law Enforcement must do what is said in that Act, until the law is repealed or found unconstitutional by the Supreme court.
---Jared on 11/14/06

Since the president has enforced the laws of the land at the time of his presidency there is no grounds to impeach him. Even if we have questions about warrents or lack there of.
---Jared on 11/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program

Rachel: The President does not have carte blanche to do as he wishes. He is bound by the Constitution, which he swore to uphold and defend, "so help him God." That means he must abide by it, all of it, not pick and choose what he thinks is best.

Congress cannot give a blanket warrant, as proposed, with the Patriot Act. A judge, in a court of law, must issue the warrant, for the wiretaps. Bush had basically said he didn't need the warrants and went ahead and ordered the wiretaps.
---Madison1101 on 11/14/06

Of course I value my safety. What you are failing to recognize is that there was a system in place for the President to go to a "secret court" and get a warrant, but he decided that he did not need anyones permission.

You're assumption that "We the People don't know what is good" is a very dangerous assumption to make. Thats when you start losing all of your rights.
---NurseRobert on 11/14/06

As far as comparing GWB to a husband.... you're kidding, right?

To answer your question, I value freedom over safety. It is a fallacy to believe that we will ever be safe from terrorists.
---NurseRobert on 11/14/06

You value Liberty, but do you value your safety, too? Man is the head of the woman; the President is the head of the Nation. We [The American People] don't always know what is good for us. A woman doesn't always like her husband's guidelines. There must be a respect for the Influence. The President is serving the American People by being a Protector.

---Reiter on 11/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts

Rachel, since you dont mind having your rights violated, from now on, you can only worship as a druid or read your Bible (1st amendment), Starting next month, a contingent of soldiers will be living in your home (3rd amendment), and if you don't like it, you will be thrown in jail with no bail (8th amendment).
---NurseRobert on 11/14/06

Rachel #2. Sounds silly? Of course it does, but its no different that the violation of the 4th Amendment that you feel Bush has the right to do.

Ben Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---NurseRobert on 11/14/06

Nurse you have listened to lies without seeking the truth I cannot convince you that you are wrong because you aren't listening (he has broken no laws, IF HE DID THEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED ALREADY) But i guess I'll be quiet and let you people that watch cnn and MSNBC and all the news that is on tv that has been one sided for the past 40 years live in you bliss. I watch listen and read both sides and guess what the truth is in between.
---Jared on 11/14/06

Jared, no where does the "Patriot Act" allow the President to violate federal law. Bush decided that he is above the law as a "war time president" and that he has the right to violate the Constitution.

And your attack on the media is just another smoke screen to cover up his illegal actions.
---NurseRobert on 11/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment

As Jeanne pointed out, Bush seems to be the most hated pres. Even before the war people hated him. Why was that? any comments?.....
---wayne on 11/14/06

Jared ... thank you. I meant about Clinton, the Monica affair and all that went with it ... i.e. they lying, which was a crime
You support my view that Bush cannot be impeached for mistaken policy (unless I suppose, the pursuit of that policy involved crimes, and I don't thikn the is evidence of that)
---AlanUK_quent5969 on 11/13/06

I am saying that the court has already given them the warrent to monitor. they did this as a blanket warrent (in the patiot act) Any number associated with the terrorizm can be monitored legally. Bush said he didn't need a warrent but what your news reporters didn't tell you is the rest of the story. Why because they wanted Dem. to win. They have never told the whole truth about Bush and they never will.
---Jared on 11/13/06

I believe that Bush was right in declaring that he didn't need a warrant and I think that Time will show [once this fuss is over] that he made the right move. Sure, a "storm" is coming against The President, but he is in office at a Time such as this for a reason. And, there will not be another to replace him, even a minute before his time has been fulfilled. He is in the Seat of Destiny.

---Reiter on 11/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans

I never saw a pres so hated. A Dem for 25 yrs in politics said he has never seen it either a pres. so hated, made fun of this Dem even said if U dont like the Pres. at least respect the office.Jack Kennedy cheated, His bro Bobby not a pres the same,Ted not pres but the Chapaquittic fiasco still senator,Clinton w/Jen Flowers,Lewinsky & that other one, Mrs. Reagan had astrologers, we could go on w/things we did not like legal/illegal. But no he should not be impeached for what the war? Who can predict war?
---Jeanne on 11/13/06

Rachel, The fourth amendment to the Constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you give up this right, are you also going to give up your freedom of Religion?
---NurseRobert on 11/13/06

Jared, thats where you are mistaken.. George Bush himself said he didn't need to get a warrent.

They have been tapping without warrents for quite a while.
---NurseRobert on 11/13/06

I feel very protected by Bush; I do not feel my freedom has been taken from me in any way.

---Reiter on 11/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


I'm not suggesting, one way or another, whether or not the wiretapping was a legal or an illegal act. However, even if it was an illegal act, it wouldn't affect my lifestyle or be of a concern to me. My liberty wouldn't be impaired in any way and quite honestly, as an American, I would feel a bit safer.

---Reiter on 11/13/06

Thanks Susie. I don't think anyone noticed that. you're very observant.
---wayne on 11/12/06

where you are wrong nurse is they still have to get a warrent. they can't just go and monitor everyone, they monitor calls out of the nation, this has always been done. they monitor numbers that are supicious (or have been shown to have activity of criminal porpotions. Those that are makeing a fuss about it are just trying to scare people to vote for them. and guess what it worked, but they aren't going to repeal the law because they voted for it.
---Jared on 11/12/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.