NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep.

This is not, I repeat, this is NOT satire!

This thread is so pathetic, I don't think I can muster up the words to effectively show how stupid it is.

So here's a picture:
http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/TS5.jpg

After all... it's worth a thousand words.

On what grounds?

On what grounds?I second that.

Let's see...lies, lies, lies about the war...undermining the Constitution...etc...

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/OHDEARGODYES.gif

I second that.

Lying to the American public. Repeatedly. And not just about his personal sex life, but about issues that have caused Americans to die.

More extreme members would also add "being a terrorist" and "committing war crimes" to the list, but even if you disagree with those, Bush still committed the exact same offenses that Clinton was impeached for, but for much more important matters.

Let's see...lies, lies, lies about the war...undermining the Constitution...etc...What lies? He was given bad intelligence by the CIA!

As for undermining the constitution, I assume you refer to the patriot act? That was approved by the house and senate, and despite what ihatebush.com may say, there has been no widespread civil rights crisis.

There are no grounds for impeachment. At all.

Period.

Well, the problem is you can't really impeach someone for "undermining the Constitution" unless you can point to a specific example. As for the lies, yeah, if he knew the intelligence was bogus before he pushed it onto the Congress as a justification for war, articles should definitely be drawn up. So far, though, that's only speculation. I'm not saying he shouldn't, but to simply go around saying he should be impeached without a specific charge (which is all that impeachment is, anyway, a formal accusation sort of like an indictment) is incorrect.

Rumsfeld, however, should be tried for war crimes...

There are absolutly no grounds to impeach Bush. None! When Clinton was impeached, it was because he broke the law. Not because he slept with Monica, but because he committed perjury! He lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible). As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm. There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?

He broke international law by killing people.

Plus he made alot of mistakes, but those aren't illegal. I would like to see him in court for war crimes, but that doesn't happen anymore(well it never happened actually) because almost prime minister/president of a important country has committed war crimes. All post-war presidents could have been hanged and would have hanged if they were trialed with the same principles as the nazi's at Nuremberg.

I don't see how any of these reasons for impeachment can possibly apply. He is a model president.

Perhaps it would be best if America underwent a revolution? It would almost certainly make everyone else in the world safer.

There are absolutly no grounds to impeach Bush. None! When Clinton was impeached, it was because he broke the law. Not because he slept with Monica, but because he committed perjury! He lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible). As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm. There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?

Try not to choke on all that rhetoric.

I think he was joking...

I'll be satisfied with tossing him out on his ass in November.

I think he was joking...

It's so hard to tell anymore...

As for undermining the constitution, I assume you refer to the patriot act? That was approved by the house and senate, and despite what ihatebush.com may say, there has been no widespread civil rights crisis.
Was Clinton's adultery widespread? (not a pun)

The problem with impeaching Bush is the same problem that he's having with Iraq: There's no smoking gun. There is not one clear cut piece of evidence showing that he somehow broke the law or through a direct order caused the law to be broken. Clinton made, perhaps, the most unfortunate political blunder in making his statements on tape and giving a smoking gun (albeit a particularly pointless and silly one). So far, Bush has covered his tracks like a pro (which, in and of itself, should be indicitive of something).

He broke international law by killing people.

Plus he made alot of mistakes, but those aren't illegal. I would like to see him in court for war crimes, but that doesn't happen anymore(well it never happened actually) because almost prime minister/president of a important country has committed war crimes. All post-war presidents could have been hanged and would have hanged if they were trialed with the same principles as the nazi's at Nuremberg.


Well he didn't kill anyone. I never seen him pull the trigger lmmfao

what?????bush is awesome and kerry is a domestic weener and a moron! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

yay military!
:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

Well he didn't kill anyone. I never seen him pull the trigger lmmfao

I never saw Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam or Pop Pot pull the trigger, so I guess that makes it all ok...

Ok, time to break out my copy of the US Constitution:

__________________________________
Article II, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

__________________________________

I doubt the violation of international law falls in there (however, if any Constitutional Scholars wish to correct me, I'm willing to listen), so the case for impeachment based on the violation of International Law is not valid.

There are only two ways he could be impeached for telling 'lies' to get the Second Gulf War started:

A. The oath for becoming President and/or the Constitution forbid the President from telling any lies (the latter having to be outlined in Article II, Section 4).

B. He willingly told a lie under oath to a commission, court-of-law, etc.

However, it's hard not to believe intelligence when the Russians, the British and your own intelligence community is telling you that something is happening. No President, Congressman/Congresswoman, Prime Minister, Parliament Member, Dictator, Politburo member, Chairman, etc. is immune from getting bad information that appears as if it is credible and requires urgent action. It's still a shitty gig since guys got killed in Iraq over bad information, but it could happen to any world leader at any time, since when it comes down to it, they're still Human.

Lying to the American public. Repeatedly. And not just about his personal sex life, but about issues that have caused Americans to die.

More extreme members would also add "being a terrorist" and "committing war crimes" to the list, but even if you disagree with those, Bush still committed the exact same offenses that Clinton was impeached for, but for much more important matters.If Clinton had been impeached for lying to the american public you might have the beginings of an argument. (have to change the defintion of lying though). Some of the charges against Clinton including lying (under oath to a grand jury, under oath to a grand jury, to a witness to influence their testimony) , but the other charges (soliciting a false affidavit, soliciting false testimony, concealing and destroying evidence subpoenaed by a federal court, using his office to secure a job in exchange for false testimony) didn't, and he was not impeached for lying to the American public.

Unfortunetly although a case might be brought against Bush under international law the consensus and judgements so far have confined impeachment to violations of US federal law. A charge might be made for impeachment for Malpractice or Neglect of Duties, but I doubt that would sail through the Republican House. If I were going to impeach him, I would try the malpractice route although I doubt it get anywhere.

If it turns out that Bush knew anything at all about the Valerie Plame affair, you might be able to get him for conspiracy--you don't have to take part, just have knowledge of it to go down for that. But like I said earlier, I'm content with tossing him in November.

He broke international law by killing people.

Plus he made alot of mistakes, but those aren't illegal. I would like to see him in court for war crimes, but that doesn't happen anymore(well it never happened actually) because almost prime minister/president of a important country has committed war crimes. All post-war presidents could have been hanged and would have hanged if they were trialed with the same principles as the nazi's at Nuremberg.

Actually the USA was with it's rights to go to was with Iraq (article 1444 as well as, I believe about 10 - 20 other articles ) by UN resolution.

If blame is to be thrown around for this war, why don't we blame the corrupt UN? If the UN had balls and all of it's members would have stood up to Saddam and blockaided Iraq, Saddam might have been forced out. To many countries like france and germany were in bed with Saddam for that to work.

Bush pleaded with the UN first to resolve this and they counldn't.

The USA broke no laws by attacking Iraq.

I never saw Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam or Pop Pot pull the trigger, so I guess that makes it all ok...


Comparing a US President to those people....what possible facts could you have to support such stupid supposition?
Take a damn history class!

If it turns out that Bush knew anything at all about the Valerie Plame affair, you might be able to get him for conspiracy--you don't have to take part, just have knowledge of it to go down for that. But like I said earlier, I'm content with tossing him in November.

Valerie Plame?

The USA broke no laws by attacking Iraq.

No, but it did violate the Constitution, because there was no congressional declaration of war. Likewise, Truman, LBJ/Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton should have all been impeached for the same thing. At least, that's my opinion, anyway.

Yes.

9 more votes and we'll have a two thirds majority.

No, but it did violate the Constitution, because there was no congressional declaration of war. Likewise, Truman, LBJ/Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton should have all been impeached for the same thing. At least, that's my opinion, anyway.


No it did not violate the US constitution. The President does not need a formal declaration of war. As you say that this is your opinion, I will respect that. What you would prefer then is the House or Senate or both to determine if the US should go to war. There is a reason one person was chosen "Commander and Chief". Rule by commitee would be a disaster...in my opinion. (example: Congress would never have supported Reagan and the Berlin wall would still be in place )

Valerie Plame?
Yeah--CIA deep cover agent outed by someone in the government to Bob Novak as revenge for Joseph Wilson's NY Times op-ed piece that busted the uranium from Niger claims. To blow the cover of a CIA agent is a violation of federal law, and if it could be proven that Bush knew who did it and that he didn't tell the special prosecutor's office when they questioned him, then you could make a case for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It would be a tough case to make, to be sure, but if there's anything that would be a legitimate impeachment case, and/or criminal case, it's that.

That said, let me reiterate that I don't think Bush should be impeached, not now anyway. I'll be satisfied if we throw him out of office in November.

Valerie Plame?Wife of Ambassador Wilson. A member of the CIA. Last summer, when debate about WMDs and who knew what when was a hot topic, Wilson was the one who proved Iraq never tried to buy uranium from Niger (actually he convinced the CIA Iraq did, but hey) and threw that into the Bush lied arguments. Round about Early Augest a reporter asked why the CIA sent someone who was so partisanly anti-Bush to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying buy uranium from Niger and two unnamed "adminstration sources" told/confirmed for him that the reason was that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and she was responsible.

Incertonia and Squi: Thank you very much! :)

No it did not violate the US constitution. The President does not need a formal declaration of war. As you say that this is your opinion, I will respect that. What you would prefer then is the House or Senate or both to determine if the US should go to war. There is a reason one person was chosen "Commander and Chief". Rule by commitee would be a disaster...in my opinion. (example: Congress would never have supported Reagan and the Berlin wall would still be in place )
You're right and yet wrong. Under the war powers act, the President has limited power to send troops into combat without congressional approval. That's part of the reason we were able to stay in Vietnam so long without an actual declaration of war. It's one of the more egregious handovers of inter-branch power in my opinion.

In this case, Bush had the power he needed because the Congress gave him the power to use force in the form of a congressional resolution.

Comparing a US President to those people....what possible facts could you have to support such stupid supposition?
Take a damn history class!

WTF, I was just applying logic... Reread my post.


Actually the USA was with it's rights to go to was with Iraq (article 1444 as well as, I believe about 10 - 20 other articles ) by UN resolution.

