Why isn't BUSH impeached?
- Thread starter 1QWIK6
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
TurboJunky
Fire the Federal Gov't
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
- Messages
- 5,104
I must ask all you naysayers is this:
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power or not?
2. Would we have been better off with Gore in office had he won Florida?
3. Did the Clinton administration believe Saddam possessed WMD?
Please keep your responses isolated to these three questions only. Yes or No's will do.
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power or not?
2. Would we have been better off with Gore in office had he won Florida?
3. Did the Clinton administration believe Saddam possessed WMD?
Please keep your responses isolated to these three questions only. Yes or No's will do.
1QWIK6
Buddy... Pal... Chum... you keep ignoring my posts. Whats the deal. Dont you like to play in the sandbox of fact and reason? I can only assume that your silence means that you dont have an answer. At least your friend We4ster has the motor functions to speak when spoken to.
Wrong or not, at least have the conviction to debate isues like an adult.
Buddy... Pal... Chum... you keep ignoring my posts. Whats the deal. Dont you like to play in the sandbox of fact and reason? I can only assume that your silence means that you dont have an answer. At least your friend We4ster has the motor functions to speak when spoken to.
Wrong or not, at least have the conviction to debate isues like an adult.
Actually, it was never just one or the other.
3) Possibly, but did Clinton invade iraq based on it?
[/B]
Why yes! He mentioned WMDs, SH's record of bad behavior, and even the Cease Fire violations! Imagine that! Just like Bush, he mentioned all of those (and w/ more detail) but somehow folks are being selective.
I admit its tough to list EVERY reason in every post.
Ive got a good example:
When I had construction start at work, I listed the data/power lines to be avoided and pointed them out... later when a construction guy would ask me, "is that a data line we need to leave?" I would say yes. Well, context doesnt meach much after he cuts a different one.
Who to blame? I dunno. 20/20 as it is I have to bore anyone to tears now on any project by repeating the full list of instructions - by which they just let that in one ear and out the other til they get to the part of interest.
Bush has never just let WMD's stand on their own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power or not?
2. Would we have been better off with Gore in office had he won Florida?
3. Did the Clinton administration believe Saddam possessed WMD?
Here we go again with the RHETORIC...We're talking about Bushbaby and his lies/bending of the truth.
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power or not?
2. Would we have been better off with Gore in office had he won Florida?
3. Did the Clinton administration believe Saddam possessed WMD?
Here we go again with the RHETORIC...We're talking about Bushbaby and his lies/bending of the truth.
The nerve of some people...
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian court has ruled the United States should pay $600 million in compensation for supplying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, the official IRNA news agency said on Wednesday.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian court has ruled the United States should pay $600 million in compensation for supplying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, the official IRNA news agency said on Wednesday.
Yeah that's where we need to be getting our news from. IRNA
First it was "Bush lied about WMD's"
Woodwards book comes out and proves Bush wasn't Lying (Though Clinton's George Tenet may have lied to him).
Now its "lies/bending of the truth"
I guess that the word "lie" will be removed completely in the near future since there is ZERO proof of any lies on Bush's part, and continuing the Mantra makes you look small minded (like us people you insecurely mock)
O.K. bush didnt lie....he was mislead..sounds plausible considering he isnt the smartest kid on the block. Maybe we could blame cheney instead, he has his hand so far up bushbabys arse, its a wonder bush is still breathing.
Congress was mislead into believing that Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S.
9/11 was used by the administration as a just reason to invade Iraq because we all know that Saddam was sleeping with Bin Laden.
Saddam was getting ready to invade one of his neighbors again. And he wasnt worried about the U.S. or the U.N. retaliating in force.
Yep all the reasons the "Administration" gave were "Legitimate" and required the U.S. to destroy those evil heathens in Iraq.
Gimme a break!
Even Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that invading Iraq was a huge mistake..
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Congress was mislead into believing that Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S.
9/11 was used by the administration as a just reason to invade Iraq because we all know that Saddam was sleeping with Bin Laden.
