TheAnvil 0 #26 March 26, 2007 On what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 March 26, 2007 Quote>My original point was that impeaching Bush, while I may feel he >deserves it, may not be best for the nation. Congress checking Executive >power might be a better option. I agree. Congress should censure Bush for his abuses of executive power and move on. I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. It is just the climate of today;s politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd impeaching Clinton over a BJ and subs lie is a good thing? I thought it was a waste of time and money, myself. Well, it's that whole equal and opposite reaction thing. I think they should but won't toshow they are above it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #29 March 26, 2007 >I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving >the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. Payback will not get us out of the quicksands of Iraq, or solve the problems of North Korea or Iran. The government should be governing, not attacking each other constantly. Like I said, censure him and move on to running the country and saving the lives of our troops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteSome House Reps are considering it, should he be impeached? A recent AOL poll just showed that 62% said yes he sould if he keeps the Iraq idiocy going. On what grounds? Impeachment is not akin to a recall. If they believe a crime was committed in 2002/3 to garner congressional support, charge him. If they want to try again to enforce the War Powers Act, do it. Failing in foreign policy, otoh, is not an impeachable offense. Probably has to do with lieing to congress about WMD's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 March 26, 2007 QuoteBoth of you cut it out. ................... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 March 26, 2007 QuoteOn what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. Lieing to congress perhaps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 March 26, 2007 Quote>I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving >the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. Payback will not get us out of the quicksands of Iraq, or solve the problems of North Korea or Iran. The government should be governing, not attacking each other constantly. Like I said, censure him and move on to running the country and saving the lives of our troops. I think that Congress is threatening impeachment to force his hand to removing the troops. It's a pretty simple leverage play, but I wanna see the whole deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #34 March 26, 2007 Quote On what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. I agree - You could impeach him, but on what charge? Goofing up Iraq? Being in a League with the Oil Barrons? Sounding Stupid? Sheesh - at least when they Impeached Clinton, they had something concrete against him, like lying under oath. You got nothing on Bushy other than the fact you don't like him.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #35 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteOn what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. Lieing to congress perhaps. Using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq was based on faulty intell, the same intell that other countries had and that members of congress had access to. Remember, Hillary herself said we could not stand by and do nothing if we had reasonable cause to believe Iraq did have those WMDs and she subsequently voted to go to war. You would be hard pressed to prove Bush intentionally misled congress about WMDs, and though he has made a lot of bonehead decisions that in itself is nothing near an impeachable offense. If anything, "censure and move on" would be the best course if congress wants to do something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #36 March 26, 2007 I keep wondering how this "goofball" "too stupid to tie his shoes" succeeded in fooling most all of congress who has some of the brightest minds in history (Hilary ) that Iraq had WMD when he "knew" the intel was faulty. Was he stupid or smart? You can't have it both ways. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #37 March 26, 2007 QuoteI keep wondering how this "goofball" "too stupid to tie his shoes" succeeded in fooling most all of congress who has some of the brigtest minds in history (Hilary ) that Iraq had WMD when he "knew" the intel was faulty. Was he stupid or smart? You can't have it both ways. The classic Pinkey or the Brain conundrum. For what it's worth . . . stupid almost always wins out.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #38 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteOn what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. Lieing to congress perhaps. Using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq was based on faulty intell, the same intell that other countries had and that members of congress had access to. Remember, Hillary herself said we could not stand by and do nothing if we had reasonable cause to believe Iraq did have those WMDs and she subsequently voted to go to war. You would be hard pressed to prove Bush intentionally misled congress about WMDs, and though he has made a lot of bonehead decisions that in itself is nothing near an impeachable offense. If anything, "censure and move on" would be the best course if congress wants to do something. BZZZZT, wrong answer. Thanks for playing "Parroting the Republican talking points". There is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. The lying shitsacks decided to engage in a premeditated war of agression against Iraq. WMDs were a convenient pretext that the Conservative/Corporate media bought hook, line, and sinker. Saying lies over and over again does not make them true. Even if Shrub himself says so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 March 26, 2007 QuoteOn what charge? I am no fan of Bush, but I was wondering the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 March 