And about resolution 1441, it was an UN resolution, not a US resolution. The US decided that Iraq broke 1441, but that doesn't mean shit because it was an UN resolution. Only the UN SC can decide that Iraq broke 1441 and they decided that there was no reason to go to war. The US disagreed and went to war anyway. It is like taking a law from another country and try to use it in yours. This is not a legel argument.

And what do you mean when you say the UN is corrupt? All places were power is centralized are currupt, your goverment, my goverment, the US, the UN. What is the point? And about the UN being corrupt, didn't the US blackmail the temporary SC members, including two poor and weak african countries, to vote for their new war resolution? I don't see the point.

If the UN had balls and all of it's members would have stood up to Saddam and blockaided Iraq,

The US already killed 2,5 million Iraqi children with blockades? What more did you want? And the US prevented a rebellion a few times before.
They just wanted to get their forces in.

Bush pleaded with the UN first to resolve this and they counldn't.

Firstly, Bush was forced to go to the UN by Powell, neocons don't respect international laws and treaties.


And the UN resolved the situation, but they didn't resolve it the right way in Bush opinion. So its a straight lie to say that they didn't resolve it. Also this 'un with no balls', corrupt or not, was able to disarm Iraq while Bush wasn't.

Yeah--CIA deep cover agent outed by someone in the government to Bob Novak as revenge for Joseph Wilson's NY Times op-ed piece that busted the uranium from Niger claims. To blow the cover of a CIA agent is a violation of federal law, and if it could be proven that Bush knew who did it and that he didn't tell the special prosecutor's office when they questioned him, then you could make a case for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It would be a tough case to make, to be sure, but if there's anything that would be a legitimate impeachment case, and/or criminal case, it's that.

That said, let me reiterate that I don't think Bush should be impeached, not now anyway. I'll be satisfied if we throw him out of office in November.
If it could be proven Bush did this, even I would become a democrat. I don't think he did but if we see Bush getting shot in the head....I'll bet it's the CIA.

(hey did I just activate the Carnivore program?)

You're right and yet wrong. Under the war powers act, the President has limited power to send troops into combat without congressional approval. That's part of the reason we were able to stay in Vietnam so long without an actual declaration of war. It's one of the more egregious handovers of inter-branch power in my opinion.

In this case, Bush had the power he needed because the Congress gave him the power to use force in the form of a congressional resolution.

Correct. The War Powers Act allows the President to deploy troops without congressional approval, but for a limited time only (isn't 90 days the limit?).
I forgot about that. Thanks.

If it could be proven Bush did this, even I would become a democrat. I don't think he did but if we see Bush getting shot in the head....I'll bet it's the CIA.

(hey did I just activate the Carnivore program?)
It's a stretch, and honestly, I don't like the way that obstruction of justice or lying to a federal agent statutes are written in this country. Seems to me that if a cop can lie to you to try to induce a confession, you ought to be able to lie to a cop without it being considered a crime. But that's just me.

Anyway, the scenario would have to be that Bush knew who leaked the name and didn't tell the investigators--my guess would be that while Bush may have known it would happen, he most carefully didn't know who did it, just so he could maintain deniability.

The fact is, though, that whether Bush knew who did it or not, he obviously doesn't really care about findng out, because he could have ordered the person responsible to come forward and then fired him or her, and most people would have been satisfied. If the person was threatened with jail, Bush always has the power of the pardon.

No, but it did violate the Constitution, because there was no congressional declaration of war. Likewise, Truman, LBJ/Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton should have all been impeached for the same thing. At least, that's my opinion, anyway.

It is within the rights of the president to deploy troops into hostile territory without congress approval for 30 days. If during those 30 days, congress approves the military manuevers and votes to send more troops then he is within the limits of powers of the president with or without a formal declaration of war.

Even if he did do wrong, there isn't sufficient evidence against him. No one knows if Bush really knew the intelligence was faulty. The Bush Administration has always complied with the Supreme Court. And under no circumstances has he stolen powers from the Legislative or Judicial branch, unless if you count "power stealing" as Bush excersising his legal priviledges of the Judicial Branch.

It is within the rights of the president to deploy troops into hostile territory without congress approval for 30 days. If during those 30 days, congress approves the military manuevers and votes to send more troops then he is within the limits of powers of the president with or without a formal declaration of war.

Was that what it originally said in the Constitution, or are you quoting the War Powers Act? Just curious.

As much as I don't like Bush...and I don't like him...a lot...

I think ANYONE that thinks we should impeach him is a fool. You see every four years we have this beautiful thing called an election. It's a great system where the people come together and vote...and even though their vote doesn't really count...it still means something.

2004 just so happens to be a year where we will vote in a new president.

So I ask you...why with so little time before the election would we waste our time on an impeachment when he'll probably be voted out of office anyway?

hmm? hmm?

WTF, I was just applying logic... Reread my post.
Fine I over reacted. sorry.



And about resolution 1441, it was an UN resolution, not a US resolution. The US decided that Iraq broke 1441, but that doesn't mean shit because it was an UN resolution. Only the UN SC can decide that Iraq broke 1441 and they decided that there was no reason to go to war. The US disagreed and went to war anyway. It is like taking a law from another country and try to use it in yours. This is not a legel argument.
I forget the wording but 1441 ( whatever the number ) stated if the resolutions were not met there would be stong action...or some such thing

And what do you mean when you say the UN is corrupt? All places were power is centralized are currupt, your goverment, my goverment, the US, the UN. What is the point? And about the UN being corrupt, didn't the US blackmail the temporary SC members, including two poor and weak african countries, to vote for their new war resolution? I don't see the point.
People in the UN were making a profit off of Saddam and the Food for oil plan. They are more responsible for killing the 2.5 million children then the US is. Blackmail...what blackmail.


The US already killed 2,5 million Iraqi children with blockades? What more did you want?
No it didn't. Saddam killed those people. Food for oil? The food is suppose to go to the people not Saddam.


And the US prevented a rebellion a few times before.
They just wanted to get their forces in.
And your proof is..... I thought the US backed rebellion but did it in such a half assed way they were crushed by Saddam (Bush senior)



Firstly, Bush was forced to go to the UN by Powell, neocons don't respect international laws and treaties.
Iraq was a defeated nation and did not abide by the terms of surrender... usually means more war.


And the UN resolved the situation, but they didn't resolve it the right way in Bush opinion. So its a straight lie to say that they didn't resolve it. Also this 'un with no balls', corrupt or not, was able to disarm Iraq while Bush wasn't. What!? Disarm Iraq? The UN? Have you read the Unscom reports from 1998? "...13.3 tons of VX gas still unaccounted for."

Did you read the news about the attempted terrorsit attack in Jordan where 20 tons of chemical weapons were found on Syrian trucks. Well the way I look at that is either it was Iraqi or now we have a worse problem ...Syria is making the shit also.

Of course impeach the bastard, lies, corruption and killing should be enough, and send Cheney to jail, he is even more evil

Was that what it originally said in the Constitution, or are you quoting the War Powers Act? Just curious.
I think your on to something. Though it has yet to be tested, the War Powers Act could be unconstitutional.

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/OHDEARGODYES.gifI was wondering how you got that font so big then I realized it was a picture. Anyway, I say no. Because he has no fault large enough to be impeached, except that he is hated.

Of course impeach the bastard, lies, corruption and killing should be enough, and send Cheney to jail, he is even more evil
Strong opinions you have, young Jedi!

what?????bush is awesome and kerry is a domestic weener and a moron! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
Ooooo!!! That is so smart! How many brain cells did you come thinking up that one?! :rolleyes:

yes Bush should be impeached for lying to start a war and for receiving excellent intelligence reports that specifically told him that al queda would attack us with planes on 911--reports that Bush chose to ignore and qualifys him to receive the death penalty at the UN on world TV

yes Bush should be impeached for lying to start a war and for receiving excellent intelligence reports that specifically told him that al queda would attack us with planes on 911--reports that Bush chose to ignore and qualifys him to receive the death penalty at the UN on world TV
NAH! That's too nice! Put him in one of those you know...loser labour camps...

yes Bush should be impeached for lying to start a war and for receiving excellent intelligence reports that specifically told him that al queda would attack us with planes on 911--reports that Bush chose to ignore and qualifys him to receive the death penalty at the UN on world TV
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative9.jpg

First of all "lying to the public" isn't a crime, for a Bush or a Clinton.
Secondly "Lying to start a war" is not provable and if it were proven, then the entire U.S. Senate, including Sens. Kerry & Edwards, bears just as much responsibility because the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee had the same CIA info.
Are Sens. Kerry & Edwards so stupid that President Bush could convince them of a lie?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative9.jpg

haha! That's funny Pepsiholics and I agree with you

NAH! That's too nice! Put him in one of those you know...loser labour camps...
only if everyday someone gets to lash all the flesh off his back with a whip that has fish hooks in it--and as for Cheney he should be forced to stand near a microwave oven with the door open

haha! That's funny Pepsiholics and I agree with you
The people Bush allowed to die on 911 might not agree

The people Bush allowed to die on 911 might not agree

And the 9/11 report states that it couldn't have been prevented!

The people Bush allowed to die on 911 might not agree
Your Al Gore in disguise aren't you!

There is no American that would have allowed that to happen. I didn't like Clinton all that much but I don't blame him either. The only fault is with those cowardly pieces of shit that did it or supported it.

There is no American that would have allowed that to happen. I didn't like Clinton all that much but I don't blame him either. The only fault is with those cowardly pieces of shit that did it or supported it.

I don't blame him either! I do think that if he could've stopped it, he would've, just as Bush would've stopped it if he could.

There are absolutly no grounds to impeach Bush. None! When Clinton was impeached, it was because he broke the law. Not because he slept with Monica, but because he committed perjury! He lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible). As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm. There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?

I second.

Furthermore, Bush expected that airline security would be able to handle 9/11. In a way, it's actually the airline's fault for not being thorough enough in security; that's why they tightened security afterwards (seriously, why else?). That's why I can't go to New York anymore without a birth certificate or being a husband or a bride in a marriage.

There is no American that would have allowed that to happen. I didn't like Clinton all that much but I don't blame him either. The only fault is with those cowardly pieces of shit that did it or supported it.

It's funny how people forget that point. They spend their time pointing fingers and screaming at the ones who dont believe how they do. Choosing to ignore the fact that a large group of people are willing to do whatever it takes to kill us.

