george bush

@max1950 (2306)
United States
February 22, 2007 7:30am CST
should he be impeached before he does more harm to the country,he wants to send in more troups to iraq and no one else does,but he has the power to nomatter what anyone says,should we get rid of him now
1 person likes this
7 responses
@BONOMBO (74)
• Greece
6 Mar 07
G.W.B is ufortunatelly elected by you people and he harms all over the world. I really can not understand American citizens that have time to watch a movie in the theatre but dont have the time to vote for a president election....I am really afraid that if your next president will not be from the democratics WE (the rest of the world) would have A big problem caused by the stupidity of your decisions....
1 person likes this
22 Feb 07
Get rid of bush and we will be stuck with cheney. He is worse than bush ever thought of being. He will be out of office soon enough. This country is screaming out for change. We have lost the respect of the world because of this administration.
• United States
22 Feb 07
We lost the respect of the world long before this administration. Maybe you didn't travel over seas while Clinton was in office. I did. I do agree with you that Americans are screaming for a change. The US population typically flip lops from Democrat to Republican and back again. This is especially apparent if you look at congress. Also, there is a very large amount of people who do not vote at all because they feel both sides are crooks/stupid/not what they want. So, what is the solution. I believe that the solution is going to be the libertarina party. (If you don't know much about it, wiki it) Unfortunately, this change will not likely gain sufficient force by the next presidential election. So, who is good for that election? Ron Paul has afiliations with the libertarian, but has been elected to congree under the republican ticket for years. He is planning on running for president and I hope wins the republican primary. On a related note, there is a large push against the libertarian party and its ideals, especially from the Christian community. I find this amazing, being a devout Christian myself. I personally believe that God set up some very specific rules to follow, aside from those few rules, we are free to do anything else. As such, I believe that the government should do the same thing. They should have some very specific rules that citizens need to follow. If they do not, there are consequences. Aside from that, everything else is fair game. Unfortunately, most Christians feel that it is their place to make the government force Christian ideals on all other people. A few of those ideals are needed to be forced upon others, thinkg like "thou shalt not murder." Others, such as "your body is the temple of the Lord" should be up to each person to decide how they are going to treat their own temple. It is not my place to say that a specific action is a desecration. Anyway, the libertarian party wants to revolutionize the American government. More or less, they want to revert to what the government was and did when the founding fathers set it up over 200 years ago. America is to be a place of freedom, with liberty and justice for all. We are all to have the same freedom and opportunity to succeed. Some will use this freedom to do so, others will not. The choice should be up to each individual person.
@ossie16d (11821)
• Australia
6 Mar 07
Again I am not sure that he has done anything that would warrant impeachment. I doubt that anyone can prove that he lied to the people and if in fact he did know that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Also think about who takes his place if the citizens were able to get rid of him before his term of office expires. Certainly he can send more troops to Iraq but will he have the funding to do this, because I am not sure how the funding works in the US. It does appear that his party will not be returned to power at the next election, although of course it is still 18 months away and a lot can happen in that time. The one thing that nobody can get away from is that he won a second term in office, even after troops went to Iraq, and no matter how it happened, the fact is that he is President for a second term. With regard to the comments an earlier respondent made regarding how the world views the US. There are many who do not like what the US does or how it acts towards other countries it perceives as being recalciant. For any intelligent person, they realise that it isn't the American citizens who are responsible, but those who are in power. Many Presidents in their time have bought the name of the country into disrepute, and it is not just George W who has done this. Personally I would like to see the US sort out its problems at home, food and housing for the poor, before he goes elsewhere. If the US is not personally threatened, then it should not intervene in other nations problems without UN sanctions. Okay, I think the UN is a toothless tiger, but the USA can deal with that fairly simply. If the UN does nothing about these rogue nations, then the USA does nothing either. Nothing also includes the fact that they should not grant asylum to people from countries who are at war with themselves. Maybe it is time the world came to its senses, if people want the freedom that is enjoyed by other countries, then they have to work for it. If the countries do not ask the UN for assistance, then put simply they do not get it. That is my opinion of the way the world sees the US. The final thing to remember is that no matter what the US does, it will be criticised and that is regardless of who the President is. So, there is no point in changing the current one if he is replaced by someone who is no better.
• United States
23 Feb 07
I think anyone would be worse than Bush. The democrats don't have a plan for anything. All they do is yell about how badly the republicans screw things up, but they propose no alternatives. I'll vote republican simply because they have an idea of what they want to do. The democrats don't have a clue.
• United States
22 Feb 07
As for impeaching Bush, impeachment is reserved specifically for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." As such, he can only be impeached if something he did was treasonous. Since I am assuming you are refering to his actions regarding Iraq, one would have to show that his partaking in the war was treasonous. I, personally, find that hard to believe, though it is possible. I also feel that convincing a majority of both the House and Senate that his actions were treasonous is a practical impossibility, even considering that the house is democratically biased and the senate is as well if you include the two independants who caucus with the Democrats. It would be a dangerous precedent to set. Congress would not likely do it.
@Impervious (1147)
• United States
9 Mar 07
You know I have been thinking alot about this lately and you know on one hand we can't just walk away. And too many of our soldiers are getting killed, So If we` send in more troops we are putting more of our people at risk, But if we dont we are putting the soldiers that are there at greater risk. I guess that in a nut shell the response would have to be YES.
@janet069 (663)
• United States
22 Feb 07
I think it is time to impeach him but if you take a close look a Cheny he is not doing any better. Unless you get both of them out we will still be in trouble. Cheny is now defending Rumsfield and attacking Pelosi. This just promotes more problems instead of trying to work together.