26, 2007 QuoteA recent AOL poll just showed that 62% said yes he sould if he keeps the Iraq idiocy going. This is the problem I have with these things. The poll is suggesting that he wasn't wrong in doing it, but just keeping it going is impeachable. Huh? Is it a high crime or misdemeanor? Or is it just a policy for which 62 percent of the public are unhappy? There may be other reasons for impeachment, but not if he "keeps" his Iraq policy. That's a political question - not a criminal one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #41 March 26, 2007 www.fat-pie.com/salad.htmIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 March 26, 2007 QuoteProbably has to do with lieing to congress about WMD's. Well, who can tell? You can poll people on an incorrect question, but the results only prove GIGO. If the polling is accurate, more people are in favor of impeachment than who actually voted in the last election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #43 March 26, 2007 No, it would just waste a huge amount of congessional time and taxpayers' money, like the GOP did with Clinton. Best way to deal with him is to render him incapable of doing further damage by the use of the pursestrings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 March 26, 2007 QuoteAre you speaking there as well. Not that interested in hanging around more whiners. They don't impeach for legeal reasons here, Only if you don't like someone. See, then law doesnt count!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #45 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuote>My original point was that impeaching Bush, while I may feel he >deserves it, may not be best for the nation. Congress checking Executive >power might be a better option. I agree. Congress should censure Bush for his abuses of executive power and move on. I think there's payback owed, esp since that POS Lott was driving the Clinton impeachment while he was fucking a mistress. It is just the climate of today;s politics. You are proving once again that you do not know why Clinton was impeached or, you just want to continue the medial lie about it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 March 26, 2007 I think it is time to bring back the quotes (from before Bush) about the danger of SH and Iraq. The quotes from Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Kenedy, Schemer Ried and on and and and on.................."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #47 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd impeaching Clinton over a BJ and subs lie is a good thing? I thought it was a waste of time and money, myself. Well, it's that whole equal and opposite reaction thing. I think they should but won't toshow they are above it. If two wrongs don't make a right, try three! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #48 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWould you rather Cheney hold the top office, allowing him the opportunity to campaign as an incumbent up to two times? You do understand that impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; no? Please, no more condescention..... I was taking poli-sci during the CLinton impeachment, so I know the entire process very well. We basically dropped teh normal curriculum to study that,. Lucky, I think you didn't actually read who or about what the responce was to. Y'all might wanna go back and reread it. Further I find it a really common and cheap tactic these days on the internet to simply call somebody that points out flaws in others posts as "condescending." Where the hell does that come from? The poster that had assumed Cheney would become President if Bush got impeached clearly had a misunderstanding of how the system works. I simply asked if the person understood how the system worked. If you want to call that condescending then I just don't know what the heck is going on in some people's heads.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #49 March 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOn what charge? This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months. Lieing to congress perhaps. Using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq was based on faulty intell, the same intell that other countries had and that members of congress had access to. Remember, Hillary herself said we could not stand by and do nothing if we had reasonable cause to believe Iraq did have those WMDs and she subsequently voted to go to war. You would be hard pressed to prove Bush intentionally misled congress about WMDs, and though he has made a lot of bonehead decisions that in itself is nothing near an impeachable offense. If anything, "censure and move on" would be the best course if congress wants to do something. BZZZZT, wrong answer. Thanks for playing "Parroting the Republican talking points". There is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. The lying shitsacks decided to engage in a premeditated war of agression against Iraq. WMDs were a convenient pretext that the Conservative/Corporate media bought hook, line, and sinker. Saying lies over and over again does not make them true. Even if Shrub himself says so. QuoteThere is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. Who's parroting whom? That whole statement is nothing more than conjecture and subject to individual interpretation. Anything that could even be remotely considered eveidence that Bush lied would be paper-thin and circumstantial at best. You give the man credit for being a lot smarter than he actually is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #50 March 26, 2007 >There is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around >the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. Yes. But selectively citing intelligence to support one's desire for war is not criminal. It's no more criminal than a used car salesperson who sells you a car by citing all of its good points and downplaying its bad points. It might be slimy and manipulative, but again, that's not a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites