Why isn't BUSH impeached?

The funny of the day is that the Kerry camp is outraged :mad: that some folks are questioning the purple hearts that Kerry received during Vietnam.............the service which HE brought up ad nauseum during his campaign. :D
 
Originally posted by 1QWIK6

ONE FREAKIN TOPIC

STICK TO IT! Do not try to spin this.

Ok, I''l play along with your little game... but I'm callin you out

Here is YOUR topic..."why isnt Bush impeached"

Since YOU asked this question, and I have told YOU that there is no legal grounds for impeachment, it is YOU who have the burden of proof to show that I am wrong.

Reply or don't its up to you, but continuing to hide behind the pathetic excuse of "off topic" and dodging my legitimate points only proves my assumptions about who and what you are.

Patiently waiting
 
BUSH WONT BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE CONGRESS IS CONTROLLED BY THE REPS.......................BOTTOM LINE!

IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, QUACKS LIKE A DUCK AND WALKS LIKE A DUCK..........................ITS A DUCK!

HE CAN LIE HIS AS* OFF.................
 
Here... lets look one more time

(Thanks We4Ster)

Word Play...You decide

"There's no question that Iraq was an imminent threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are an
imminent threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 8/29/02


The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are an imminent threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03



Imminent Threat huh? Seems the president lied...
A president that BLATENTLY TOLD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (& the world) ABOUT THE IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD... that wasn't true, doesn't deserve to be impeached for lying and getting people killed?!?!?!!!!?!
:rolleyes:

(thanks JDfastGN)
Here... lets read this ONE MORE TIME.
It is not rediculious. You act like an "oops turned out they didnt have them" is not a big deal. i don't care who thought they had weopons. Before you make a case for war, and send thousands of troops over there, you better be 99.999% sure they do, and the U.S. was not. And yes it is lies, when they have Colin Powell up in front of the media, holding pictures of wharehouses with trucks, claiming them to be moving WMD and the whare house to contain them. And what are you talking about, Bush said the exact words of "Imminent threat" many times, its you that needs to wake up and realize what is going on. There is a nice little soundclip goin around the internet, with all the times he said those exact words. If he was duped then its still not excusable, before you do something as big as a WAR, i you better double check to make sure they have the WMD, just because a previous administration thought the same thing doesn't mean crap, thats info is 3+ years old. The other nations believed it because we said so not because they knew any better. And even if by chance he did have WMD, we obviously do not have them, so if we don't then they are in the wrong hands anyways. Saddam never had the capability to attack us. The administration knew that they were not a threat, yet told us and the world they were.


So... a president lying and starting a war is not grounds for impeachment?!:rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Keep wavin' the flag buddy.:rolleyes:
 
1QWIK6... you are incredibly ignorant, and have proven time and again how ill suited you for anything that requires rational thought and critical thinking

Posting quotes is not showing how Bush committed a HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. That is the LEGAL standard. Impeachment isnt some kneejerk decision that you can implement cause you dont like someone or you feel that they did a bad job.

I dont care who said what about anything. I dont care if God came down from upon high and told GW the there were no WMD's. I dont care if you had a Congress full of Massachusetts liberals. There is absolutely no way that you have any legal ground given all of the evidence from the past 12 years that you would be able to convict Bush of anything.

You might think he deserves to be impeached, you might want him to be impeached, but every time you open your mouth and say that he can and must be impeached you throw yourself into that same huge barrel of idiots that think Gore should have won cause he won the popular vote.

There is a reason for some of the technical things in our system of government... specifically the framers didnt want our country in the hands of idiots.

Which brings me to a non related question. How old are you... I seriously would like to know?
 
Stage 2

"Impeachment isnt some kneejerk decision that you can implement cause you dont like someone or you feel that they did a bad job".

How did the governator get his job?

Hint: Someone didnt like Davis so they voted and recalled him.
Hmmmmmmmm, maybe we can start a recall on Bushbaby..
 
This is all you need to read right here.

"The Kerry Plan for Energy Independence. Kerry has outlined a comprehensive energy plan that will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment. Kerry's plan will increase and enhance domestic energy sources and provide incentives to help Americans use energy more cleanly and efficiently. When sixty-five percent of the world's oil reserves lie beneath the Persian Gulf states and only 3 percent lie beneath America, we cannot drill our way to independence. We can, however, develop and deploy clean energy technologies that will make us more efficient and allow us to capitalize on domestic and renewable sources of energy. John Kerry's plan for a renewable energy trust fund to invest in the development of renewable energy will reduce our oil dependence by more than 2 million barrels of oil a day - about the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf. Kerry's plan will also create 500,000 new jobs over the next decade and work toward producing 20 percent of US energy from renewable fuels by 2020."


Thankfully I've got a Genie trapped in a bottle, better chance of getting my wish than Kerry.

How the heck would he know about looking in sofas for money and making choices of gas over childrens needs???

Give me a freakin' break...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Doh...........................Homerism....

What does that have to do with impeaching Bushbaby?
 
Originally posted by salvageV6

How the heck would he know about looking in sofas for money and making choices of gas over childrens needs???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/B]


Uh, they talk to people, instead of talking to Jesus, like Bush !



We4ster, like I said, O.T. do you know what that means? Don't play stupid like they accuse you of.
 
1QWIK6 THIS IS JUST FOR YOU!

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
BUSH LIE OF WMD... STICK TO IT! Do not try to spin this.

Let's analyze:

lie (lº) n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. --lie v. lied, ly·ing (lº“¹ng), lies. --intr. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. [Middle English, from Old English lyge. See leugh- below.]

Clearly, President Bush didn't "LIE" as some contend. Grow up and learn the english language.

IMPEACHMENT-
Treason or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Clearly, President Bush isn't impeachable. He hasn't committed treason or other high crime or misdemeanor. Clinton on the other hand....

