Let's impeach the president.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Damn that's harsh.

I was being a bit melodramatic. The Dems really do grind my gear though.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

I was being a bit melodramatic. The Dems really do grind my gear though.

No I know. I meant to follow my post with an "lol," I knew you were joking and it was funny but harsh.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For those of you who didn't learn it in middle school, impeachment is a tag only used in the ruling of criminial cases against the president. That means he actually has to do something against the law. Gross incompetance is not against the law (as this thread will soon prove).

Where have you been. Bush has broken literary dozens of laws, from lying to Congress to spying on Americans without warrants. I could fill up this page with Bush's crimes. But why bother. It's enough to say he waged aggressive war, which is an international crime by agreements he was sworn to uphold by oath of office, and then added to that by authorizing torture, a violation of both international and American law.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I have read every post and have a little to say about everything.
Crazyhorse, why is it silly for Bush to denounce Iran?
Smootsmack, I agree.
Robbh4413, I second that.
Gtripp, you're onto something.
Sadden you are correct, but should have elaborated a little bit more.
Dblanche66, wars have been started over many stupid things throughout the years. The Cold war was a competition between Capitalism and Communism. The crusades were over religion and possible riches.
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.

Bush is denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges. Very few of the people Bush has detained in Gitmo, at Abu Grab, in the Salt Pit of Afghanistan, or in secret prisons in Europe have been charged with anything even after years of detention. Pot calling the kettle black.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Bush is denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges. Very few of the people Bush has detained in Gitmo, at Abu Grab, in the Salt Pit of Afghanistan, or in secret prisons in Europe have been charged with anything even after years of detention. Pot calling the kettle black.

Could you provide a link of his denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges, and of people being detained by US with no charges brought against them?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Could you provide a link of his denouncing Iran for detaining people without charges, and of people being detained by US with no charges brought against them?

Not to quote myself. But I need to clarify "no charges" I mean no valid reason to consider bringing charges

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

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.

Do you support hypocracy from authority? Did you support Clinton's hypocracy? Do you really want people who don't like what the president is doing to be imprisoned? Indefinately, or for how long?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So I guess your saying that the people we are holding that were fighting for the taliban are innocent people? I have not heard about what your posting about so maybe you should have added a link.

Bush denounced Iran on national television and it played repeatedly on all major channels and on virtually every news program.

The people being held are not being held as Taliban or prisoners of war. They are being held without charges as suspected terrorists. We don't whether they're guilty or not. Not only are there no charges, there are almost no trials.

Most of the people seized in Afghanistan and Irag were picked up in blind sweeps (they were picked up at random and no evidence was collected). The idea was to extract information from the torture of people at random.

If people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes. Bush is detaining hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent people, including Canadians and Americans.
After 911, Ashcroft conducted blind sweeps of American Muslims and imprisoned them without charges in New York.

Bush and his people are a disgrace to our country. No doubt about it.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Clinton was impeached by the House but was acquitted by the Senate.

An impreachment is a trial, not a conviction.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I was actually looking at that same link myself.

I guess what I'm really asking is, since the "impeachment" process didn't get approved in both chambers, is it historically correct to say Clinton was impeached?

Furthermore will historians consider Bill Clinton an impeached President or is it a matter of interpreting the Constitution?

He was impeached, which only means he was tried. He wasn't convicted so wasn't removed from office.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

An impreachment is a trial, not a conviction.

Actually it's more like an indictment. I think I explained it pretty well on pg 1. When I read through the following posts the next day I felt like Mr. Hand from Fast Times.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I agree a lot of money was spent on the investigation but how many people ended up in jail? This is the same goverment that some want to run our health care.

So, you'd rather insurance companies run health care. On the other hand, maybe you want the free market to run health care, so you could die without treatment if you couldn't afford the payment.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

I don't usually see posts in which everything is absolutely misunderstood or flat out wrong because of disinformation, but here's a case in point.

[SmootSmack]

So Crazyhorse, you're what like 65 years old or something right? You lived through our involvement in Korea, the spread of communism, Vietnam, the Soviet-Afghanistan war, Kosovo, etc. How are things different now-with our involvement in other country's affairs-than they were 10, 20, 50 years ago?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 completely 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.

Bush is still torturing people in Gitmo and in so called secret prisons. He also ships people to Cairo and other places where they can be tortured and/or killed. It's call "rendition."

He also bombed and killed over 50 thousand children with bombs, including cluster bombs, which are banned internationally because they are particularly dangerous to children, sometimes for long after they are dropped.