A bit of disclosure: I’m only 22. When 9/11 happened, I was still in elementary school, so all of the military and political decisions that subsequently took place went way above my head at the time. Honestly, I don’t recall much in terms of what the sociopolitical climate was even like at that time, though I do know that my father was broadly supportive of the Iraq war in general. I don’t know how he presently feels, however.
Still, it seems to me that a war of choice which was instigated under false pretenses would serve as a strong reason to impeach W., or at least to threaten him with the possibility of impeachment. Compound that with the thousands of US troops who died in that conflict in addition to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths, and an airtight case could seemingly be made.
For all I know, maybe it was. I was far too young at the time to have an awareness of these broader issues, though, so I’m interested to see what this board has to say.
Bush, much as I hated the guy, wasn’t the only one banging the drum for war. War against somebody was very popular at the time. Somebody, somewhere had to pay and I don’t think most people cared who that was, as long as the government did something about those damned terrorists. I can’t remember what the exact count was but congress voted pretty nearly unanimously to do into Iraq.
If he wasn’t under oath, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor to lie to the country. Not good politics, but impeachment isn’t supposed to be used to oust people you just don’t like. If every president who lied was impeached, not a one would ever finish their terms.
False pretenses were never definitely established. The official line was that the CIA had screwed the pooch and the Bush administration was acting logically given the information they had to work with. There was a certain amount of evidence contradicting this claim, but Democrats didn’t really have the political clout to pursue the issue the way they might have liked to.
When Obama came into office he specifically said he wouldn’t pursue the issue, which was probably a good idea. Democrats had already swept into power based on popular sentiment turning against the war and other of Bush’s failings. Harping on it would have just wasted time and inflamed partisanship to even more ridiculous levels than we have now anyway. It’s a nice revenge fantasy, but just not practical.
Two of the funniest ideas — and there were many unfulfillable hopes and dreams — were that a maddened Mr. Bush would contrive to override the law and stay on as perpetual president, and that Mr. Obama would prosecute his predecessor.
Also that Gitmo would be closed down.
There was serious discussion of it (you could find quite a bit on this board, if you want to spend some time searching), until Pelosi flatly said it wasn’t going to happen.
Part of the reason was political - it would have been easy for the Republicans to spin as simple tit-for-tat for what they tried to do to Clinton - and part of the reason was the realization that it would have made Cheney President and therefore wouldn’t have mattered. If Cheney had been impeached too, for his own lies and lawlessness, it would have meant a Democratic President, Pelosi, and that would have been hard to sell to history as legitimate. At no time was impeaching *only *Cheney seriously considered.
Yes. Plus, Democrats remembered how the Clinton impeachment efforts completely backfired and make the Republicans look like idiots. Although the Bush thing was more serious, I don’t think they wanted to risk it. And, as others have said, most prominent Democrats were behind the war as well, and the fact that they were “misled” might be too fine a point to carry public opinion.
He was Acting President already, so it wouldn’t have mattered.
There was fear of the “How dare they distract and discredit our Commander in Chief during wartime!” claim, never mind that it would have come from the very same people who claimed Clinton’s attacks on Al Qaeda were intended to distract people from their *own *impeachment effort.
Let’s be real. George Bush was President of the United States. He was not just another face in the crowd. If he hadn’t been calling for a war against Iraq, it wouldn’t have happened. The only reason people decided Iraq was the place to attack in response to terrorism is because Bush told people it was.
Oh, I don’t disagree with you and I certainly don’t want to find myself defending the worst president of my lifetime but I was appalled at the time by the number of people who were eager to lash out at anyone over 9/11. “Bomb anyone in our way” seemd to be the cry. Bush and company used that anger and confusion to their own ends, no question in my mind. But congress’ job is to counterbalance that shit - instead they helped Bush light the touches and sharpen the pitchforks.
And even if there had been, there certainly weren’t enough votes in the Senate, so why bother?
It would have set an enduring precedent. From that point on, every President would be impeached. Eternal payback. Many Democrats wanted to impeach Bush as payback for the Clinton impeachment, but wiser heads prevailed.
Democrats are not crazy and petty to try and do that for political gain. They knew it wouldn’t help the country that much, he was going out of office, and there are better things to do than to refight a war you’ve largely won.