Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=hooskins;313919]No actually I really can, but it isn't worth my time and effort.

If you want a good one, we can start with Iraq. There was clear evidence that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq at all. And from day one(9/11) Bush had asked several of his advisors if Hussen was somehow linked to 9/11, clearly showing a predisposition towards the Iraq issue. There were numerous times he was presented with information, that indicated Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or nuclear weapons, but those seemed to be ignored.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush did a great job in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan. He was put in a terrible situation, and dealt with it well. But beyond that is where the spiral downwards begins.

I can get links for Iraqi thing, that will confirm my point if you want.[/quote]
Bush never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and even the 9/11 report said that there were links between Iraq and Bin Laden. There were some that said Iraq had no nuclear weapons but UN, Other major countries, most all in congress and senate, Bill Clinton, and many, many more said he did have them. Most of the debate at the time was not rather he had WMD's but was it worth going to war for. Many a politicians want you to think that they were tricked into the war but its just them trying to gt out of what they did.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

So why exactly did we go to war with Iraq?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

You guys were right. Being impeached and being convicted are two separate things. Thank you guys for Government 101.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;313809]Exactly, I think he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy within the administration.

That being said, there is talk the Chair of House Judiciary Committee is going to start stirring a debate, more or less, to impeach Bush.

I highly doubt that it will get off the ground, however.[/QUOTE]

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have [I]completely[/I] different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=ArtMonkDrillz;313851][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#History]Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]


Just remember, Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate.[/QUOTE]

But in this case, that is an accurate statement.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;313965]This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have [I]completely[/I] different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.[/quote]

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=12thMan;313974]The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when comes to matters of foreign policy.[/quote]
What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=firstdown;313985]What did Gonzales have to do with AG?[/quote]

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48618-2005Jan4.html]Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)[/url]

[url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256601]NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing[/url]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=12thMan;313989]Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48618-2005Jan4.html"]Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)[/URL]

[URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256601"]NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing[/URL][/quote]
You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=angryssg;313793]
70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.[/quote]

I disagree. No money no war. The troops would have to come home. No President could leave soldiers in the field without food. The Pentagon would revolt.

The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.

And if she does win you can count on her keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for most of her first term. Anyone who thinks she will pull out hasn't been paying attention. She would love the idea of flying into Bagdhad to visit the troops. Great photo-op. Florence of Arabia. I pity the anti-war types. They have given the Democrats power and the Democrats have thanked them by taking a great big dump on their front porch. Oh that stinks.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;314003] The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.[/QUOTE]

What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

JoeRedskin, don't you find it relatively sad that it takes the media breaking a story about Americans torturing people for the armed forces to clean up their act. There shouldn't have been any torture for a story to break about, in my opinion.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;314005]What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?[/quote]

I'm not sure I have a good feel for who they would take votes from. They are both anti-war, so in a Hillary/Rudy race, for example, you would think that it would hurt Hillary. The question is would an anti-war activist, who hates the Republican Party and hates corporations and who normally would revile Bloomberg, vote for him in spite of all that because of Iraq? I don't have a good feel for that. It's hard for me to figure out if these people really hate the war or Bush. Is Iraq merely a device that gives expression to a feeling that would still be just as strong without the war? Bush was plenty hated in those circles before March of 2003. If it's not really about the war, but about hating Bush, then Bloomberg can save his money. They will hold their nose and vote Democratic.

Bloomberg and Hagel have no traction among Republicans. I can't see them stealing a lot of votes there. Support for the President continues to be strong among his base. There is no anti-war constituency among conservatives.

Immigration is another matter. I think what Hillary would like to see is a viable 3rd party candidate like Tom Tancredo who is a hardliner on immigration. This could appeal to enough of the good old boys in a state like my own to (amazingly) throw Virginia to the Democrats for the forst time since LBJ in 1964. She wins here and it's a skate. A revolt over the illegals would be a disater for the GOP up and down the ticket.

In short, I'm not sure I see a rationale for Bloomberg/Hagel beyond the hard core, single issue anti-war folks.

