I just don't get why Bush has not been Impeached!

[billvon 3,076]

>Or maybe there is not enough real evidence to prove he commited
>anything close to a crime?

Right. The investigation (and resultant impeachment proceedings) would be billed as a "way to uncover the truth" or something. Lack of actual guilt will not stop either party.

[wmw999 2,544]

Quote

(from billvon)The theoretical reason? Making very bad decisions is not an impeachable crime.

Quote

Or maybe there is not enough real evidence to prove he commited anything close to a crime?

My hope is that in 30 years, when the US is in a different phase that our kids and grandkids think is silly, people will look back on GWB and kind of roll their eyes. Nixon and Watergate are receding into the distance, and that's a good place for them. I hope to see GWB there, too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DaVinci 0]

Question, if we had evidence that would hold up in a court of law showing that Bush did lie. Do you think that Congress would do anything?

Do you think that the American people would just sit by and do nothing?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

My hope is that in 30 years, when the US is in a different phase that our kids and grandkids think is silly, people will look back on GWB and kind of roll their eyes.

Same for Clinton. It was stupid to get a hummer in the oval office. But REALLY dumb to lie about it. I would hope that when people look back they see Bush as a guy that, while a little nutty, tried to do what he thought was right.

I am really sick of politics. Bush is overly religious "I got myself a mandate!" Kerry was a JFK wanna be....along the lines of "Single White Female".

[wmw999 2,544]

Quote

Do you think that the American people would just sit by and do nothing?

Some would bitch about it. But most would sit by and do nothing, just as happened when Clinton lied. It took the press and Congress to whip up a frenzy.

The biggest strength of the US system is that there si a guarantee that the government will change periodically. Even if it's piecemeal (as is happening right now), when they get sick enough of things, it'll change. It happened in 1994, and it looks to happen in 2008.

As a country we're strong enough to tolerate a few bad years. The stability we gain from respecting our system is much more valuable than a mid-course correction brought on by an impeachment. Much better for the President to be held powerless by an uncooperative Congress.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,076]

>Question, if we had evidence that would hold up in a court of law
> showing that Bush did lie. Do you think that Congress would do
> anything?

If they were GOP controlled? No. If they were democratically controlled? Yes.

BTW there is pretty clear evidence that Bush did tell lies* - but that's not illegal in the US. Telling lies _under_oath_ is, but Bush never allows himself to be put in that situation.

>Do you think that the American people would just sit by and do nothing?

Not at all! They'd read blogs and newspapers. They'd take polls. They'd vote for who they want in office. In other words, they'd act like they always do.


---------------

* a few examples:

He claimed he had no warning that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, despite receiving a briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" that covered his potential hijacking of airplanes and targeting of large buildings like the WTC. His exact words from speeches:

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people . . . there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.”

Nov 7 2005 - "We do not torture."

2004 - “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

2003 - “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

2003 - "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."

Now, right wingers will claim that he simply forgot, or had bad intel, or was changing what he said to 'not embolden the terrorists' or whatever, and that's fine. But a more reasonable take on it is that politicians lie, all the time. Doesn't matter what side they're on. And that's not illegal.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The biggest strength of the US system is that there si a guarantee that the government will change periodically. Even if it's piecemeal (as is happening right now), when they get sick enough of things, it'll change. It happened in 1994, and it looks to happen in 2008.

Add in the years : 2000, 1980, 1976....basicly every "big" election and I would agree. The undecideds get pissed and vote the morons out of office no matter WHICH party it was.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

>In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts

I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.)

I'm very selective about the people who get to eat me, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq.

"Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!"

That is a lie right there.

This was clearly propoganda, but at worst it's reading the data in a way to meet your needs. Hardly unusual in Washington.

It's not at all like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was clearly false. It was entirely plausible that Iraq still possessed weapons, particularly given their interference with the UN inspections. The only highly reliable (99.9%) answer came after invading.

Prior to the invasion, the conclusions that there was absolutely nothing to see in Iraq had their own political biases as well.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

We have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq.

"Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!"

That is a lie right there.

This was clearly propoganda, but at worst it's reading the data in a way to meet your needs. Hardly unusual in Washington.

The claims of the 9/11 connection were PURE fabrication, and the WMD intel was cherry picked to exclude any conficting information (source, Senate Intelligence Committee report.)

Some President's "needs" are met with a BJ. See attached file for what Bush's "needs" required/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

>In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts

I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.)

I'm very selective about the people who get to eat me, though.

