Actually I hope the Democrats DO impeach him.This is because impeachment will expose them for the phonies and idiots that TOO MANY-NOT ALL-of them are.If the raison d'etre for the Dems wanting to take back congress is to impeach Bush and thus to "settle old scores" it proves to me that these turkeys have no real agenda to run the country.

I think that President Bush should be impeached. So many things have gone wrong since he's been elected. Is President Bush someone that you want to represent us in foreign affairs? The rest of the world think that we are morons for electing this guy, twice! He's not the brightest penny in the fountain either, look how he handled hurricane katrina and 9/11. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? What are we sending our brave men and women over there for, oil, to liberate the Iraqi people, weapons? I think Bush started this war to get re-elected for a second term. Our boys and girls don't even have enough armor. He inserts minorities in his cabinet not because he wanted to, he did it to get more votes from minorities. Bush said that he wouldn't issue a draft, that may be true but everyday recruiters call my house trying to get me to join the army or navy. When I tell these recruiters that I'm not interested, these same recruiters call me from different numbers and one recruiter called me from his house! The national guard sent my sister a letter on her 18th birthday, now these recruiters harrass her too. I would have voted against Bush, but it seems like when you vote against Bush your votes are thrown into the ocean! Unless something huge happens in Iraq, I can't see how anyone wouldn't want this guy impeached.

Even if we never prove that the Bush administration lied and managed intelligence to goad us into war, there is the very proven and distateful issue of the mismanagement of the war. We didn't send enough troops, we didn't have a cogent plan for after the Iraqi army was dismembered, and we screwed up the reconstruction. There are still billions of dollars missing (billions!) that are unaccounted for. These facts are shameful enough to warrant an impeachment.

As someone noted earlier, this war is not about oil in its entirety. But, given the premises of WMD's, Al-Qaida connection, and Saddam links to them were proven false, it begs the question where did this admin. get their intelligence. As they stumbled upon liberating Iraq as the final premise for this unjust war-which breaks only about a 1/3 of intl. law and the Geneva Convention was undermined-I do hope stability exists, but just b/c Iraq becomes stable doesn't mean the Mid. East will. Iran is increasingly becoming a huge worry, and with the current status of Sharon of Israel, which Iran's new pres. has a disdain for, who knows what could unfold. Israel and Iran could be the nest nuke threat. As India and Pakistan are regarded as the muke threat, and rightfully so, this turmoil between Iran and Israel, not to mention Palestine, Syria, and even though Saudi's govt. is on our side, their population does not like the US policies. Overthrowing Saddam is a good thing, but at what price? Soon our honorable troops will reach a death toll equal to that of the ones that occurred on 9/11. I hope not, but it seems inevitable. I hope Bush doesn't leave troops there when he leaves, so the next president has to clean up his mess. And by the way, while everyone was endulging in Lewinsky and Clinton, Bill gave a speech to the UN, and at his state of the union address, in which he unequically stated that terrorism was the new threat. Richard Clarke called for meetings about it, but Bush ignored all of them, and Condi played "fool" when it came to stating what the title was on the Aug. 6th PDR, which was entitled "Osama to strike within the US." I do not blame any president for those horrific acts, but Bush did ignore viable warning signs.

I do not think the war on Iraq was waged for oil.That's just too simple.I do,however,think it was waged to fill the pockets of Bushs many corporate contributors such as Halliburton,who recieved billions of dollars in uncontested contracts and defense industry war profiteers such as KBR.One of the most telling falsehoods was the implication of Iraqs involvement in 9/11 and the false connection of Hussein with Bin Laden,who were,in fact,bitter enemies.Right after 9/11,all we heard was "Bin Laden",but soon enough the bait was switched to Saddam Hussein.Iraq had already been weakened by years of sanctions,partially disarmed,and was surrounded by our troops and allies.The UN should have been allowed to continue it's weapons inspections and Saddam could have been removed from power without murdering countless innocent civilians and sacrificing thousands of our own troops.Instead,Bush and his accomplices misled us into a bloody, costly and un-necessary quagmire.For every innocent Iraqi killed,a hunderd new terrorsits sprang to life all over the globe.Terrorism is only fueled by such acts.Now we are in the deepest debt and worse danger than ever.Impeaching Bush would send the message to the world that the American People will not tolerate being decieved into a War that could and should have been avoided.We need a leader who can work WITH our allies in the UN-not one who gives them the finger then asks for help when it all goes to hell on us.

