Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Like I said, I am no lawyer, but I do believe so sort of crime or misdemeanor was commited
You are totally correct 1QWIK6. You are definately not a lawyer, and have proven it time and again. Honestly at this point I question what education you have had if any.
I mean really, is it too much to ask to expect proper spelling and grammar. Honestly though, that is trivial compared to this next issue which is the problem with this entire thread.
Your problem (and with those like you) is that you dont think before you speak (or in this case write). You dont take the time to understand what it is what you are talking about, but instead, rattle off whatever comes to mind.
You just said that you believe that, "some sort of crime or misdemeanor was comitted". Well, it goes without saying that what you believe has nothing to do with the law. (and thank goodness for that) What really puts the burr under my saddle is that the crap that you just posted ISN'T THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!
I told you to pick up the Constitution and read a bit, which you obviously didn't. But to make things worse
I SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU WHAT THE STANDARD WAS. You didnt have to even think for yourself. All you had to do was copy and paste and you couldn't even do that. How do you expect us to take you seriously when you can't even correctly state the law when its right in front of your face.
Again, however, as the compassionate conservative I will do the good deed and put your worries to rest. You see,
I AM A LAWYER (assumptions will be your downfall), and let me be the first to tell you that the reason that there is no call for impeachment by any of the democrats/liberals is that they know that Bush hasnt done anything impeachable. Believe me, if there was, they would be the first to pounce on it.
I know I know, your buddy We4ster is chompin at the bit to let us know that it wouldn't happen cause Congress is controlled by the good guys. This may be true, however, if impeachment was only a matter of partisanship don't you think that they would still make a big stink about it to raise the public's eye. You bet they would.
Finally, and in conclusion, rather than sit here and make all sorts of statements ad nauseum about how stupid you just made yourself look by making assumptions about me or what I do for a living, I am going to give you another chance to redeem yourself. Contrary to popular belief we conservatives arent the harsh bunch of nazis that many would want you to believe. So yes, here is your second (well... more like 13th but who's counting) chance.
Now I can't give you a course on evidence or what is admissible in court, but crap like "he had to know" or "with all that intel there was no way he couldn't have known" won't cut it.
Since you posed the inquiry, you have to show us and prove to us (hell I'll even be nice and use the preponderance of the evidence standard) that Bush was absolutely certain that Iraq didn't have WMD's when he decided to go to war.
Second, assuming that you can prove the first, you have to show that Bush's decision to invade Iraq even though he knew that it didn't have WMD's was a high crime or misdemeanor. Remember, Bush gave several reasons other than WMD's for starting this conflict, and that Congress gave him the ok to use this force thus making it legal. Also you must take into account the fact that the President can use troops anytime and anywhere he wants to for 90 days without anyone's approval (see below if you're confused)
I know I know, you're gonna tell me that Bush's lied to Congress and made them think that Iraq had WMD's, meaning that they would have voted differently if they would have known the truth. Well I hate to break it to you but members of Congress have just as much access to classified information as the executive branch does, so if you are gonna put Bush in the crosshairs, you'll have to throw the legislature in as well.
So there you have it, lie or no lie, (which you cannot prove anyways as it requires a state of mind analysis) Bush did not commit an impeachable offense.
I'm looking forward to your well thought out and coherent response.
...on a totally separate topic, We4ster, the President does not have to have a legal/legitimate reason for invading Iraq or any country for that matter. He has 90 days to commit troops anywhere and for any reason he wants. After 90 days he must report to Congress as per the War Powers Act, but since Congress gave him the ok for Iraq, this whole deal was legitimate.
I should think a navy seal would know that, certainly one that served at the time the WPA was passed. That makes me begin to wonder...
