Bush - Impeached! Or Not?

Remove all ads!

@Rotku I believe your missing, @ and the “Name” of the person your addressing. But because your mentioning, @Rabbit I assume you meant me. As far as how to post, I was not disagreeing with him.

But on his personal attacks against me. Using “Third Grade” and “Stupid” and “Don’t Post” Because of his @Rabbit wanted me to prove that the “Trucks” were Bio weapons.
I told him I believe the President, Military, and American scientists who looked at it. He felt that was not enough

@Rabbit does not have the power to tell people to stop posting!
Also if @Taluntain was less biased, he would have told @Rabbit that he cant tell people to stop posting. Its hard to see @Taluntain as objective when he posts about this subject and as the Administrator.

see quote below frompg 1

If the Administrator wants to post, he should take on a new ID so that he seems objective when Problems come up. like what I am saying below

So if you disagree with someone, you can tell them your “stupid” and “stop posting” and if you don’t do as they say. That Mature to you @Rotku To me @Rabbit embarrassed himself for taking such a childish position

Please see @Rabbit quote

My "Value" is my opinion

 

Taluntain” you just completely ignored “Blackrthorne Ta” post, see quote

Once again showed that this is your personal playground. You lack any objective view, as an Administrator by once again personally attacking me.

Also by not talking about how Rabbit, Can tell people not to post and call people names showes that I am right By the way its "Favor" not "Favour" and grammarcheck is two words

So before you tell me to use sp-check maybe you should take your own advice As far as not posting personal subjects to you here thats fine we can Email.

[ June 17, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

 

I hear a song, way off in the distance -- what is it? Oh, yes, it's Freddy Mercury and the boys of Queen. Their singing Another One Bites the Dust. It was nice knowing you.

As for the ORIGINAL topic, well, all I have to say is that the grounds for impeaching Bush are slim to non-existant -- he did not lie, at least not that can be proven -- all he was was the victim of poor data. He's totally safe, and the topic is rather pointless.

 

YA, new guy on the block, and he is already jumping into hot water. But hay I have been reading this stuff for awhile, and I see something that’s good to me so “Ya” know I had to give my moneys worth.

I think agudoos right! We all should be able say what we want, when we want.

Don’t take it personally taluntain sir, but it does look like death rabbit is taking control of the place and telling people not to post.

Just my opinion, so please don’t smite me “O” powerful administrator

 

@ Agudo

Sayonara.

@ Knight

Welcome to the Boards. It looks like you missed the point of why I said that as well. I don't have the power to tell people where to go and I don't pretend to. But if you ask me, if you can't respect the rules of SP and it's members, you aren't welcome in such discussions. I stick by what I said, and it would seem to me many here share the sentiment. If Agudo can't see the fault in his behavior, then I pity him. I've responded to him privately, and he should do the same. Otherwise he just proves me right with each new post.

He's a schmuck, and I won't dignify him any further by responding.

( ps - you wouldn't happen to be Agudo, signing on with a different name...are you? )

@ Lord Keldin Depaara

I agree, but if it turns out that he DID lie, and it's legally proven, then I would say he should be impeached, at least on an idealogical level. I'm not sure exactly what the grounds are in the constitution. I'm still reserving judgement for the most part on this one.

 

I think Death Rabbit was completly right. It wasn't about content, but about the forum rules and customs. About how posts are written, how posts are organized and how people are usually adressed in posts on this board. It's just the "usance" here. It never was about content, but about the decency to stick to the customs here.

 

Didn't Clinton set a precedent for allowing the President to lie and get away with it???

There is also a difference between active subterfuge and poor intelligence.

Just my two cents ... trying to get this back on topic.

 

I get the feeling that, ideologically speaking, we probably would have good reason to want to impeach most Presidents, and most leaders, come to think of it (hey, what's it called when they remove a senator or congressman -- is that also impeachment?)

It'll never happen unless some private memos come out trhat show him basically saying "I know for a solid fact there's no WMD in Iraq, but I'm going to say there are." I'd bet my left nut that such a memo will never appear.

 

My understanding of the impeachment process is, that it consists out of 2 factors.

A. Legal. Some crime, described in the constitution, must be committed.

B. Political. Some opposition, who wants to get rid of the President.

So, everything which was said about the WMA's in Iraq was a political judgment. It's not a legal crime to have an opinion and say:"We are under a clear and present threat, that's what I've read from the secret reports. Sorry, you are not allowed to see them yourselves, just trust me."

Nor is it a crime to lie per se, as far my understanding is. Which would be impossible to prove anyway. "Clear and present danger, that's what I thought, as I read it".

It comes down to: Was it good politics or bad politics. That remains to be seen. Impeachment, I don't think is the case here, but political questions. If the Iraq-thing (which still is going on) turns out to be a failure, I think the republicans will have to answer many things. If it turns out as it was planned (i.e. successful establishment of a democracy), no one will bother.

[ June 17, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Lord Depaara -- I have ignored most of what has gone on regarding where this topic ended up. But I created this topic to get a feel for what others on SP think about the situation regarding WMD and the administration's comments before embarking on this "grand endeaver" that became the Gulf War II.