"Bush knew it was going to happen! It's his fault!!"
"Clinton had 8 years to do something, he let it happen!!"

And all the time we're spending screaming at ourselves... they are planning to do it again. They want to kill you MKULTRA, dont fool yourself about it. You too Pepsiholics (although I think you get this).

It's funny how people forget that point. They spend their time pointing fingers and screaming at the ones who dont believe how they do. Choosing to ignore the fact that a large group of people are willing to do whatever it takes to kill us.

"Bush knew it was going to happen! It's his fault!!"
"Clinton had 8 years to do something, he let it happen!!"

And all the time we're spending screaming at ourselves... they are planning to do it again. They want to kill you MKULTRA, dont fool yourself about it. You too Pepsiholics (although I think you get this).

Your absolutely right politigrade!

And the 9/11 report states that it couldn't have been prevented!
the 911 commission only said that cause they would provoke a popular uprising if they told the awful truth

the 911 commission only said that cause they would provoke a popular uprising if they told the awful truth

Please provide references.

Your Al Gore in disguise aren't you!
no-I dont have a lisp--but if Gore gave speeches in 2000 the way he does now he woulda beat Bush in a landslide

It's funny how people forget that point. They spend their time pointing fingers and screaming at the ones who dont believe how they do. Choosing to ignore the fact that a large group of people are willing to do whatever it takes to kill us.

"Bush knew it was going to happen! It's his fault!!"
"Clinton had 8 years to do something, he let it happen!!"

And all the time we're spending screaming at ourselves... they are planning to do it again. They want to kill you MKULTRA, dont fool yourself about it. You too Pepsiholics (although I think you get this).
Damn right!

And thanks to everyone that has caved in to the terrorists recently... they will just get bolder. Sucks doesn't it.

There is no American that would have allowed that to happen. I didn't like Clinton all that much but I don't blame him either. The only fault is with those cowardly pieces of shit that did it or supported it.
I disagree--Bush NEEDED a 911--he absolutely NEEDED it to happen and it did--I dont believe in coincidences and I wont lie to myself just cause the truth is too ugly to believe

the 911 commission only said that cause they would provoke a popular uprising if they told the awful truth

HAHAHAHA!!! MKULTRA please stop before I laugh to death. That has to be one of the most stupidest things you've ever said.

People wanted answers! That was what the 9/11 Report got! READ IT! I am!

I disagree--Bush NEEDED a 911--he absolutely NEEDED it to happen and it did--I dont believe in coincidences and I wont lie to myself just cause the truth is too ugly to believe

*Dies laughing*

You just did lie to yourself! You really need to switch radio stations. I think you've just been brainwashed.

no-I dont have a lisp--but if Gore gave speeches in 2000 the way he does now he woulda beat Bush in a landslide
Hhahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahahaahhahahahhaaahha!
ROTFLMAO!
Crap! I have to wipe the tears away for that one!

Gore is currently being laughed at. I will say this though: The best speeches Gore gave in the 2000 election where the ones he wrote himself. He had piss poor advisors. Including legal advisors.

I second.

Furthermore, Bush expected that airline security would be able to handle 9/11. In a way, it's actually the airline's fault for not being thorough enough in security; that's why they tightened security afterwards (seriously, why else?). That's why I can't go to New York anymore without a birth certificate or being a husband or a bride in a marriage.
if this fairy tale is true then why did Bush evacuate the Bin Laden family from america and refused to let the FBI question them?

if this fairy tale is true then why did Bush evacuate the Bin Laden family from america and refused to let the FBI question them?

OMFG!!!! You truely didn't read what the report said did you! No you didn't!

They were questioned by the FBI and RICHARD CLARKE approved their departure, not bush! Stated in the 9/11 Report!

if this fairy tale is true then why did Bush evacuate the Bin Laden family from america and refused to let the FBI question them?

there you go again, listening to Moore without questioning. Be a bit more critical in your thinking, dont be a sheep behind Moore.

if this fairy tale is true then why did Bush evacuate the Bin Laden family from america and refused to let the FBI question them?

1. If the Bin Laden family wasn't guilty, then they'd probably still be prosecuted. Bush was trying to save people who could very well be completely innocent.
EDIT: I'll be completely honest, I have no idea about this, but I'm taking the most logical route for someone who doesn't know. I don't even LIVE there, so I have no clue what's going on.

2. What does that have to do with my post?

if this fairy tale is true then why did Bush evacuate the Bin Laden family from america and refused to let the FBI question them?
Hey Buddy, what your saying does not even make sense. First you guys( sorry generalization for an apparent liberal ) say Bush is a moron. Then he is the most evil genius the world has ever known. You can't have it both ways!

1. If the Bin Laden family wasn't guilty, then they'd probably still be prosecuted. Bush was trying to save people who could very well be completely innocent.
EDIT: I'll be completely honest, I have no idea about this, but I'm taking the most logical route for someone who doesn't know. I don't even LIVE there, so I have no clue what's going on.

2. What does that have to do with my post?

Its just MKULTRA Miratha. He has a habit of doing this!

Its just MKULTRA Miratha. He has a habit of doing this!

Sorry, I'm new.

Let's see...lies, lies, lies about the war...undermining the Constitution...etc...

Preposterous! A lie is the telling of a falsehood represented as the truth... WITH INTENT. He didn't lie, he acted on information provided to him. And it wasn't just him, it was his whole staff acting on the information. Even the pillow biting liberals were saying what Bush did, should be done. It wasn't until people started freaking out that they changed their position, then it was too late. Liberals will do ANYTHING to stay popular, doing the right thing is an after thought to them. WMD's were clearly in Husseins possession, everyone knows that. He gassed his own people in the North, the Kurds... duh! Where he hid them or moved them to while the U.N. scratched their asses is yet to be determined.

Bush was well within the limits of the Law and well within his limits of Power, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, people who are actually EDUCATED in the fundamentals of the elements of the crime(s) you alledge would all be calling for impeachment on a vast scale. It'd be all over the newspapers, the news shows, you name it.

Not even Michael Moore (*gag* *blech*) is calling for impeachment. At least he's that intelligent.

Get a grip. Bush commited no crimes. You and others like you are being brainwashed by a large fad-driven Socialist/Communist bong toking dreadlock having beads wearing bunch of 21st century hippies. What he did is not popular, not even with me for that matter, but that doesn't make anything he did illegal and therefore, he is unimpeachable.

On the other hand, the thread just asks what you think, not what you actually KNOW, so ... carry on with your indignant rants without basis in fact.

OMFG!!!! You truely didn't read what the report said did you! No you didn't!

They were questioned by the FBI and RICHARD CLARKE approved their departure, not bush! Stated in the 9/11 Report!Richard Clarke did it under orders from Cheney

Preposterous! A lie is the telling of a falsehood represented as the truth... WITH INTENT. He didn't lie, he acted on information provided to him. And it wasn't just him, it was his whole staff acting on the information. Even the pillow biting liberals were saying what Bush did, should be done. It wasn't until people started freaking out that they changed their position, then it was too late. Liberals will do ANYTHING to stay popular, doing the right thing is an after thought to them. WMD's were clearly in Husseins possession, everyone knows that. He gassed his own people in the North, the Kurds... duh! Where he hid them or moved them to while the U.N. scratched their asses is yet to be determined.

Bush was well within the limits of the Law and well within his limits of Power, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, people who are actually EDUCATED in the fundamentals of the elements of the crime(s) you alledge would all be calling for impeachment on a vast scale. It'd be all over the newspapers, the news shows, you name it.

Not even Michael Moore (*gag* *blech*) is calling for impeachment. At least he's that intelligent.

Get a grip. Bush commited no crimes. You and others like you are being brainwashed by a large fad-driven Socialist/Communist bong toking dreadlock having beads wearing bunch of 21st century hippies. What he did is not popular, not even with me for that matter, but that doesn't make anything he did illegal and therefore, he is unimpeachable.

On the other hand, the thread just asks what you think, not what you actually KNOW, so ... carry on with your indignant rants without basis in fact.
Lmao! ( again )

I just quoted you to put this up twice....good post.

Bah, people pull the impeachment card way too often. Ympeachment is reserved only for presidents that actually violate the law. Technically Bush has not violated the law, he has only violated the trust of the american people.

Hey Buddy, what your saying does not even make sense. First you guys( sorry generalization for an apparent liberal ) say Bush is a moron. Then he is the most evil genius the world has ever known. You can't have it both ways!
he IS a moron and hes got an evil genius pulling his strings

Get a grip. Bush commited no crimes. You and others like you are being brainwashed by a large fad-driven Socialist/Communist bong toking dreadlock having beads wearing bunch of 21st century hippies. What he did is not popular, not even with me for that matter, but that doesn't make anything he did illegal and therefore, he is unimpeachable.

It always hurts to realize that people are that stupid. Saddening. Like I always say (I do, just not frequently...); just because people do it doesn't make it right.

Richard Clarke did it under orders from Cheney
And your point even if your right. They were questioned by the FBI. Oh wait ... you hate Bush because he started this illegal war right? But it would be ok by you to condemn, jail, kill someones family, without proof by the way, because what a relative did? Is that it? Oh yeah, you liberals really hold to that constitution don't you.

Richard Clarke did it under orders from Cheney

Again, 9/11 report! Clarke stated in testimony that it reached no HIGHER than HIM! He alone approved them to be flown out!

Sorry MKULTRA but so far, you have lost this line of arguement!

The sad thing is, no matter how much proof you have and no matter how wrong they always and consistently are, they'll never listen.

It's a lost cause.

True. But if they see it on Entertainment tonight ... then ...well it must be true then!

True. But if they see it on Entertainment tonight ... then ...well it must be true then!

Sad but true

Again, 9/11 report! Clarke stated in testimony that it reached no HIGHER than HIM! He alone approved them to be flown out!

Sorry MKULTRA but so far, you have lost this line of arguement!
so what your saying is that Bush who sits in the chair of ultimate authority and is supposed to be on top of things like this is refusing to take personal responsibility for allowing the killers family to escape?

so what your saying is that Bush who sits in the chair of ultimate authority and is supposed to be on top of things like this is refusing to take personal responsibility for allowing the killers family to escape?

