Should our criminal in chief be impeached?

[TheAnvil 0]

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!!!!!!

[Lucky... 0]

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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And 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.

[billvon 3,116]

>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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Some 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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Both of you cut it out.

...................

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

On what charge?

This thread is inane - just as the political headlines have been over the last few months.

Lieing to congress perhaps.

[Lucky... 0]

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.

[Unstable 9]

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 ==========

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

On 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.

[steveorino 7]

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

[quade 4]

Quote

I 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

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Quote

On 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.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

On what charge?

I am no fan of Bush, but I was wondering the same thing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

A 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.

[ExAFO 0]

www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Probably 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.

[penniless 0]

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.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Are 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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

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.

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

[rushmc 23]

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And 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.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Would 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

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

On 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

There 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.

[billvon 3,116]

>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.