Saddam was getting ready to invade one of his neighbors again. And he wasnt worried about the U.S. or the U.N. retaliating in force.
Yep all the reasons the "Administration" gave were "Legitimate" and required the U.S. to destroy those evil heathens in Iraq.
Gimme a break!
Even Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that invading Iraq was a huge mistake..
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Yes 1QWIK6 I have been reading your posts and guess what...
you still haven't answered my question. Show me the LEGAL reason for which Bush should be impeached.
-Going to war on bad intel is not a reason.
-Having one of your justifications (WMD's) for going to war disproved (which it hasn't) isnt a reason.
-Telling the American people something that you believe to be true is not a reason.
-And even if it was true... telling the American people something that is not correct is not a high crime or a misdemeanor.
I dont know about you but out of everything that Bush really did, and everything that you think Bush did (because I know that unlike the rest of us you know everything that went on behind those closed doors)... NON OF IT QUALIFIES AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
I swear... they really should make con law a required course in high school.
you still haven't answered my question. Show me the LEGAL reason for which Bush should be impeached.
-Going to war on bad intel is not a reason.
-Having one of your justifications (WMD's) for going to war disproved (which it hasn't) isnt a reason.
-Telling the American people something that you believe to be true is not a reason.
-And even if it was true... telling the American people something that is not correct is not a high crime or a misdemeanor.
I dont know about you but out of everything that Bush really did, and everything that you think Bush did (because I know that unlike the rest of us you know everything that went on behind those closed doors)... NON OF IT QUALIFIES AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
I swear... they really should make con law a required course in high school.
"you still haven't answered my question. Show me the LEGAL reason for which Bush should be impeached"
Show me a legal/legitimate reason for invading Iraq....
Of course bushbaby knew what he was doing when he invaded iraq, the bad intel excuse is just that....an excuse!
Or bushbaby is as dumb as he appears and has very poor advisors...
Remember, Colin Powell desperately tried to talk bushbaby out of invading Iraq...I wonder why?
Legally Impeachable maybe.....In reality.....not...Rep. control house and Senate..
Show me a legal/legitimate reason for invading Iraq....
Of course bushbaby knew what he was doing when he invaded iraq, the bad intel excuse is just that....an excuse!
Or bushbaby is as dumb as he appears and has very poor advisors...
Remember, Colin Powell desperately tried to talk bushbaby out of invading Iraq...I wonder why?
Legally Impeachable maybe.....In reality.....not...Rep. control house and Senate..
you still haven't answered my question. Show me the LEGAL reason for which Bush should be impeached.
-Going to war on bad intel is not a reason.
*** Bad intel? Bad intel? PLEEEASE. You really swallow that crap... The USA has one of THEE most sophisticated spy network in the world.. We get every FAX-E-Mail-Telephone call-page... YOU NAME IT. We have multiple (remember not one source, multiple) ways of getting intel. And with ALLLLL this intel, Bush (with prodding from Cheney) says yup, IRAQ has WMD. BULL-FUKING-S!IT. We wanted to go invade Iraq. It was on Bush's agenda... 9/11 was the reason. Bush told D!ck to find a link between Al Quida and Saddam. We basically were lied to by BUSH so he could invade IRAQ.
-Having one of your justifications (WMD's) for going to war disproved (which it hasn't) isnt a reason.
THAT WAS THEE Justification to go to war... WMD... (or did you just sweep that under the rug and hurry and go grab your flag and stand behind the president?!)
-Telling the American people something that you believe to be true is not a reason-And even if it was true... telling the American people something that is not correct is not a high crime or a misdemeanor..
Like I said, I am no lawyer, but I do believe so sort of crime or misdemeanor was commited. Unless Lying and decieving are now the norm for a president.
I dont know about you but out of everything that Bush really did, and everything that you think Bush did (because I know that unlike the rest of us you know everything that went on behind those closed doors)... NON OF IT QUALIFIES AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Well, for the umteenth time... I am no lawyer, and I don't think you are either. so this is a catch 22.
