General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Dubya have been impeached? [View all]karynnj
(59,498 posts)The charges would be accurate - he did mislead (lie) Congress and the American people into war with Iraq. By 2007, when we first had control of the House and Senate much of the country thought the war was a "mistake".
However, we were still fighting that war. Impeaching Bush would have indicted the UNITED STATES - not just Bush - and would have declared a war - that we were still fighting - illegal. Our country's mythology is that we are uniquely good. This is believed not just by Conservative Republicans (in a time when we have a Republican President.) Most of the US history kids learn in grade school and High school is completely sanitized.
The Republicans would instantly turn the question of "impeachment" to one of whether the US intentionally started an illegal war. On DU, that would not matter --- but for most Americans they would not go there and would take the position, that right or wrong, the motivation was to make us safer "especially after 911".
I suspect that many Democrats, from the more purple or red areas, would vote no. I also think there would be even more false equivalence given than there was - that Democrats saw the same thing and saw Saddam as a threat. (In 1998, there was a Senate resolution - that the Clinton State department supported and lobbied for - that listed the various crimes of Saddam and essentially said the US favored him out of office. The big difference is that was no support given to a war and none was on the table. This WAS when the US bombed Iraq and when the inspectors left.)
I suspect that there would be a very anemic vote in the House for it - essentially vindicating Bush. As it would fail the House, he would not be impeached and there would be no Senate vote.