He had nothing to do with it MKULTRA! Richard Clarke, his Counter-Terrorist Czar before he left, stated that it reached no higher than him and HE ALONE approved it. That is what he told the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commissioned looked into it and found it to be accurate.

so what your saying is that Bush who sits in the chair of ultimate authority and is supposed to be on top of things like this is refusing to take personal responsibility for allowing the killers family to escape?
And what should we/could we do with the killers family?

Your just all over the place aren't you?

Are you Micheal Moore?

And what should we/could we do with the killers family?

Your just all over the place aren't you?

Are you Micheal Moore?

1) Nothing if they are innocent and they were according to the FBI

2) He is and not making sense in the process

3) I wonder at times but I dont think he is!

LOL

nah, just bitch-slapped.

nah, just bitch-slapped.

Now there is an idea.

I know I must be older than most people in here and I'm probably out of touch with the young crowd, but .... are they all this dumb! Don't they teach critical thinking in high school anymore? Really that was a class you could take. Sort of like a debate class.

I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but, it is a federal offence to mislead Congress. That is an impeachable offence. There are few who even believe that the Intel was wrong that the White House still didn't lie/exaggerate the false Intel. Most pundits agree, even if he truly believed the bad Intel, he did mislead Congress by lying/exaggerating the bad Intel he was given. If it was Clinton, he would of already been impeached.

I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but, it is a federal offence to mislead Congress. That is an impeachable offence. There are few who even believe that the Intel was wrong that the White House still didn't lie/exaggerate the false Intel. Most pundits agree, even if he truly believed the bad Intel, he did mislead Congress by lying/exaggerating the bad Intel he was given. If it was Clinton, he would of already been impeached.
How many times does this have to be said. Every major intellegence source pointed to WMD. I say Saddam got rid of them, not by destuction but by smuggling.

I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but, it is a federal offence to mislead Congress. That is an impeachable offence. There are few who even believe that the Intel was wrong that the White House still didn't lie/exaggerate the false Intel. Most pundits agree, even if he truly believed the bad Intel, he did mislead Congress by lying/exaggerating the bad Intel he was given. If it was Clinton, he would of already been impeached.

Hrmn, can't say I ever knew that one. Well then I guess sure, why the hell not, we have impeached people for lesser crimes *looks over at clinton*, but since everyone knows he screwed up lets save the 80 million of tax payer money on a special council and get right down to buisness.

I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but, it is a federal offence to mislead Congress. That is an impeachable offence. There are few who even believe that the Intel was wrong that the White House still didn't lie/exaggerate the false Intel. Most pundits agree, even if he truly believed the bad Intel, he did mislead Congress by lying/exaggerating the bad Intel he was given. If it was Clinton, he would of already been impeached.

I guess you don't realize that Bush was mislead which caused him to mislead america. A fact made clear in the SSIC report and yes that is in there. The SSIC reported that the WMD was exaggerated. Bush Continued to ask over and over and over again if this was true and he was told, by the CIA that it was.

I know that you won't believe me steph so I'm waiting for your rebuke. However, he did not break any US laws otherwise, I WOULD BE calling for his impeachment. I read about the 1st Impeachment in American History back in the 1860s and I supported that (failed by one vote in the senate) and I supported Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath. That is a criminal offense.

I guess you don't realize that Bush was mislead which caused him to mislead america. A fact made clear in the SSIC report and yes that is in there. The SSIC reported that the WMD was exaggerated. Bush Continued to ask over and over and over again if this was true and he was told, by the CIA that it was.

I know that you won't believe me steph so I'm waiting for your rebuke. However, he did not break any US laws otherwise, I WOULD BE calling for his impeachment. I read about the 1st Impeachment in American History back in the 1860s and I supported that (failed by one vote in the senate) and I supported Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath. That is a criminal offense.

1) Doesn't matter, he IS the one who presented the info, if it wasn't rock solid then it shouldn't have been presented. And lets be honest, they knew it wasn't solid, but they went for it anyway.

2) Clinton didn't technically lie under oath, by the definition he was given, he was speeking truthfully. The case shouldn't have been in court to begin with. It was an abuse of the legal system.

1) Doesn't matter, he IS the one who presented the info, if it wasn't rock solid then it shouldn't have been presented. And lets be honest, they knew it wasn't solid, but they went for it anyway.

2) Clinton didn't technically lie under oath, by the definition he was given, he was speeking truthfully. The case shouldn't have been in court to begin with. It was an abuse of the legal system.

ok I probably can agree with you on point 2!

On point 1 however, a President (Doesn't matter who) can only make decisions on military action based on the intel he was given.

You and others like you are being brainwashed by a large fad-driven Socialist/Communist bong toking dreadlock having beads wearing bunch of 21st century hippies.

Hey, us bong toking dreadlock having beads wearing bunch of 21st century hippies definitely don't try and brainwash people. Last I remember we weren't going around talking s about the fad-driven Conservative/Republican job having cigarette smoking alcohol drinking bead hating bunch of 21st century jerkholes. Notice how I use no commas! On the same level, I do realize that hippie-ism is kind of popular right now, but we hurt noone, and keep to ourselves mostly. How can you blame hippies!? A person has long hair, believes in peaceful resolutions, sometimes is into communism (not me personally, I am an anarcho-communist. Big difference! ^_~) and may or may not (usually the former) smoke the dried buds of a plant, and suddenly this person is a bad person? I happen to be very educated on politics, and my beliefs are based on me personally, if other people suddenly decide in droves to follow these beliefs, or some similar to it, then of course it is going to seem like people are brainwashed; some of them probably are, but then you are placing the blame on the wrong people... And one of your conservative buddies already talked about that.

Basically what I'm saying, is that by using hippies as the cause of your problems isn't helping either. Bush shouldn't be impeached, but he shouldn't be reelected either.

I know I must be older than most people in here and I'm probably out of touch with the young crowd, but .... are they all this dumb! Don't they teach critical thinking in high school anymore? Really that was a class you could take. Sort of like a debate class.

I don't think we do, unfortunately. Sad. And they are all this dumb. Sorry to disillusion you that some people might actually know what they're talking about.

Yes he should be impeached. If he is innocent then fine that should be clarified once and for all, if he is not, then that also should be clarified. Either way he deserves some heavey flack. If he's not a lier then he is incompetent.

I find it very strange that Bush is reckoned by many to have not been in a position to ascertain the truth. Funny how people all over the world who did not have primary access to the 'intelligence' were able to better work out the truth than Bush was. If people truly believe Bush could not have come to the same correct conclusion that so many people around the world arrived at easily, then I cannot understand why you dont care to find out how this occured. Hans Blix is the world's absolute uncontested expert on Iraq's weapons capabilities, he stated outright on numerous occasions that Iraq did not pose a threat due to it's weapons capabilities. Mmmm believe the worlds foremost expert, or believe the same 'intelligence' agencies that failed to prevent 9/11.........is the path of good sense really so hard to differentiate from the path of common sense?

Certainly he is guilty of negligence; considering the USA justice system holistically, this constitutes an actionable prima facie. The fact is the world's best expert was in Iraq, with unconditional access. The Bush administration was claiming at this time that their intelligence not only proved the existence of WMD, but they knew even the location of WMD. This means that all Bush had to do to ascertain the truth, was have Hans Blix inspect the site where the intelligence 'proved' there was WMD. So regardless of any other consideration, Bush led the USA into a war on premises he was able to ascertain as false. Americans died because he was too lazy or too stupid, or a lier. Does it matter which?

They guy is either a criminal lier or utterly incompetent, either way future USA Presidents must be aware of a thing I call 'minimum standards'. After all Republicans are supposed to all be for individual responsibility and accountability, funny how that premise appears to only be applied to solo mothers working 3 part time jobs to still not foot the bills.....

I know I must be older than most people in here and I'm probably out of touch with the young crowd, but .... are they all this dumb! Don't they teach critical thinking in high school anymore? Really that was a class you could take. Sort of like a debate class.

I haven't seen critical thinking as a class in my high school yet so I don't think they offer it! LOL!

But I do agree with you Pepsiholics.

ok I probably can agree with you on point 2!

On point 1 however, a President (Doesn't matter who) can only make decisions on military action based on the intel he was given.

Heh, based on the intel he was given, or the intel that was created? You see, the whole case for war is really, to use a Bush term, Fuzzy. It is hard to find where the fact ends and the bullshit begins and vice versa. A case could be made against him, but I'm sure it wouldn't stand up much like clinton's impeachment didn't stand up. But in any case it would be a waste of congressional time when real progress could be made.

Basically what I'm saying, is that by using hippies as the cause of your problems isn't helping either. Bush shouldn't be impeached, but he shouldn't be reelected either.

I don't really like Bush, but I don't really know much about Kerry. Thing is, what Kerry's been basically doing is spreading all these terrible things about Bush so he could be elected. Basically, he's preying on the stupidity of the people to elect him over Bush.

Heh, based on the intel he was given, or the intel that was created? You see, the whole case for war is really, to use a Bush term, Fuzzy. It is hard to find where the fact ends and the bullshit begins and vice versa. A case could be made against him, but I'm sure it wouldn't stand up much like clinton's impeachment didn't stand up. But in any case it would be a waste of congressional time when real progress could be made.

Most of Clinton actually could stood up if it was allowed and it wasn't! That is IMHO!

For Bush, I honestly think, IMHO, that he was lied too buy the CIA. I don't believe that he would knowingly lie to the people.

I probably would get flak for saying that, but after watching Bush talk and Kerry, I find Bush to be as honest as he can be!

I don't really like Bush, but I don't really know much about Kerry. Thing is, what Kerry's been basically doing is spreading all these terrible things about Bush so he could be elected. Basically, he's preying on the stupidity of the people to elect him over Bush.

Both candidates are using the stupidity of voters to get re-elected though. Liberals are fueling hatred for the bush administration and the republicans are using Kerry's voting record out of context while giving no chance for kerry to explain himself. It's a paradox when it comes to preying on voter stupidity.

Most of Clinton actually could stood up if it was allowed and it wasn't! That is IMHO!

For Bush, I honestly think, IMHO, that he was lied too buy the CIA. I don't believe that he would knowingly lie to the people.