-Going to war on bad intel is not a reason.
*** Bad intel? Bad intel? PLEEEASE. You really swallow that crap... The USA has one of THEE most sophisticated spy network in the world.. We get every FAX-E-Mail-Telephone call-page... YOU NAME IT. We have multiple (remember not one source, multiple) ways of getting intel. And with ALLLLL this intel, Bush (with prodding from Cheney) says yup, IRAQ has WMD. BULL-FUKING-S!IT. We wanted to go invade Iraq. It was on Bush's agenda... 9/11 was the reason. Bush told D!ck to find a link between Al Quida and Saddam. We basically were lied to by BUSH so he could invade IRAQ.
-Having one of your justifications (WMD's) for going to war disproved (which it hasn't) isnt a reason.
THAT WAS THEE Justification to go to war... WMD... (or did you just sweep that under the rug and hurry and go grab your flag and stand behind the president?!)
-Telling the American people something that you believe to be true is not a reason-And even if it was true... telling the American people something that is not correct is not a high crime or a misdemeanor..
Like I said, I am no lawyer, but I do believe so sort of crime or misdemeanor was commited. Unless Lying and decieving are now the norm for a president.
I dont know about you but out of everything that Bush really did, and everything that you think Bush did (because I know that unlike the rest of us you know everything that went on behind those closed doors)... NON OF IT QUALIFIES AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Well, for the umteenth time... I am no lawyer, and I don't think you are either. so this is a catch 22.
Hey, buy a vowel. This intel came about long before Bush... the whole WMD thing, his cease fire violations, citizen abuse, and who knows what else are all on the record from before Bush.
Once again for the slow:
It was our position before Bush that SH needed to be removed.
And for the slower:
Bush didnt come up with the reasons to take out SH... they have just been repeated from the 90's. Our reasons didnt change... NEVER did Bush come out and mention WMD's then leave the podium... it was always in concert with other reasons and often they were mentioned FIRST.
Can you be the only one to lie when its unorginal? The difference between us is I dont think its all a "lie" in the first place.
Here's your answer and it has been said again and again
Regardless of who, what, where, when, why or how -
Bush or his advisors DID NOT break the law, therefore, CANNOT be impeached.
IF all the reasons given for going to Iraq are all proved to be lies, it is STILL NOT a reason for impeachment.
It is NOT illegal to lie publicly no matter who you are (regular person or the President).
It IS illegal to lie in a court of law though, and as far as I know, no statements being questioned were made in a court of law.
The topic is:
Why isn't BUSH impeached?
Read the topic again then AND - like it or not - your answer:
There is NO reason for impeachment...
Regardless of who, what, where, when, why or how -
Bush or his advisors DID NOT break the law, therefore, CANNOT be impeached.
IF all the reasons given for going to Iraq are all proved to be lies, it is STILL NOT a reason for impeachment.
It is NOT illegal to lie publicly no matter who you are (regular person or the President).
It IS illegal to lie in a court of law though, and as far as I know, no statements being questioned were made in a court of law.
The topic is:
Why isn't BUSH impeached?
Read the topic again then AND - like it or not - your answer:
There is NO reason for impeachment...
"It is NOT illegal to lie publicly no matter who you are (regular person or the President).
It IS illegal to lie in a court of law though, and as far as I know, no statements being questioned were made in a court of law."
Interesting hypothesis,
Bush and Cheney have appeared before the 9/11 commission and didnt have to do so under oath. The reason being that when he became president he took an oath....
O.K. legal eagles.....lets hear the spin..
It IS illegal to lie in a court of law though, and as far as I know, no statements being questioned were made in a court of law."
Interesting hypothesis,
Bush and Cheney have appeared before the 9/11 commission and didnt have to do so under oath. The reason being that when he became president he took an oath....
O.K. legal eagles.....lets hear the spin..
Similar threads