But, politics rarely proceeds down a straight line that is in any way predictable. That's why there is an inherent danger in the Democratic strategy of stall-ball. [I]That's what it is. It's the four corners.[/I] The zeitgest could shift against them and they'll be left out there hanging with their dicks in the wind. The do-nothing Dems. It's not likely to happen because the NYT etc has their backs, but major events can alter history and perceptions, as we know from 9/11. The Republicans need a turnover and they need one bad.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;313800]FCK IRAN! THIS IS THE DUMBEST THREAD I'VE EVER POSTED ON! I'm sure if you don't like what the PRESIDENT is doing with those TARDS in iran, they've got plenty of room for you.[/quote]
well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dmek25;314015]well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.[/quote]

Well since it's only you making the comment.

Just shows you don't know shit about what your talking about. Sounds like you need to grow up alot. Maybe you need to comprehend what your reading.....couldn't be much simpler than that!

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Here's what skinsfan_nn was trying to type:

[quote]Well since it's only you making the comment.

Just shows you don't know shit about what your talking about. Sounds like you need to grow up alot. Maybe you need to comprehend what your reading.....couldn't be much simpler than that![/quote]

Actually. I'm too lazy to go through it all. Your first sentence isn't even a sentence. Learn the difference between your and you're, I can loan you a grammar book if necessary. A lot is two words, just to keep you from looking like a bumbling idiot. Otherwise, just a mess of a post.

When the United States stops acting like we're special and being the only country not required to sign certain treaties, etc. We put people who we suspect just MIGHT be guilty and hold them for years without any sort of evidence to bring charges in this little place called Guantanamo Bay. Just explain to me why it's perfectly okay for us to hold prisoners with no evidence on suspicion, but other countries can't.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;313985]What did Gonzales have to do with AG?[/QUOTE]

Have you actually seen his testimony in front of the Senate? The entire hearing? The fact that the man said "I don't recall", or the equivalent, 74 times should have his credibility and competency concern you as a citizen. Also, per Gonzales own testimony he made the decision to fire the AGs though his testimony was inconsistent with what he said when he was making the rounds on the weekend news programs prior to the hearing.

[YT]7IBvZlRqOTw[/YT]

[YT]Fb0C2MtUeHI[/YT]

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;314015]well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.[/QUOTE]

Dmek you and I are on polar ends politically it seems, but I'm with you 100% on this.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=dmek25;314015]well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.[/quote]

Yea almost good spell check deas, for a second I thought it was quake.

so is a little

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan_nn;314017]Well since it's only you making the comment.[/QUOTE]

I'm with him too, it's just that it's hard to discuss anything with someone of your caliber and esteem. You're intellectually far too superior.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=Daseal;314020]Here's what skinsfan_nn was trying to type:



Actually. I'm too lazy to go through it all. Your first sentence isn't even a sentence. Learn the difference between your and you're, I can loan you a grammar book if necessary. A lot is two words, just to keep you from looking like a bumbling idiot. Otherwise, just a mess of a post.

When the United States stops acting like we're special and being the only country not required to sign certain treaties, etc. We put people who we suspect just MIGHT be guilty and hold them for years without any sort of evidence to bring charges in this little place called Guantanamo Bay. Just explain to me why it's perfectly okay for us to hold prisoners with no evidence on suspicion, but other countries can't.[/quote]

Sounds like you have plenty of time to spell ckeck? I don't, if you can't understand that tuff shit. I'm not out to make a perfect sentence so protect yourself from the bumbling idiot.

I don't spell check behind threads, if you can understand the post mission accomplished! Pretty simple

I futhermore didn't approve of the country holding people/prisoners to begin with! I stated my opinion on iran, plain and simple. Read next time

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Let's all take a breath and try to act civil here. Let's keep personal attacks out of this debate.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

What I don't get:

Bush has done plenty to criticize. Plenty. But people still bring up the hyped and inaccurate stuff when bashing him. No one in the administration LIED. They were wrong. Big difference there.

I can agree that they were predisposed to the entire Iraq situation. I can even agree that it probably colored their judgement(what little they have it seems). But to assert that they LIED in order to put our troops in harms way is just plain wrong. Thye did not. All the people coming out saying they warned them against the intelligence and so forth are just protecting their own butts.

Dumb: maybe..

