So, I'd just like everyone's opinion on this. Why was it that noone tried/attempted to impeach Geroge W. Bush after all he has done?

There are two aspects to this answer: reality and politics.

The reality is that he's done nothing to warrant impeachment. These claims that he has trampled on the civil rights of the American people and lied our country into a war are ridiculous and without proof. Bush has done magnitudes of order less than FDR and Wilson (who really did trample on civil rights), and neither of them were impeached.

Politically, The Democrats would love nothing better than to pin impeachment on Bush as revenge for Clinton, who was impeached for proper reasons (lying under oath.) But, the Democrat leadership in the House, I think, realizes that when it comes right down to it, the evidence doesn't match their rhetoric; therefore, they have determined it's a political loser and have abandoned the idea.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: INsage,

Ok, Not to down your response but...

With the presidents whom you have metioned, these 'rights' that have trampled were, to my opinion, and from what I've learned from U.S. History class last year, were for the betterment of the people. Most had good long term effects, starting not too long after the law, etc. was passed. With the exception of one or two, the majority of these laws and regulations passed by the president and congress at the time were extremly benificial.
However, I fail to see this in Bush's administration. The partriot act, war with Iraq, partially destroyed relations, and lying is all I see from them. The Patriot Act, I must admit, did prevent a possible 2 or 3 problems, however, for the most part, all it has done is given the government an easier way to play "Big-Brother". The Iraq War/Gulf War II was based on false pretenses. There was no solid proof for the chemical weapons or biological weapons. Even the United Nations had said that they turned up with nothing (although, they could had hidden them). With all the searching afterwards though, nothing has shown up but empty cases of what used to be a weapon or missile. I have yet to see any solid evidence of there being any weapons before we invaded, with no proof of them existing.
Also, upon the capture of Saddam Hussein, the interrogations afterward before the trials revealed much about his true inner workings and character. First, Saddam readily admitted to not understanding the democratic system to its full potential and use within the U.S. Second, at the time before the invasion, Iraq was having a tense, very heated, stand-off with Iran, and other nations surrounding Iraq. Based on that statement, it is most probable that when Saddam had the weapons destroyed, most unwillingly, that he continued to 'advertise' to the world that he had rebuilt them and kept some. The reasoning, to keep Iraq's enemies like Iran from attacking again. It was a form of intimidation. If you look for a videotape of his interrogation with U.S. officials, he repeats so many times that he did not have any weapons and that it was (do not quote) 'a show, put on to intimidate those of whom hate Iraq'. (Not his exact words but close enough to get the point across)
To add to all this, the republican's new "Tax-refund" is not well worth it to stimulate the economy. If you look closely at the program for this, you will see that (no offence to the 'rich') the upper-class peoples recieve more money than those in the lower-middle and lower class. The way I see that it's going to work is that the Upper-Class will either save or invest the money for the long-term. This thereby leads to a reduction in the trickle-down effect. Less money will make its way down the economic ladder. Rather, what should be done, is that there should be more money given to those in the middle class, a slight bit more to the lower class, and much less to the upper-class (even if it sounds economically prejudiced). The reason being: the middle class is better know for its spending on goods and services which happen to be common, widely used services and goods. If the have the greater amounts of money to be spending, more will be placed back into the economic system and "trickle-down" to the lower-class were they then have the extra bit to spend and will most definately do so in order to not only survive but to better their living environment and surroundings. Therefore, in doing so, you have increased spending more than you would have by giving the greater sum to the upper class and you would have also stimulated the system. This would also most likely lead to an indirect effect on the average living standards.
Now, I'm no government or economics major, but to me, from what I have been taught both by myself and from teachers, this seems to be the track to follow. We need more people to wake up and realize what's going on and how to use the system to better socity, not just themselves. By bettering society as a whole, you indirectly better yourself and your understanding of the world around you.
Thank You for your response. I hope to hear back from more people soon.

I believe that you missed the point of INSage's response. To warrent impeachment, which is just a fancy word for "formally charged," the president must commit an act that is legally worthy of such a charge.
President Clinton lied under oath. This was perjury, a legally clear-cut case of lawbreaking.
The Bush Administration, on the other hand has not committed any similar act; there has been nothing that was so clearly illegal. Many suggest that "civil rights" have been trampled during the last seven years; but, if this is so, where is the evidence? One might reference Guantanamo Bay, but again, the law in regard to the prisonors (or "enemy combatants" as the Admin calls them) is fuzzy, at best. So, quite plainly, there is no evidence, and so no reason for an impeachment.
Again, as Insage suggested, civil rights were "trampled" far more by Presidents who today are icons of progressivism. (Wilson and the income tax, FDR and almost all of the New Deal; both which did have direct, discernable impact on American citizens, unlike anything Bush has done.)

Ok, but, in what reguards to the war in Iraq. Invasion of a country with either no just means or no solid evidence of anything is in violation of the Geneva Convention as I know it. However, that would reguard the rulers of Japan, France, and England as in violation as well. So, he mat not be in violation of national law by this (as far as I can tell) but in international law, he should be. So why is it then that noone has done anything if this is true? Many resources that I've read reference International Law, and he is in violation of a couple laws in reference to what he is doing in Iraq.