Next case please.....
 
"To present false information with the intention of deceiving"

Hmmmmm.....sounds like "IRAQ HAS WMD'S, we have to invade and violate the u.n. resolution.

"Treason or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Sending Americans troops to IRAQ under FALSE pretenses,
thats TREASON to me.........


Thank you TT/A1233
 
Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Here... lets look one more time

(Thanks We4Ster)

Word Play...You decide

"There's no question that Iraq was an imminent threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are an
imminent threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President **** Cheney, 8/29/02


The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are an imminent threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03



Imminent Threat huh? Seems the president lied...
A president that BLATENTLY TOLD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (& the world) ABOUT THE IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD... that wasn't true, doesn't deserve to be impeached for lying and getting people killed?!?!?!!!!?!
:rolleyes:

(thanks JDfastGN)
Here... lets read this ONE MORE TIME.
It is not rediculious. You act like an "oops turned out they didnt have them" is not a big deal. i don't care who thought they had weopons. Before you make a case for war, and send thousands of troops over there, you better be 99.999% sure they do, and the U.S. was not. And yes it is lies, when they have Colin Powell up in front of the media, holding pictures of wharehouses with trucks, claiming them to be moving WMD and the whare house to contain them. And what are you talking about, Bush said the exact words of "Imminent threat" many times, its you that needs to wake up and realize what is going on. There is a nice little soundclip goin around the internet, with all the times he said those exact words. If he was duped then its still not excusable, before you do something as big as a WAR, i you better double check to make sure they have the WMD, just because a previous administration thought the same thing doesn't mean crap, thats info is 3+ years old. The other nations believed it because we said so not because they knew any better. And even if by chance he did have WMD, we obviously do not have them, so if we don't then they are in the wrong hands anyways. Saddam never had the capability to attack us. The administration knew that they were not a threat, yet told us and the world they were.


So... a president lying and starting a war is not grounds for impeachment?!:rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Keep wavin' the flag buddy.:rolleyes:
I really don't know what you've been smok'in or shoot'in. :confused: I think you need to sit on a five foot shovel and push your brains closer to where they belong.;)
 
Good One!

Originally posted by b231v6
I think you need to sit on a five foot shovel and push your brains closer to where they belong.;)
Hahhaha, that's pretty funny!! I think all the libs around here should start with the shovel, then pick up a dictionary at the same time.

CLICK ME FOR EXAMPLE
 
Originally posted by Red Regal T
Don't be stealin' my vocabulary! :D

I have to disagree with you with the Michael Moore, Rush comparison. MM is an outright commie, Iraqi insurgent sypathizer, and a traitor to this country. While Limbaugh is partison, he makes a lot of sense and points out the hypocrisy of the left. He certainly has his shortcomings, as we all do. I don't agree with his rants on class envy or the idea that we shouldn't have more government help with medical. Some of you may know how rediculously expensive medical procedures are. Price of medical procedures are downright scary.

I might mention know it all O'Reilly, too. I probably came out of a similar envirement growing up. This guy, in my opinion, is an arrogant idiot. The term NITWIT, :D comes to mind. Talk about somebody having a little success, then it all goes to his head. I like when he complains about having to pay high taxes. :rolleyes: These people, who have more than they can ever spend, think they're worth every penny of it. :rolleyes: The guy tiptoes around when talking about certain people just in the hopes they'll come on his show. If you notice, he never has anyone of importance, left or right, on his show. They don't know where that idiot will go with the conversation if they do.

Well, glad I got that off my chest. :p
I laughed so hard when I read that. I still think it should be the word of the month!!!

:D :D
 
STAGE 2

I dont care who said what about anything
Problem identified...:rolleyes: Maybe you could open your ears and stop running your mouth and you'd discover a whole new world.

Massachusetts liberals
Problem #2 identified... I said leave that crap out... it skews the topic/subject. It shows a blatent bias and prejudice. Plus it shows your A.D.D. :eek:


There is a reason for some of the technical things in our system of government... specifically the framers didnt want our country in the hands of idiots.
Should I start the revolution now or later (LOL! ;) )

Which brings me to a non related question. How old are you... I seriously would like to know?
I'm 10 years old. And this 10 Y.O. can tell when an adult is lying.;)
 
You two are amazing... purely amazing. Neither one of you knows jack squat about governmental procedures, the law, or the consitution.

We4ster, the CA constitution has a recall provision, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with impeachment. I expect alot more from a Californian. Furthermore, we are going by the LEGAL standards rather than what you "feel" treason is. Maybe I can get a straight answer to my question from you cause your buddy aint up to the challenge.

1QUIK6... I asked how old you are because your responses are incredibly similar to my 5 year old nephew... which would make you an incredibly stupid 10 year old I guess.

Once again you managed to post about EVERYTHING except an answer to my direct question. I dont know how someone can piss and moan about staying on the topic of impeachment and then not even remotely follow his own rantings. But being the compassionate conservative I am I'll ask you my question again...

What HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR did Bush commit?


Now before you open your mouth and make my nephew seem that much smarter, please pick up the constitution and heaven forbid an encyclopedia or maybe even a law book and find out what a high crime or misdemeanor is. Once you do I think you will see that everything you have posted is irrelevant.


And before I go I feel that I need to impart a wee bit of clarity. Since sarcasm and reasoning by analogy are unfamiliar to you, the entire reason behind the Massachusetts liberal comment was to point out that even if Congress was controlled entirely by Bush haters they would not be able to meet the legal standard (what those of us in the biz like to call burden of proof) that would be required to impeach Bush. Why? Certianly not for a lack of trying. The answer is simply, cause it ain't there.

Oh Lord forgive them cause they know not
 
Top