I probably would get flak for saying that, but after watching Bush talk and Kerry, I find Bush to be as honest as he can be!

Sorry to change the subject, but what does IMHO mean?

1) Doesn't matter, he IS the one who presented the info, if it wasn't rock solid then it shouldn't have been presented. And lets be honest, they knew it wasn't solid, but they went for it anyway.
OMG what kind of fantasy land do you live in. Rock solid proof? There hasn't been rock solid proof since Kennedy exposed the Cuban missles! That is not how intell works. The Pres, is presented with possiblities and the CIA/NSA tell him in what probability it is accurate. With all that's happening now, it will be a cold day in hell before the CIA sticks it's neck out again.


2) Clinton didn't technically lie under oath, by the definition he was given, he was speeking truthfully. The case shouldn't have been in court to begin with. It was an abuse of the legal system.
wrong Clinton lied. Are you going by what the definition of the word "is" is. Tell you what... next time your in front of a Judge, lets see you try that line...see what happens.

Both candidates are using the stupidity of voters to get re-elected though. Liberals are fueling hatred for the bush administration and the republicans are using Kerry's voting record out of context while giving no chance for kerry to explain himself. It's a paradox when it comes to preying on voter stupidity.

My thoughts exactly!

Sorry to change the subject, but what does IMHO mean?

In My Honest Opinion

In My Humble Opinion.
Oh man, these text changing thingies are awesome!

... Honest? Woah, never knew that. Thought it was humble.

What lies? He was given bad intelligence by the CIA!

As for undermining the constitution, I assume you refer to the patriot act? That was approved by the house and senate, and despite what ihatebush.com may say, there has been no widespread civil rights crisis.

There are no grounds for impeachment. At all.

Period.

The Bush Administration twisted the CIA's arm. After all the CIA is part of the Eecutive Brach and is thus subject to the President's control. That shouldn't matter anyway. Early in the morning on September 12, 2001 Rumsfeld and Wolofwitz were already proposing to bomb Iraq rather than Afghaninstan because "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. I am not making this up. It was reported by Richard A. Clarke who even voted for Bush in 2000.

Beyond that Bush has done too many other evil things to mention. And there is a civil rights cirsis. A California man in his 60's was questioned by the FBI for calling Bush a bigger asshole than Osama while hanging out with his buddies at the gym. In Fresno, CA, the local police sent a man to infiltrate a group called Peace Fresno which protested the war on a weekly basis.

I Believe that is check and mate.

Thanks, guys!

I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but, it is a federal offence to mislead Congress. That is an impeachable offence. There are few who even believe that the Intel was wrong that the White House still didn't lie/exaggerate the false Intel. Most pundits agree, even if he truly believed the bad Intel, he did mislead Congress by lying/exaggerating the bad Intel he was given. If it was Clinton, he would of already been impeached.

Really? Hmmm... interesting. If this was Clinton he'd already be impeached? If this was Clinton, he'd be getting a knob job in the oval office from the white house go'fer while smoking a moist cigar and drinking French wine right now.

So, the Democrats and everyone else who'd like to see Bush roast on an open spit are just keeping their mouths shut and aren't demanding impeachmeant because... of the kindness in their hearts?

There

Are

No

Impeachable

Offenses

No

Matter

How

Hard

You

Wish

There

Were

:rolleyes:

I don't really like Bush, but I don't really know much about Kerry. Thing is, what Kerry's been basically doing is spreading all these terrible things about Bush so he could be elected. Basically, he's preying on the stupidity of the people to elect him over Bush.

Yeah, I think that Kerry will probably be elected on the simple fact that he is not Bush, but earlier this year, my motto was "Anyone but Bush, 2004." Needless to say, that's a bit of exaggeration, but I think Kerry will do just fine, especially in comparison to any of our other choices. This argument is just too tedious anymore... Sigh...

Oh yeah, there aren't any critical thinking classes in my school either.

Most of Clinton actually could stood up if it was allowed and it wasn't! That is IMHO!

For Bush, I honestly think, IMHO, that he was lied too buy the CIA. I don't believe that he would knowingly lie to the people.

I probably would get flak for saying that, but after watching Bush talk and Kerry, I find Bush to be as honest as he can be!

1) Meh, that whole thing was a waste of taxpayer money anyway.

2) Like I said, a good case could be made for either the CIA being a bunch of tards, or the administration over-exadurating claims. But in any case, there was a failure of intelligence period.

3) They're both really being honest if you can call it that. Both of them are just pitching ideas, there is nothign to really lie about. Though bush and his pushing vales that he "holds dear" could be argued.

Beyond that Bush has done too many other evil things to mention. And there is a civil rights cirsis. A California man in his 60's was questioned by the FBI for calling Bush a bigger asshole than Osama while hanging out with his buddies at the gym. In Fresno, CA, the local police sent a man to infiltrate a group called Peace Fresno which protested the war on a weekly basis.

Oh, free speech has gone to hell regardless. 'Tis a shame.
Seriously, you can't say anything anymore without having your head knocked off. Well, back to the Middle Ages again. Hey, maybe this one'll be shorter.

In another unrelated yet coincidental, we might experience a mini-ice age similar to the one during the middle ages in about 50 years. Ironically, because of global warming.

See, as warm, salt water from the gulf stream evaporates, the salt sinks and is mixed in with more warm salt water, causing it to become heavier than the cold fresh water. The cold water is carried throughout the gulfstream.

The Bush Administration twisted the CIA's arm. After all the CIA is part of the Eecutive Brach and is thus subject to the President's control. That shouldn't matter anyway. Early in the morning on September 12, 2001 Rumsfeld and Wolofwitz were already proposing to bomb Iraq rather than Afghaninstan because "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. I am not making this up. It was reported by Richard A. Clarke who even voted for Bush in 2000.

Beyond that Bush has done too many other evil things to mention. And there is a civil rights cirsis. A California man in his 60's was questioned by the FBI for calling Bush a bigger asshole than Osama while hanging out with his buddies at the gym. In Fresno, CA, the local police sent a man to infiltrate a group called Peace Fresno which protested the war on a weekly basis.

I Believe that is check and mate.

Wrong! Problem with twisting the CIAs arm! SSIC stated that the Bush Administration never pressured CIA on Iraq. They came to their conclusions on there own.

I don't know about you but on September 12, Bush was thinking about Bin Ladin and Afghanistan, not Iraq. How do I know this? A documentary on The Learning Channel about Bush's reaction to 9/11! Even he knew it was al Qaeda, not Iraq, that hit us. He knew where Intel placed Bin Ladin's wereabouts where and he planned accordingly. :P

As for a Civil Rights Crisis, none is present! Some Civil Rights, and I will say this, are suspended during a time of war. That is a fact of life. However, we still have our right of peaceful assembly, we still have the right to speak out against current leaders, you still have the right to vote for anyone you want. Shall I go on or is that enough?

How many times does this have to be said. Every major intellegence source pointed to WMD.

Yes, few can argue that, however, no one invaded Iraq till Bush, you see it's really a lesson in rhetoric.. "Every country even Clinton thought he had WMD" Well obviously no one believed it enough to invade Iraq now did they. Not till Bush and he was wrong. You may believe as you wish, but without evidence you got nothing.

Now, as to the bad Intel, sure, the CIA had bad Intel, I think that's been accepted. However, that is not the argument. Bush took that bad Intel and then further exaggerated it to Congress and Powell in turn to the UN.

Formal - The second half of the Senate report has not come out yet, so that is a claim you can't make yet. Most agree that Bush did exaggerate the Intel he was given. Lets wait till that report comes out and we will argue it then. Until then it's pure speculation.

Wrong! Problem with twisting the CIAs arm! SSIC stated that the Bush Administration never pressured CIA on Iraq. They came to their conclusions on there own.

I don't know about you but on September 12, Bush was thinking about Bin Ladin and Afghanistan, not Iraq. How do I know this? A documentary on The Learning Channel about Bush's reaction to 9/11! Even he knew it was al Qaeda, not Iraq, that hit us. He knew where Intel placed Bin Ladin's wereabouts where and he planned accordingly. :P

As for a Civil Rights Crisis, none is present! Some Civil Rights, and I will say this, are suspended during a time of war. That is a fact of life. However, we still have our right of peaceful assembly, we still have the right to speak out against current leaders, you still have the right to vote for anyone you want. Shall I go on or is that enough?

I agree with you, up to a point, but seriously, free speech will go to hell regardless.

I'm no politics expert or anything so I might sound dumb but, why would Bush want to risk people's lives just to invade a country?

Oh yeah, there aren't any critical thinking classes in my school either.

We had critical thinking classes, it wasn't an elective, it was mandatory in 11th & 12th grade.

Yes, few can argue that, however, no one invaded Iraq till Bush, you see it's really a lesson in rhetoric.. "Every country even Clinton thought he had WMD" Well obviously no one believed it enough to invade Iraq now did they. Not till Bush and he was wrong. You may believe as you wish, but without evidence you got nothing.

Now, as to the bad Intel, sure, the CIA had bad Intel, I think that's been accepted. However, that is not the argument. Bush took that bad Intel and then further exaggerated it to Congress and Powell in turn to the UN.

Formal - The second half of the Senate report has not come out yet, so that is a claim you can't make yet. Most agree that Bush did exaggerate the Intel he was given. Lets wait till that report comes out and we will argue it then. Until then it's pure speculation.

HAHA! No one wanted to invade because the cowardly UN didn't want to rock the applecart. They were getting kickbacks from Oil for food! Yea that is a reason not to go in.

Ok enough of that line. CIA having bad intel is an arguement to be made Steph. If we hadn't cut the budget of the CIA we might've had better intel. Remember, it wasn't until 1994 that the Reps took over the house. Before then, the CIAs budget was cut many times. Not saying it was all the dems fault, it was some republicans too. However, by cutting the CIA budget, it hampered their operations.

Steph, I do know that there is a Phase II! Since when have I denied it? I never have. Your putting words in my mouth and I wish you stop doing it.

We had critical thinking classes, it wasn't an elective, it was mandatory in 11th & 12th grade.
They need to bring it back. I'm not trying to be arrogant... I know I can make mistakes.