Liars: no

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

And if you want to see a president lie. Then pull up a video of Bill Clinton saying to America "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Really an unimportant lie in the grand scheme but a total unmitigated lie. He wasn't mistaken, he was misleading.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

he lied when he said there was a tie to Al Quada(sp?) and Saddam Hussein

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;314031]he lied when he said there was a tie to Al Quada(sp?) and Saddam Hussein[/QUOTE]

How so?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

there wasn't anything to prove the connection between the 2. he got what he wanted, Hussein. he just made it easier to sell to the American people. i would have looked at Geo. Bush totally different if he would have invaded Afghanistan, and captured Bin Laden. i think history would have, too

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

What I don't get is how people seem to think this is all new. Politics and running the country have always been a shady game. Jefferson had to circumvent his rights to make the Lousiana Purchase, Adams (I think it was Adams) tampered with civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, McKinley I don't believe had any true legit reason to launch the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt involved the US in a Colombian civil war for the sole purpose of creating Panama and the Panama Canal,...and so on.

I don't know how history will remember W. But it's interesting to note that the presidents often seen as the worst of all-time (Buchanan and Harding to name two) are the ones who chose to do nothing, often because legally that's all they could do.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;314029]What I don't get:

Bush has done plenty to criticize. Plenty. But people still bring up the hyped and inaccurate stuff when bashing him. No one in the administration LIED. They were wrong. Big difference there.

I can agree that they were predisposed to the entire Iraq situation. I can even agree that it probably colored their judgement(what little they have it seems). But to assert that they LIED in order to put our troops in harms way is just plain wrong. Thye did not. All the people coming out saying they warned them against the intelligence and so forth are just protecting their own butts.

Dumb: maybe..

Liars: no[/QUOTE]

I don't know for sure if they lied or no but I do know that they setup a two man show within the defense department consisting of Paul Wolfowitz (clearly an unethical man with his recent fiasco and subsequent resignation) and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith#Professional_criticism"]Douglas Fieth[/URL].

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;314026]Sounds like you have plenty of time to spell ckeck? I don't, if you can't understand that tuff shit. I'm not out to make a perfect sentence so protect yourself from the bumbling idiot.

I don't spell check behind threads, if you can understand the post [B]mission accomplished![/B] Pretty simple

I futhermore didn't approve of the country holding people/prisoners to begin with! I stated my opinion on iran, plain and simple. Read next time[/quote]
i think i have heard this somewhere else?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;314034]there wasn't anything to prove the connection between the 2. he got what he wanted, Hussein. he just made it easier to sell to the American people. i would have looked at Geo. Bush totally different if he would have invaded Afghanistan, and captured Bin Laden. i think history would have, too[/QUOTE]

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

smootsmack, politics is, and will always be, a shady affair. our government thinks either the public cant handle the truth. or would rather not hear it. these shady dealings go on in every presidency. some administrations are more inept in covering things up, and thats the biggest difference

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

I predict 20 more posts until thread hell.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;314041]I predict 20 more posts until thread hell.[/QUOTE]

You want I should make that happen? So would that be 20 including the one where it's locked and sent to thread hell?

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;314043]You want I should make that happen? So would that be 20 including the one where it's locked and sent to thread hell?[/quote]

Actually my original prediction of 20 would not include the final post. So 21, a good post count and a good age.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

Well lets see a Parking lot. Football Fans & Politics, hum...?

Sounds like a timebomb, tic, toc........I think it's getting near the end.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;314039]Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory[/QUOTE]

1998 was the time when the inspectors were being kicked out of Iraq and Saddam was making noise. After the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Gen. Richard A. Clarke, then part of team Clinton's counter-terrorism staff, made some noise about Saddam offering Bin Laden asylum. Nothing came of Richard's comments and the enforcement of the Iraq no-fly-zone was stepped up after Saddam foolishly said he wouldn't respect the no-fly-zone.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;314039]Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory[/quote]

Ibuprophen factory. August, 1998. Same week or day he was deposed by Starr's lawyers, I think.

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;313807]This isn't going to last very long...[/quote]
TMC... what's your definition of very long???

Re: Let's impeach the president.
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;314001]You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.