Should I rethink the whole idea of taking you to dinner when I'm at U of Chicago Medical Center in a few weeks?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Bdog 0]

try reading the constitution. when all else fails look within one's self

_________________________________________

---Future Darwin Award recipient-

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts

I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.)

Maybe he's a dessert topping *AND* a floor wax!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq.

"Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!"

That is a lie right there.

Could you provide a link.

On this issue, the link you need is to reality.

Really? Let me refresh your memory of reality...

Quote

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Would you.... like to learn more?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[philh 0]

What is your point? The debate is whether Bush lied, not others. Bush is in office, the Democrats not. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Clinton did not.


Whats more important is that after 9/11 there could be no more doubts about the level of threat Al Queada reprsented and Us military power should clearly focus on that. Instead the absoloute idiot Bush decded to treat Al Queda as a side show and focus on Iraq, misleading the US people and the world that Iraq had WMd's and was linked to Al Queda both of which were not true.

[Guest]

I agree with Billvon in one respect:

Presidents can make poor decisions - it happens (witness Johnson's push for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), but it isn't an impeachable offense.

A lot of people who holler loudly for "Impeachment!" don't seem to know what it really means.

They are also ignorant of politics and society as well.

I disagree with him on the other.

Lying under oath is an impeachable offense.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts

I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.)

I'm very selective about the people who get to eat me, though.

Should I rethink the whole idea of taking you to dinner when I'm at U of Chicago Medical Center in a few weeks?

You are automatically disqualified by reason of gender. Nothing personal .

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I agree with Billvon in one respect:

Presidents can make poor decisions - it happens (witness Johnson's push for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), but it isn't an impeachable offense.

A lot of people who holler loudly for "Impeachment!" don't seem to know what it really means.

They are also ignorant of politics and society as well.

I disagree with him on the other.

Lying under oath is an impeachable offense.

mh

Thre President is under oath from the time he is sworn in.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

What is your point? The debate is whether Bush lied, not others.

His point was Bush made claims that were consistent with the opinions of top Democrats, for the previous four years.

Much like the Foley drama, this is a case of selective outrage. All along, while Bill, Hillary, Madeline, Kerry, Sandy, Nancy, Ted et al made claims of Saddam's capabilities - the standard response is "Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info". Then when Bush says the same thing, every one is crying Bush lied! Bush lied!!!

That's the reality of the situation.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

What is your point? The debate is whether Bush lied, not others.

His point was Bush made claims that were consistent with the opinions of top Democrats, for the previous four years.

Much like the Foley drama, this is a case of selective outrage. All along, while Bill, Hillary, Madeline, Kerry, Sandy, Nancy, Ted et al made claims of Saddam's capabilities - the standard response is "Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info". Then when Bush says the same thing, every one is crying Bush lied! Bush lied!!!

That's the reality of the situation.

Where does the buck stop?

I suggest it stops in the office of the guy who used lies to justify wasting the lives of 2,700 American troops, maiming 20,000 others, and wasting about $1 trillion, and who clearly manipulated the intelligence available. Only Bush attempted to link 9/11 with SH.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq.

"Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!"

That is a lie right there.

Could you provide a link.

On this issue, the link you need is to reality.

Really? Let me refresh your memory of reality...

I suspect if your right wing ideology was turned to religion, you would be speaking in tongues and spontaneously bleeding from your hands and feet.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts

I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.)

"Shimmer" I believe. The best shine you ever tasted.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq.

"Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!"

That is a lie right there.

Could you provide a link.

On this issue, the link you need is to reality.

In other words - you got nothing.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You are automatically disqualified by reason of gender. Nothing personal .

What a sexist!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What is your point? The debate is whether Bush lied, not others.

His point was Bush made claims that were consistent with the opinions of top Democrats, for the previous four years.

Much like the Foley drama, this is a case of selective outrage. All along, while Bill, Hillary, Madeline, Kerry, Sandy, Nancy, Ted et al made claims of Saddam's capabilities - the standard response is "Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info". Then when Bush says the same thing, every one is crying Bush lied! Bush lied!!!

That's the reality of the situation.

Where does the buck stop?

I suggest it stops in the office of the guy who used lies to justify wasting the lives of 2,700 American troops, maiming 20,000 others, and wasting about $1 trillion, and who clearly manipulated the intelligence available. Only Bush attempted to link 9/11 with SH.

I'm fairly certain that the decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of a sitting US President. But the cost (so far) does little to support the widely held belief that Bush intentionally lied to the American people about Saddam and his weapons.

Speaking of cost - you pegged it at $1 trillion. Where'd you get that number? I though it was significantly less.