What lies? He was given bad intelligence by the CIA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If he really believed that intelligence, given that it was known at the time to be deliberately cooked (I remember reading in the papers early last year that it was dubious, and I knew then they were lying through their teeth), he should be fired (impeached) for gross incompetence!

And I'd also point out that a large part of my certainty they were lying was this: if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have gone into Iraq, because Saddam would use them. But guess what: now that Bush has shown he will go into countries that DON'T have WMDs with no justification, every country not on our favorites list is going to do its damnedest to obtain WMDs as fast as possible, because we're not going into North Korea--know why? 'cause they have nukes!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If he really believed that intelligence, given that it was known at the time to be deliberately cooked (I remember reading in the papers early last year that it was dubious, and I knew then they were lying through their teeth), he should be fired (impeached) for gross incompetence!

And I'd also point out that a large part of my certainty they were lying was this: if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have gone into Iraq, because Saddam would use them. But guess what: now that Bush has shown he will go into countries that DON'T have WMDs with no justification, every country not on our favorites list is going to do its damnedest to obtain WMDs as fast as possible, because we're not going into North Korea--know why? 'cause they have nukes!

Don't we have a truce with North Korea?

Don't we have a truce with North Korea?

An armistace. a Ceas-fire actually!

We don't have a peace treaty with NK so technically we are still at war with them.

HAHA! No one wanted to invade because the cowardly UN didn't want to rock the applecart. They were getting kickbacks from Oil for food! Yea that is a reason not to go in.

That's speculation on your part. Most of the world agreed that Saddam was well contained and seen no reason to invade actually.

Ok enough of that line. CIA having bad intel is an arguement to be made Steph.

As stated in my above post, I think it has been accepted that the CIA did have outdated and incorrect Intel. This is not really being disputed. What is being disputed is did the White House take that flawed Intel and further exaggerate it.. if so, then that's misleading Congress and is most certainly worthy of impeachment.


Steph, I do know that there is a Phase II! Since when have I denied it? I never have. Your putting words in my mouth and I wish you stop doing it.

I never said you denied it. I'm only saying you are drawing conclusions that you don't know yet. The report is not complete. The "Phase II" of the report is the part of the report that will decide if Bush did in fact exaggerate the Intel on any level. Most pundits do seem to agree he did. However, I was saying, lets wait for the report. At this point it's just speculation and some educated guesses. I might add, some more educated then others!

I was lucky enough to sit in on a hearing by the 9/11 commission earlier today. (All the press left after Leiberman spoke. lol) It seems to me that the problem was the people in the intelligence community. To quote from what I heard, the problem is that we don't have a diverse intelligence community. After 9/11 we actually had to go seek out new people just so we could have someone who spoke arabic.

I shudder to think of the prospect of Bush being impeached, 'cause that would mean Cheney would be the president. Best to keep the lesser of two evils for now...

Yes, few can argue that, however, no one invaded Iraq till Bush, you see it's really a lesson in rhetoric.. "Every country even Clinton thought he had WMD" Well obviously no one believed it enough to invade Iraq now did they.
We had not yet been sucker punched and therefore were hoping they would just go away.... we got smarter.

Not till Bush and he was wrong. You may believe as you wish, but without evidence you got nothing.


Oh your a smug little thing aren't you? I know you have read the Unscom reports from 1998. "...13.3 tons of VX gas still unaccounted for." Because you and I have argued this for over 1 year now. ( btw How's the baby? )

Did you read the news about the attempted terrorsit attack in Jordan where 20 tons of chemical weapons were found on Syrian trucks. Well the way I look at that is either it was Iraqi or now we have a worse problem ...Syria is making the shit also.

Yes, few can argue that, however, no one invaded Iraq till Bush, you see it's really a lesson in rhetoric.. "Every country even Clinton thought he had WMD" Well obviously no one believed it enough to invade Iraq now did they. Not till Bush and he was wrong. You may believe as you wish, but without evidence you got nothing.

Now, as to the bad Intel, sure, the CIA had bad Intel, I think that's been accepted. However, that is not the argument. Bush took that bad Intel and then further exaggerated it to Congress and Powell in turn to the UN.

Formal - The second half of the Senate report has not come out yet, so that is a claim you can't make yet. Most agree that Bush did exaggerate the Intel he was given. Lets wait till that report comes out and we will argue it then. Until then it's pure speculation.

Perhaps the reason Clinton did nothing was because he's a do nothing kind of guy. He didn't have the courage or the intestinal fortitude for doing what needed to be done, other than getting his rocks off with his mistress... in the White House. Heck, Clinton had a chance to get Osama from Sudan more than once. Sudan offered Osama's head on a silver platter to the U.S. no less than 3 times over 7 years. What was Clinton's response? Deport him. The fact Clinton didn't do jack squat doesn't mean jack squat... it's what he does best.

You say you want evidence? Have you seen the pictures of the thousands of Kurds (including the dead mothers holding their children laying in the streets) gassed by WMD's in the North during Saddams regime? What more proof could you hope for? Does the fact that the WMD's most likely were moved out of Iraq, say, into Syria or even Iran even sound plausible to you? Or, maybe, since Iraq is about the size of the entire state of California in square miles, does the "evidence" being buried very deep in a very remote location sound plausible to you?

Pure speculation?

man... someone please pinch me so i know i'm not really dead and damned to hell already

That's speculation on your part. Most of the world agreed that Saddam was well contained and seen no reason to invade actually.

sorry steph, but its getting linked to the French and Russians. No direct proof yet but close to it.Ironically, both nations have veto powers in the UN!

As stated in my above post, I think it has been accepted that the CIA did have outdated and incorrect Intel. This is not really being disputed. What is being disputed is did the White House take that flawed Intel and further exaggerate it.. if so, then that's misleading Congress and is most certainly worthy of impeachment.

Your right, its not getting disputed however it is an issue here. If anyone is misleading anyone here steph, it was the CIA that mislead bush which caused him to mislead the country. That is a fact Steph. Bush can only make decisions based on the intel received. Something that people seem to be forgetting, including you ms. getting a phd in political science!

I never said you denied it. I'm only saying you are drawing conclusions that you don't know yet. The report is not complete. The "Phase II" of the report is the part of the report that will decide if Bush did in fact exaggerate the Intel on any level. Most pundits do seem to agree he did. However, I was saying, lets wait for the report. At this point it's just speculation and some educated guesses. I might add, some more educated then others!

Sure sounds like you were saying that I didnt know there was a phase II to me IMHO! Your right it is speculation so saying that he mislead the country WITHOUT PROOF is speculation too.

I was lucky enough to sit in on a hearing by the 9/11 commission earlier today. (All the press left after Leiberman spoke. lol) It seems to me that the problem was the people in the intelligence community. To quote from what I heard, the problem is that we don't have a diverse intelligence community. After 9/11 we actually had to go seek out new people just so we could have someone who spoke arabic.

I shudder to think of the prospect of Bush being impeached, 'cause that would mean Cheney would be the president. Best to keep the lesser of two evils for now...

Well, this whole debate is simply an exercise any way. Bush would not be impeached regardless because the Republicans control both houses. The man could shoot some one in the middle of the Oval office and get away with it at this point.

Also, since the election is so close, it makes no logical sense to impeach him. Let the public decide. Sadly, the Senate report still left to come out won't be till after the election. I'm thinking that wasn't a fluke. But, that part is simply my opinion. I guess we shall know by next year.

Heck, Clinton had a chance to get Osama from Sudan more than once. Sudan offered Osama's head on a silver platter to the U.S. no less than 3 times over 7 years. What was Clinton's response? Deport him. The fact Clinton didn't do jack squat doesn't mean jack squat... it's what he does best.
Actually, the Sudan guy was a freelance agent who had no official ties to the government. The US does not conduct business with freelance peoples. Besides, Clinton contacted the Sudanese government to confirm this man's claim, and the Sudanese government said the guy was a nut. Clinton followed up every damn lead on the matter.

Read Al Franken's newest book.

They need to bring it back. I'm not trying to be arrogant... I know I can make mistakes.

They also need to bring back holding each and every kid accountable for their actions, not society or their social status. They also need to bring back mandatory Physical Education, because 3/4 of the kids in my sons school either have man boobs or the girls have the body of a woman who's had 5 children.

But most of all, they need to bring back the school Dean's paddle. For the paddle was far more feared than an hour of detention...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If he really believed that intelligence, given that it was known at the time to be deliberately cooked (I remember reading in the papers early last year that it was dubious, and I knew then they were lying through their teeth), he should be fired (impeached) for gross incompetence!

And I'd also point out that a large part of my certainty they were lying was this: if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have gone into Iraq, because Saddam would use them. But guess what: now that Bush has shown he will go into countries that DON'T have WMDs with no justification, every country not on our favorites list is going to do its damnedest to obtain WMDs as fast as possible, because we're not going into North Korea--know why? 'cause they have nukes!

We are not going to N. Korea because of the S. Koreans. Seoul is just a artillery shell away from the 38th parrallel. How many millions would be wiped out if N. Korea launched a gas attack on Seoul? Roughly 8- 10 million.

Impeachment is for crimes commited as a public official, Bush has not broken any laws, so the logic follows that he should not be impeached.

The whole Clinton fiasco has convinced some of you that impeachment is something done when people dont like the president, when Clinton commited a felony and got away with it. Pergery and obstruction of justice.

man... someone please pinch me so i know i'm not really dead and damned to hell already

No, then you'd be in Iraq, or even better, Isreal!

We had not yet been sucker punched and therefore were hoping they would just go away.... we got smarter.


Oh your a smug little thing aren't you? I know you have read the Unscom reports from 1998. "...13.3 tons of VX gas still unaccounted for." Because you and I have argued this for over 1 year now. ( btw How's the baby? )

Did you read the news about the attempted terrorsit attack in Jordan where 20 tons of chemical weapons were found on Syrian trucks. Well the way I look at that is either it was Iraqi or now we have a worse problem ...Syria is making the shit also.
Yeah I'm quoting myself...what of it! I hate it when I'm the last post on a page....

This was in response to Steph

We had not yet been sucker punched and therefore were hoping they would just go away.... we got smarter.