The government, as did the rest of the world, knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The only reason there was an invasion was to cause rallying around the flag so that Bush could get re-elected. Yes, life may be better for some Iraqis now that they're not subjected to Hussein's oppression, but life isn't better for the thousands of other Iraqis, Americans, British, Spaniards, and other humans whose lives or the lives of friends or loved ones were lost in this war. Thank you, President Bush, for thinking that thousands of lives are less important than re-election and oil.

Here's an update for you libs who spend most of your time conversing amongst yourselves: The use of force was overwhelmingly approved by Congress! Appropriations for the war were REPEATEDLY funded by congress! Three additional supplementals for the war have been approved by congress! The President didn't just go invade Iraq there was a 17 months of debate that took place prior to the use of force (plenty of time to move WMD to Syria...but lets ignore that)- after which the CONGRESS- pay attention people- CONGRESS! OVERWHELMINGLY!... approved the use of force. The president was then overwhelmingly RE-elected with 62 million votes after it was already known there were no weapons of mass destruction even after it was obvious the post-invasion occupation was not going as planned. There were intensive Congressional investigations that found NO data whatsoever that implied that Bush had influenced the intel or findings of any intel. What world do you liberals live in? It's completely ridiculous how you libs actually believe your own hype! Ahhh.. the sky is falling... the sky is falling!!! AHHHH! AAAHHH! Bush is a terrorist!! Bush is a Nazi! Bush is creating a police state! Yet, 61% of Americans support extending the Patriot Act. A majority still support the war in Iraq. Over 59% believe the president is acting within his constitutional authority by approving domestic wiretaps of international calls between suspected terrorists without a warrant. A majority of Americans believe the President should- and does- have the authority to authorize physical interrogation methods on high level terrorists who are not protected under the Geneva provisions. Just because you libs cringe at the prospects of a President defending this nation in the face of terrorism doesn't mean everyone else does. Impeachment? For what exactly? Give me the legal precedent for pursuing articles of impeachment beyond your stupid assertions. What could you possilby impeach Bush for? Utilizing the authority prescribed to the executive by the Constitution? You guys have read Article II correct? Don't you think if he committed a crime a bloviating congressman would have attempted to draft articles of impeachment? Don't you think the liberal media would be drumming the beat for impeachment? What the hell.. screw it... go ahead keep blurting out the word impeachment for crimes that aren't crimes and lie about things that really aren't lies. And continue to buy into your own hyperbole. What's reality got to do with objectivity. And what happened to all that "WORST ECONOMY SINCE HOOVER" stuff that you guys were blathering about? The economy has added 4.5 million new jobs over the last two years, the DOW is at 11,000 again, unemployment is down below 5% (below Clinton's average during those "booming" nineties), inflation is low, interest rates are still historically low, home ownership is at an all-time high, minority unemployment is at an all-time low, minority home ownership is at an all-time high... AHHH but don't let the facts get in the way of you saying "Bush is the worst president ever" because you feel like it. Go right ahead.. make asses of yourselves! "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!" Kwhyman, The Bill Of Rights does not trump the absolute authority the president has to conduct warfare. Nor is it solely the authority of the judicial branch to determine what the law is nor is the judiciary superior to the executive in determining what the law is. Now, off the bat these are difficult constitutional questions that legal scholars argue over and never come to a consensus upon. Just yesterday Lawrence Tribe was arguing against Alito's position that the unitary executive has certain authority granted to it under Article II. Tough questions. No perfect answer. Like is the War Powers Act constitutional? Probably not most think. And Bush argues FISA is not either. Also, you can't ignore economic statistics on purely personal impact. But in reality the growth in the ecomomy hits everyone through rising wages even though you personally may not feel it. The labor department doesn't make up statistics for political reasons. Unemployment rates are very very low right now and have steadily declined over the last 3 years on Bush's watch- that's a fact. It's also the reason why my starting porter positions are now demanding 8 per hour when only 2 years ago they started at 6. And my receptionist makes 10 per when we use to start them at 8. Wal-Mart or Home Depot is experiencing the same wage pressures. And that is due to Bush's policies.

Impeachment? No, i don't think so. I think the war was oversold, and the public was given the bait & switch when the intelligence proved to be bad - when did WMD become spreading liberty again - but, no not impeachable offenses. I do think that the Bush Administration should be held accountable for their mismanagement of the war, and my sense is that we're seeing that in plummeting approval ratings and a thinking conservative rebellion against Bush's spending and taking of liberties with American law. Very biased list, btw... hard to take these sorts of lists seriously.

