Today during my history lecture, we went over Nixon and the whole watergate scandal (information on it here:
) and the basis of why Nixon was going to be impeached. I then considered
the Clinton scandal with Monica Lewinski (information on it here: Clinton Scandal
and why he was impeached.
Afterwards it led me onto thinking about President Bush in general - what are grounds for the consideration of him being impeached when Presidents
before were accused of minor things. Minor things to the extent of not having that big of an effect on the country in general.
Then we look at what happened on 9/11. He declared "War on Terrorism", brought us to Afghanistan on reasonable grounds for the suspicion of
terrorism (which was very well true as it was a bredding ground) and then dragging us into Iraq for feeble reasons that still to this day hold enough
ground to constitute valid reasons to of even invaded.
The basis for this thread is to analyize Bush's actions in response to the Iraq War and did he have good grounds, and thus, if he didn't then should
he be be put to stand the American people for lying about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Everyone who watched Colin Powell give the speech to the U.N. knows that wasn't concrete evidence to invade - NOT EVEN CLOSE to the extent
Afghanistan had, as that country was loaded with terrorist organizations. We had measly grounds for invading Iraq and afterwards... came up completely
empty handed! No terrorist camps, no weapons of mass destruction - NO THREAT to the United States, as was initally declared by the President and his
Saddam Hussein - a dictator? Yes, that's easily answerable (Saddam's Past
). However that was
not the reason on the intent of the invasion of Iraq. They were claimed to have weapons of mass destructions - which they were found to not have, as
well as being an operative ground for terrorists.
First anaylize Saddam Hussein's situation briefly - He was a dictator yes, but he wanted to keep control - he wanted his own domain. The U.S. and the
world had eyes on his country, him supposeably training terrorist would of got him a punch easily, because he knows the U.S. wanted to invade his
country to begin with but he gave them no reason to. He was someone that wanted his own domain, not someone to spread Al Qaeda and terrorism.
Then we move to my conclusion as my character amount is becoming limited - Bush then later changed his reasons for invading Iraq and justified it as
And that is the basis of why he should stand trial for dragging us into an EXPENSIVE invasion of Iraq on feeble grounds. We didn't invade Iraq to
stop Al Qaeda - there was hardly any evidence to support them even being there! WMD - where are they to be found?
Spreading democracy? .Why don't we start with places that we know have WMD - North Korea or how about we spread democracy through out Africa -
that's a breeding ground of all types of terrorism in any sense and talk about dictators - it's a total warzone.
So why Iraq? Bush didn't have any good standing for invading - there's enough evidence to prove against his claims and enough reality out there to
prove there were stronger reasons to make a move on other countries that needed our attention more with the respect of terrorism.
Spreading democracy? This isn't Manifest Destiny anymore.
So again, we go down to the point of this thread - do you think Bush has feasible grounds to be impeached. My strongest argument is his lies on Iraq
just because of the toll it took on the U.S. and its people and how much its costing us, based on meager supported reasons to invade in the first
place when other countries need our attention more.