Quote Originally Posted by CountArach
That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.
He'd been organizing mass murderings of innocent people years before even the first Gulf War. There's proof he did it during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait,as well. Maybe it hadn't been officially recognized,but he was still a war criminal nonetheless.

Quote Originally Posted by CountArach
Do you support Bush's impeachment?
I read over that entire article (I'll look into the main articles a little later on,because there's a lot to read),and I agree with everything but the following:
2003 Invasion & Justification for Invasion -If we hadn't have gone in in 2003,we'd have eventually done it anyway. Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me. Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program. And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?
UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

The Constitutionality for Invasion is presently irrelevant because it's been dismissed by the Federal court,with said dismissal upheld in appeal. We'll see what happens with further appeals.

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them. But I am against torture,to make that crystal clear,nor am I disputing torture and abuse cases because these horrific acts have occurred. Though I don't believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed,simply because these individuals are far too dangerous to keep on US soil.

So with a concensus of 5 agreements,3 disagreements,and 1 undecided (in addition to the 1 currently irrelevant) -- Yes,I do believe there is grounds for impeachment of President Bush.