He is overstepping the boundaries set in the Articles of the Constitution bounding his powers, Lance, It's called our protections in the Bill of Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is given to the judiciary, and not to the executive branch, to decide what is reasonable under the Law and the Constitution. It is time at least for the jodiciary to do their job and check and balance the hell out of the executive and legislative branches for infringing on the rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. By the way, the DOW breaking 11k puts no money in my pocket, or puts me back into a job. As for unemployment figures, I believe that the figures have been consistantly low-balled by Democratic and Republican administrations in an effort to keep the voting public at large from staging a revolt in the polls against whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office or in the Congress. It isn't my place to call for impeachment, honestly. It is the place of my Congressman, and I intend to voice my concerns about the current state of affairs to his office so he can properly represent my interests. I will exercise my right to vote as my way of speaking up, and I will continue to keep the issues of the day at the forefront. An informed voter does his civic duty a lot more effectively then one who buys into the spin. Dig deep, folks, get past the spin and rheteric to see the facts, then use your brain and vote appropriately. Call your congressman and senator to get them to listen to their constituency again.

Impeachment? I'm still trying to figure out how the guy got elected in the first place...

"On October 11, 2002, the Senate voted 77-23 in favor of the war. On the same date, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133." - Ridgewalker I love ya, Ridge and for the record I just stumbled into this so I didn't click an unhelpful. In fact, I don't click unhelpfuls to anything...It's just immature... To the point. It's certainly on record how the Senate and House voted. My problem is...with what misleading information did the President supply in order to swing the vote in his favor? Sure he gained protocol to attack Iraq...but there was no basis in fact, only pure fear mongering. If you were a senator/congressman on 9/12, wouldn't you feel compelled to believe that the leader of the free world would supply you with the neccessary, factional information in order to make an intelligent decision? In hindsight the votes only reveal the aftermath of a carefully concieved shell game...but don't blame the politicians, millions of Americans were duped as well.

*I do not agree with the conspiratorial tone of the list's description. Nevertheless here is my review.* I think of all possibilities for impeachment this is the best ground to explore. Although, with a Republican-controlled, doormat Congress, any honest investigation into his handling of the war is very unlikely. The criminally plofligate way in which reconstruction has been handled by companies with close ties to the administration is shameful. Not following the recommendations of advisors calling for higher numbers of troops before the war began is inexcusable too. However, I don't think Bush can be blaimed for issues like the lack of body/vehicle armor, which are the results of Congress underfunding and Pentagon mismanagement of budgets. The latter being the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense (a cabinet level position within the Executive) who has managed to retain his job despite a dismal performance. Rumsfeld has apparently asked Bush more than once if he should resign and Bush has said no. This over abundance of loyalty to the incompetent has not helped the war's management. Bush should be criticized for intensifying and capitalizing on an energized climate of fear that began after 9/11. The overplaying of WMDs and the false accusation of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda were at least highly unethical. If the executive branch of government leads the country into war by such questionable tactics its up to the legislative branch to check that power by investigation. It is too early to tell if Iraq will become a successful democracy or not. But that says nothing about thel legality of the U.S. going to war in the first place, especially when it is possible the public may have been deceived. Nor does it acknowledge if the Iraqis themselves wanted us to invade and, in fact, want democracy. I believe they do, but would it matter to Bush if they did not?

OK, I'm a little critical when it comes to lists like this, ask Spartacus, but the little blurbs to the left on this list are the worst of any on this website, or any website I have visited recently. I encourage all posters to rate this weblist (I gave it a 1 because I think the weblist items and descriptions should at least be close to objective, encouraging THOUGHTFUL comments from those so inclined) and encourage the list maker to revise his idiotic (3 for 3) descriptions, which contain very little verifiable information. Hate Bush (or is it ALL conservatives?) all you want, but try to be somewhat objective in your impeachment talking points. It is too early to judge whether or not the war in Iraq will prove to be a successful foreign policy initiative of the United States. The dopey premise that we're fighting for oil is only believed and regurgitated by the most immature and ill-informed wing nuts around. Accusing Karl Rove of "outting" an undercover CIA agent is pure nonsense. Absolutely no proof exists for such a claim, and Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent at the time of her exposure in the US media. Somebody put a clue in an envelope and send it to famw. It'll be his first.

This is a comedy of errors from beginning to end. As to impeachment, however, I suppose that you have to have complicity. I can't draw that conclusion from the evidence. Maybe future hearings shall tell us more. Congress should be defeated for avoiding its duty either to declare war under the Constitution or cut off funding.