Let's impeach the president.

[skinsfan_nn]

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

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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

[Redskin Rich]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

This isn't going to last very long...

TMC... what's your definition of very long???

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing.

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

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.

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

But the point is that it was never done by any other president after 2 to 5 years. Not the democrats hoping for someone to slip up. Also, its not just the democrats there are members of the GOP that feel the same way...

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

But the point is that it was never done by any other president after 2 to 5 years. Not the democrats hoping for someone to slip up. Also, its not just the democrats there are members of the GOP that feel the same way...

They certainly are hoping for someone to slip up. No one can deny that. That's the nature of those hearings. Otherwise they could save money and do it by e-mail.

I think the President should have the right to hire and fire his people for whatever reason he wants. If the shoe were on the other foot, the donkeys would say the same. The congress cannot be allowed to meddle in the decisions of the executive in this way. They have broad powers but those powers do not extend to imposing their own political judgements on a President of the party opposite. Also, the Democrats would be wise to reign in Schumer a bit. He is an hopelessly self-righteous camera-hog and sooner or later everything that goes around comes around. The Democrats will likely gain the White House next year and a lot of this behaviour will be re-visited upon them in a most displeasing way. Patience is a nearly forgotten virtue in politics.

Finally, I would suggest that these wobbly Republicans are acting out of fear and not high-minded concern for the future of the Republic. Arlen Specter, for example, has been running scared ever since the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. He is only a Republican about half the time.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Since this thread has gone off on so many tangents, is likely to get shut down soon, and will ultimately be sent to thread hell, let me respond with a few thoughts on many of the issues that have been raised.

(1) The firing of the assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) was, IMHO, bad. No one in the administration is seriously defending the move and for good reason. Whomever is behind the matter deserves a serious public flogging. The firings were politically motivated and were an attempt to manipulate the justice system to serve very unsavory political ends.

(2) Everyone, including the French, thought Saddam had WMDs. Saddam tried to make everyone, allies and enemies alike, think he had WMDs. Guess what? It worked. Bush "beefed up" the intel, but he didn't lie when he said he was convinced Saddam had WMDs. We (including those like myself who were against going to war in the first instance) were simply wrong.

(3) I cannot figure out why anyone disagrees with "calling out" Iran. I do not want to go to war with them, but they're already at war with us. Iran has been training and equipping people in Iraq for years so they could kill Americans. Iran has a horrible human rights record. Iran is dominated by little Pat Robertsons. Like Hugo Chavez, Iran suppresses dissent by making midnight arrests and controlling the press. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with condemning Iran's government, particularly those who have opposed US policy of supporting brutal and oppressive dictatorships.

(4) Finally, avoid engaging in personal attacks or risk losing posting privileges or access to political forums. No one cares to read posts that amount to a pissing contest between two or more posters that are simply annoying and which detract from the thread. Honest and civil debate is encouraged, but personal attacks are not tolerated.

End rant.

[70Chip]

I think that this thread deserves no worse than limbo or purgatory. It doesn't seem particularly rancorous to me.

[George Allen Draftpick]

What does any of this have to do with FOOTBALL??? I thought this was Warpath, the Redskins' Fan Forum!!!

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by George Allen Draftpick

What does any of this have to do with FOOTBALL??? I thought this was Warpath, the Redskins' Fan Forum!!!

Actually this is the parking lot forum where Skins fans talk about off the football topic stuff. The locker room is where actual football talk is located.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by George Allen Draftpick

What does any of this have to do with FOOTBALL??? I thought this was Warpath, the Redskins' Fan Forum!!!

Wow welcome, and you are already a VIP. Well done!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by George Allen Draftpick

What does any of this have to do with FOOTBALL??? I thought this was Warpath, the Redskins' Fan Forum!!!

I asked the same question when I joined a couple of years ago. We try and have friendly debate on any topic one may choose. When football season gets closer these threads are not as common.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.