Oh your a smug little thing aren't you? I know you have read the Unscom reports from 1998. "...13.3 tons of VX gas still unaccounted for." Because you and I have argued this for over 1 year now. ( btw How's the baby? )

Did you read the news about the attempted terrorsit attack in Jordan where 20 tons of chemical weapons were found on Syrian trucks. Well the way I look at that is either it was Iraqi or now we have a worse problem ...Syria is making the shit also.
Yeah I'm quoting myself...what of it! I hate it when I'm the last post on a page....

lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible).

Wrong. Clinton did loads more than Bush. Clinton went after al Qaeda fiercely, cut off their funding in numerous places, and while he did not actually carry out an assassination of bin Laden himself, 1) such an assassination would be ineffective (yes, even now) and possibly counterproductive, al Qaeda being an organization that does not essentially depend on its figurehead, and 2) September 11 had not happened, so attitudes toward Osama were as a terrorist, but not as Public Enemy One. Bush ignored terrorism, despite repeated urging by Clarke, and continued to ignore it post-9/11--though he talks a good game. He created a new bureaucracy that does nothing of consequence (admittedly the brainchild, albeit in a different, less good form than that proposed by Democrats Joe Lieberman and Max Cleland), and he continues to jabber about terrorism out one side of his mouth, and letting the Taliban back into Afghanistan (seriously, members of the Taliban are being permitted by the Bushites to remain in the new government).

As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm.


Actually, it could have come from the former Soviet Union. Since the USSR fell apart, there has been evidence of an utter failure on the part of the governments of Russia and other former USSR members to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the wrong hands. It is thought that the US and Russia no longer have a monopoly on smallpox, and I don't see why antrhax should be any different. Furthermore, anthrax occurs naturally. It is not particularly difficult to culture it, and I do not believe the anthrax used was in fact weapons-grade. (In fact, my hunch is that the anthrax attacks were carried out by right-wing loonies.)

There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?
Um, those "mobile chemical labs" were for weather prediction. That one was debunked a while ago. We didn't have bad intelligence; we had intelligence that showed there were no WMDs in Iraq, and so did our allies.

Regarding the Taliban, see above. And Iraq doesn't have civil liberties; Iraq is in a state of chaos. The Iraqi Governing Council, incidentally, is neither Iraqi nor governing.

They also need to bring back holding each and every kid accountable for their actions, not society or their social status. They also need to bring back mandatory Physical Education, because 3/4 of the kids in my sons school either have man boobs or the girls have the body of a woman who's had 5 children.

But most of all, they need to bring back the school Dean's paddle. For the paddle was far more feared than an hour of detention...
I had nuns that used to beat the crap out of you and a Dean that let the kids "box it out".

Impeached? No. He's done nothing impeachable. His cabinet on the other hand ....


Assassinated? Sure. The man's a zealot, a fanatic. That merits death!

Actually, the Sudan guy was a freelance agent who had no official ties to the government. The US does not conduct business with freelance peoples. Besides, Clinton contacted the Sudanese government to confirm this man's claim, and the Sudanese government said the guy was a nut. Clinton followed up every damn lead on the matter.

Read Al Franken's newest book.

omg, you actually believe Al Franken? I think I'm going to crap my pants I'm laughing so hard right now. You believe that a Hollywood comedy writer and horribly bad actor knows what really happened?

That is so Not true... and Al Franken is Michael Moore's evil midget twin brother, just so you know

HAHAHAHAH ... Al Franken ... HAHAHAHAH

that's rich. go here to be freed and have your sight restored: http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm (http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm)

lmao ... o man, my eyes are watering from laughing so hard

I had nuns that used to beat the crap out of you and a Dean that let the kids "box it out".
And you would want your kids subjected to that? I'm glad for every time a fight has been broken up, with or without me, by any authority, because it was always over stupid stuff. Most fights are. As for the nuns, that doesn't sound very... Godlike to me. Isn't the whole Bible deal to try and be as like Jesus/God as you can? I definitely don't recall Jesus ever attacking any children, and as for corporal punishment, there are several established scholars on the subject that would say violence towards children can be very damaging towards them mentally. But on the same level, I'm not a child psychologist... do I need to be? I dunno. Oh well.

Well, this whole debate is simply an exercise any way. Bush would not be impeached regardless because the Republicans control both houses. The man could shoot some one in the middle of the Oval office and get away with it at this point.

Also, since the election is so close, it makes no logical sense to impeach him. Let the public decide. Sadly, the Senate report still left to come out won't be till after the election. I'm thinking that wasn't a fluke. But, that part is simply my opinion. I guess we shall know by next year.

To be honest, I don't think this is true. I do think the if he lied knowingly, something would be done. Just because the House and Senate is controled by Republicans doesn't mean that he couldn't be impeached. I believe that if evidence is overwhelming that he intentionaly lied, hearings would be convened to check this out. If found factual, then it would go to the floor. That is where Presidents are impeached. The Senate just convicts him.

and your right, we are close to an election. However, the charges could still be presented if he gets 4 more years, which he will IMHO!

omg, you actually believe Al Franken? I think I'm going to crap my pants I'm laughing so hard right now. You believe that a Hollywood comedy writer and horribly bad actor knows what really happened?

That is so Not true... and Al Franken is Michael Moore's evil midget twin brother, just so you know

HAHAHAHAH ... Al Franken ... HAHAHAHAH

that's rich. go here to be freed and have your sight restored: http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm (http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm)

lmao ... o man, my eyes are watering from laughing so hard
So far your only rebuttal is saying Al Franken is a liar. Hardly convincing. And he obviously knows more than you seeing as he researches things. And calling someone an "evil midget twin brother" is quite ignorant and wrong. It only goes to show how misguided and spiteful your opinions are. Might I point to the Conservative idiots Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Actually, the Sudan guy was a freelance agent who had no official ties to the government. The US does not conduct business with freelance peoples. Besides, Clinton contacted the Sudanese government to confirm this man's claim, and the Sudanese government said the guy was a nut. Clinton followed up every damn lead on the matter.

Read Al Franken's newest book.

Al Franken now there's a reliable source. He supported Clinton and is a liberal to boot. Naturally he's going to support someone from his own party like that.

Al Franken now there's a reliable source. He supported Clinton and is a liberal to boot. Naturally he's going to support someone from his own party like that.
And what's wrong with supporting someone with FACTS!!!!!

Al Franken now there's a reliable source. He supported Clinton and is a liberal to boot. Naturally he's going to support someone from his own party like that.
Well, using that he is a liberal as a question of his reliability isn't very fair. I know people in both parties that are rather political and each very honest. But yeah, the second part sounds about right.

Well, using that he is a liberal as a question of his reliability isn't very fair. I know people in both parties that are rather political and each very honest. But yeah, the second part sounds about right.

yea ok you have a point there!

And what's wrong with supporting someone with FACTS!!!!!

And how do WE KNOW that its factual?

And what's wrong with supporting someone with FACTS!!!!!
A lot of times facts get distorted. The problem is that liberals, as well as conservatives, have equal amounts of liars. The real problem is picking out all the seeds and stems of falseness embedded within each. The politicians nowadays are so easily purchased. The real power is where the money lies, and any of us in here know that very often does money overpower justice. (OJ anyone?)

Read Al Franken's newest book.

Title?

We had not yet been sucker punched and therefore were hoping they would just go away.... we got smarter.

Yes, you did at that, so much so you invaded the wrong country.. but that's a whole other argument entirely..lol


Oh your a smug little thing aren't you? I know you have read the Unscom reports from 1998. "...13.3 tons of VX gas still unaccounted for." Because you and I have argued this for over 1 year now. ( btw How's the baby? )

I suppose it maybe the same place this is.. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344151) which just goes to show even the most powerful country in the world can make book keeping errors.

As for the baby, she's fabulous, thanks! She was 6 months old yesterday! They do grow fast. My son comes home tomorrow after a week at camp with his grand-dad.. I hope he had fun!

By the way, sorry took me so long to respond, but they had a special edition of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on tonight.. and The Daily Show comes before NS..lol

Hope all is well with you :)

I don't know the title of Franken's newest book, but I had problems with Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Was it a humourous book or a serious one? I mean he'd go though and methodically document how something was poorly researched or abridged to give an false picture (the not outright lies) and do the exact same thing later. I couldn't figure out if it was deliberate to be a joke, or to prove a point about how stupid people are or what.

He had nothing to do with it MKULTRA! Richard Clarke, his Counter-Terrorist Czar before he left, stated that it reached no higher than him and HE ALONE approved it. That is what he told the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commissioned looked into it and found it to be accurate.
so then what your saying is that Bush isnt really in charge and therefore not fit to lead?

And what should we/could we do with the killers family?

Your just all over the place aren't you?

Are you Micheal Moore?
yeah Im Michael Moore-- minus 50000 pounds

How many times does this have to be said. Every major intellegence source pointed to WMD. I say Saddam got rid of them, not by destuction but by smuggling.
why are you lying for Bush?

so then what your saying is that Bush isnt really in charge and therefore not fit to lead?
An interesting argument.

It is unfortunet that the US government has grown so large that it is necessary for the president to delegate authority to others. Nonetheless, he has to. So you are saying that Bush isncompent because he delegated authority to someone who was unqualified, Clark. If Clarke however did not have the credentials an qualifications to make the decision, then no one is qualified to make the decision - and Bush shouldn't have made the decision himself as he wacertainly less qualifed than Clarke.

I don't really like Bush, but I don't really know much about Kerry. Thing is, what Kerry's been basically doing is spreading all these terrible things about Bush so he could be elected. Basically, he's preying on the stupidity of the people to elect him over Bush.
the stupid people are the ones who will vote for Bush when the entire world has turned to crap the day the Supreme Court appointed him.I cant think of ONE good thing this idiot has done. I would prefer if we had a pig as President-we'd be much better off then with the pure scum thats in there now

Most of Clinton actually could stood up if it was allowed and it wasn't! That is IMHO!

For Bush, I honestly think, IMHO, that he was lied too buy the CIA. I don't believe that he would knowingly lie to the people.