I'm sorry that you feel that the topic is "pointless," but I really must take exception. If anything was pointless it was this artificially created war, and the loss of lives --Iraqi, American, English and others that never needed to have been sacrificed because the man in charge failed to give the right facts. If, and that is an "if" he lied, should he be impeached for causing this loss of life?

If you and others wish to equate this situation with the Bill Clinton "affair" then go right ahead. But if you think that Bill should have been impeached for not telling the truth to Ken Starr about his sex life, then why should Bush not be impeached for destroying an entire country and the loss of American and other coalition lives?

 

Chandos

Your statement above is so wrong it can be called nothing short of what it is, a pack of lies.

You keep running the premise that this war was about nothing other than WMD. That is simply not true, as BTA has pointed out on numerous occasions. In addition, the intelligence agencies of many nations believe that Saddam had WMD, so how is it that Bush got all of them to lie for him? As far as giving the right facts, there were never any "facts" given. Evidence and facts are 2 different animals. Finally, Saddam is the one precipitated the war by not complying with the UN resolutions. The US elected to act out of concern for its national security among many other reasons.

Nice misdirection there, but I am going to call you on it. The difference is that Bush provided evidence that suggested that Saddam most likely had WMD, and he stated that he believed, and still believes that. Bubba knowingly lied UNDER OATH TO A FEDERAL JUDGE IN AN OFFICIAL HEARING. There is a difference between stating an opinion (when Bush states that "Saddam has WMD, we have the evidence" there is an implied opinion there, if people are not smart enough to understand that, too bad for them) and knowingly making a false statement of fact under oath. Bubba is a criminal (and not just for perjury), Bush is not, for if stating opinions that turn out to be wrong is a punishable crime, we are all going to jail!

 

Ahm, which ? Which agencies of which nations ?

Usually, secret agencies won't make a public statement about what they know, what they think and what they guess. So, I would find it interestig to know, which agencies supported the thought, that there would be WMA's piled in Iraq.

And to other reasons for the war instead of WMA. There we agree Darkwolf, I am convinced that there where many reasons for that war and WMA sure wasn't one at all. But the reasons of the war have been discussed in other threads and will probably be discussed in future threads.

 

Darkwolf -- This war was not about WMD? Here are a few quotes made by your man on the subject:


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Hope you enjoyed reading what may tun out to be the real pack of lies, Darkwolf.

Regarding the Ken Starr regime: How did a prosecutor investigating an ancient real estate deal in Arkansas suddenly end up investigating whether or not the prez was doing his intern? The case was phoney from the start. It was a clumsy attempt to overturn a democratically elected president. Of course, most Americans did not stand still for this sort of contrived "justice." Hence, the reason Bill was able to finish his elected term in office.

The good thing about the whole Ken Starr inquisition was that two repulican leaders in the House bit the dust during the "impeachment process." I hope Newt is enjoying retirement.

 

Didn't get any enjoyment because I didn't bother reading your list. You can keep making the claim, and you can pull quotes that show that WMD were part of the reason, but anyone with an IQ above the moron level knows that there were many reasons for the war. Those who make such statements are either idiots or have an agenda and don't care what they do to the truth to fulfill it.

I guess it proves the old adage "simple ideas for simple minds"

So go on with your worship of the rapist (allegedly, but never personally denied by the accused) President, and keep on attacking a President who takes action simply because you don't like said action. The liberal mentality is on a rapid decline in this nation, and not a moment too soon. Your little bunch of vapid bleating hearts are on the brink of being pushed completely out of politics in this country.

By the way, tit-for-tat for your Newt comment, how do you like the fact that since this "idiot" President got his "worthless" tax cuts pushed through the DJIA is up over 500 points? If the economy turns around before the election we will have a new species to add to the endangered list... Democrats in DC area. Hopefully they will soon be extinct and the Libertarians can take over as the second party. Once mainstream America understands what Libertarians stand for it will be a whole new ball game in Washington.

Time to admit that this entire exercise of "did Bush tell the truth?" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the Republicans in hopes of election victories in 2008. When are Liberals going to figure out that right now in America we want people who stand for something, not a bunch of sniveling whiners who can only stand against what the other side stands for? Until things change, or until the Democrats figure out an agenda that they can stand for, (and that people will get behind) they will continue to look negative, and will continue to lose political power. For some reason I hope they never figure it out.

 

Darkwolf -- I enjoyed hitting your conservative nerve. However, all the name calling will not change the "simple truth" that either your guy doesn't know what he's talking about (no surprise there). Or he did not tell the truth.

Of course, all this is premature, since all the results on WMD are not in yet. Unlike you I refuse to take anything on faith just because someone who is in the "right party" says it is so. Yet, I won't shed any tears though when your delusional dreams of conservative grandeur fail to come to pass. Oh, and about the subject of "whining" - it seems funny how you can see your own shortcoming in other people.

 

The end of the Republican party with it's ahm... keep us save from the market-policies (And to a lesser degree the end of the democrats, which are just a little bit less hostile to the concept of free market then the Republicans) ? The US will beceome finally a free trader like the UK was in the 19th century ? That's going to change the whole wide world. For the better.