I probably would get flak for saying that, but after watching Bush talk and Kerry, I find Bush to be as honest as he can be!your partisan bigotry blinds you

I'm no politics expert or anything so I might sound dumb but, why would Bush want to risk people's lives just to invade a country?
corporate welfare for Bushs rich friends--the only people he cares about apparently--Bush could care less about the lives of the "little people"--were all expendable to him, as he proved so clearly on 911. Bush is just the american christian- fundie version of Osama.Even the Pope, who I never agree with, can clearly see the evil of the monster that sits in our White house and seeks to be worshipped as a god-he sents his minions of hate to attack anyone who tries to oppose him

And what's wrong with supporting someone with FACTS!!!!!
republicans hate Clinton cause he was our first middle class President--republicans think only the rich should be represented--they never consider the middle class and the poor are the backbone of america

You guys are so lame. Wait let me see if I can find that pic of Tails and it says "Laaaame...".

An interesting argument.

It is unfortunet that the US government has grown so large that it is necessary for the president to delegate authority to others. Nonetheless, he has to. So you are saying that Bush isncompent because he delegated authority to someone who was unqualified, Clark. If Clarke however did not have the credentials an qualifications to make the decision, then no one is qualified to make the decision - and Bush shouldn't have made the decision himself as he wacertainly less qualifed than Clarke.
Bush is an established liar-therefore reasonable people have to give more credability to the highly ethical CLarke and if Clarke says that Bush deliberately ignored warnings then we must believe him and not that apostate in the White House

You guys are so lame. Wait let me see if I can find that pic of Tails and it says "Laaaame...".
bashing Bush adds to my high--its lame that you dont even care about your own country

bashing Bush adds to my high--its lame that you dont even care about your own countryLet's just agree that you think I'm lame and that I think you're lame.

Let's just agree that you think I'm lame and that I think you're lame.
ok

republicans hate Clinton cause he was our first middle class President--republicans think only the rich should be represented--they never consider the middle class and the poor are the backbone of america

Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson started out very poor.

On what charges are you impeaching him?

Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson started out very poor.
that was over a century ago when everyone was poor--also the republican party in the 1800s were the liberals-the roles reversed in the 20th century when the GOP became the party that serves billionaires exclusively

On what charges are you impeaching him?
treason and crimes against humanity

Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson started out very poor.Lets see, middle class (and born poor presidents), recently.

Reagan, best paying job was president. Didn't do to bad as a flak for GE, solid middle class.

Ford, don't even get me started on Ford's family. Luckily he was able to get into politics to makes some money and didn't wind up in the factory with his father. But if Clinton was middle class as a career politician then Ford certainly also was.

Nixon - he would have been hapy to have been as well off as Clinton. His family were Oakies, the folks who left Arkansas because people like Clinton's family had all the money.

SO um, who thinks only the rich should be president? Ah yes the Republicans.

that was over a century ago when everyone was poor--also the republican party in the 1800s were the liberals-the roles reversed in the 20th century when the GOP became the party that serves billionaires exclusively

Hm, good point.

republicans hate Clinton cause he was our first middle class President--republicans think only the rich should be represented--they never consider the middle class and the poor are the backbone of america
Just as a side note, are you familiar at all with Chenney's bio?

treason and crimes against humanity
How did he commit treason? Did he give away any national security secrets?
What crimes against humanity? Banning partial birth abortion?
PBA is not a human right you know.

Just as a side note, are you familiar at all with Chenney's bio?
yes--hes a white collor criminal

yes--hes a white collor criminal
Because all businessmen are criminals, or do you have a specific law in mind?

How did he commit treason? Did he give away any national security secrets?
What crimes against humanity? Banning partial birth abortion?
PBA is not a human right you know.
when 400 ex Generals and diplomats from BOTH partys and even CIA agents all agree that Bush is a threat to our national security I would tend to believe them-how often is it that a CIA agent accuses the President of being a terrorist?Bush tried to kill Valerie Plame, he allowed 911 and hes gonna nuke NYC this fall--I think those might be impeachable offenses.

when 400 ex Generals and diplomats from BOTH partys and even CIA agents all agree that Bush is a threat to our national security I would tend to believe them-how often is it that a CIA agent accuses the President of being a terrorist?Bush tried to kill Valerie Plame, he allowed 911 and hes gonna nuke NYC this fall--I think those might be impeachable offenses.
lmao
ok, have fun with your conspiracy theory. I thought you were serious.

Nixon - he would have been hapy to have been as well off as Clinton. His family were Oakies, the folks who left Arkansas because people like Clinton's family had all the money.

SO um, who thinks only the rich should be president? Ah yes the Republicans.Clinton's family had all the money? Which Clintons were these--the alcoholic father or the alcoholic mother?

Clinton's family had all the money? Which Clintons were these--the alcoholic father or the alcoholic mother?Both actually. The Clintons could actually afford to support the oppulent (by comparison) lifestyle of alcoholics. The nerve of people like the Clintons', going arround drinking and eating every day, while the okies were starving.

Even if he did do wrong, there isn't sufficient evidence against him. No one knows if Bush really knew the intelligence was faulty.

It does not matter. The fact is there were options available which any reasonanble person would have pursued, and Bush did not pursue them. As a direct result of his negligence the USA went to war on false premises. There seems to be a fairly compelling case whether he lied or not. Gross negligence is an established legal premise within the USA justice system.

It wasn't until people started freaking out that they changed their position,

I have not changed my position regarding the existence of a contemporary active WMD program Iraq. I freaked out as soon as Bush was foisted into the Presidency (I have no spirit guides, yet could see a war was going to happen, I have to admit, even I didnt think he'd manage 2 plus one in the abstract - 'War on Terrorism'), however my opinion with regards to Iraq and WMD programs predated this occurance.

He gassed his own people in the North, the Kurds... duh!
Which nation enabled this? Who is the nation who aided and abetted this crime after the fact? It stands to reason that if Saddum could do what he did because the US supplied the means and aided and abetted after the fact, Saddum's ability to continue such conduct is materially different when the factor of USA enablement and aid is removed from the equation.

Get a grip. Bush commited no crimes
This is contestable. A crime can be commited by an overt act, however a failure to act can constitute a criminal act also. It seems apparent that a mistake was made, and it appears that this mistake may have resulted in many deaths and injuries. By all appearences many acts that could have been reasonably expected to have been taken, were not taken. It appears that the errors that occured may have been a direct consequence of these acts not having been undertaken, and therefore death may have occured due to failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Such a scenario if proven true, can constitute a criminal act according to current USA law.

Every major intellegence source pointed to WMD
This is indisputably false.
Hans Blix is the world's number one authority and the best intelligence source that exists with regards to Iraq and weapons.
Hans Blix stated that Iraq did not have a current active WMD program
Therefore:The best intelligence source in the world pointed to there being no active WMD in Iraq.

Saddam got rid of them, not by destuction but by smuggling.
Aha, of course he gave them all away rather than using them. After all any despotic and immoral dictator who has nothing left to loose prefers to be captured and punished without having used his WMD, if the alternative is to be captured and punished equally after having got to try out all those shiny weapons.......I mean I guess he knew since he was going to loose, he might as well be a decent person and not needlessly kill mass people by deploying his WMD, clearly that is the kind of good natured and moral despot that he is......
If you are not going to use them when you are at your most desperate, having nothing to loose by using them, and they are your only hope of not loosing everything, you are either too moral to use them (and so wouldnt have them in the first place), or you just dont have them.

I guess you don't realize that Bush was mislead which caused him to mislead america.
I understand that Bush was in a position where he was duty bound to use all reasonable and available steps to ascertain the truth. He didnt, therefore he is accountable for the errors that resulted. Further he allowed his Executive to mislead the nation. He allowed what was known to be only 'non-deductively' reasoned/evidenced to be presented as being 'deductively' reasoned/evidenced. This was acheived through direct lies. Bush is responsible for the people of America being lied to by his Executive.

OMG what kind of fantasy land do you live in. Rock solid proof? There hasn't been rock solid proof since Kennedy exposed the Cuban missles! That is not how intell works
Here is where the above point comes into practise. Either those who believe in rock solid proof live in the exact some fantasy as Bush and his administration, or Bush (and his administration) dont live in that fantasy world and they are all liers. So do Georgie and co live in a fantasy land in which intell provides rock solid proof, or were they lying all along. Either way do Americans really not deserve better leadership?

the CIA that mislead bush which caused him to mislead the country. That is a fact Steph. Bush can only make decisions based on the intel received.
Intelligence of a high quality that was available was ignored, and intelligence that could have been obtained was actively avoided. Bush decided to ignore the fact that the info he had was ambiguous, was contradictory to the opinion of the world's foremost expert in this field, and prevented the acquiring of further evidence that would have proven the invalidity of much of the 'evidence' he had chosen to believe.
So he knew the case was not proven - yet allowed the 'information' to be presented as a proven case (this in itself constitutes misleading the country).
He knew that the conclusion reached and promoted as the only possible conclusion was contested by the most knowledgable person (with regards to the subject) in the world.
He knew that he had the opportunity to ascertain which of these views was most likely to be true, yet not only didnt take these steps, but refused to cooperate with those who were taking these steps, and then put a stop to these activities.
He knew that Hans Blix was in Iraq looking for the weapons and could locate any such quicker than a war could be fought and the logistics of a post-war search arranged and action initiated.
So Bush lied about the conclusiveness of the 'evidence' and he put a stop to what was the quickest most effective and therefore most efficient means of establishing the truth. Why would someone convinced that he is right and that the war is needed only as a last resort to disarm Iraq not want the evidence found and Iraq disarmed the quickest most efficient way......my guess is they wouldnt. My guess is if weapons inspections can prove and disarm quicker than anything else, you only stop them doing exactly that, if disarming is not your goal.

They also need to bring back holding each and every kid accountable for their actions, not society or their social status
Certainly. I think that there is a more important priority than this, but luckily not only are these priorities not contrary, the primary priority will promote the secondary. Obviously the more important priority is this
"They also need to bring back holding each and every President accountable for their actions, not the CIA, or their gormlessness". I suspect the accountability of kids will be promoted by such behaviour being modelled in wider society, for instance by their President.

There are absolutly no grounds to impeach Bush. None! When Clinton was impeached, it was because he broke the law. Not because he slept with Monica, but because he committed perjury! He lied under oath! Bush on the other hand, has done no such thing. He has merely stood for morality and the best interests of America. While the rest of the world has bowed to evil, he has stood his ground even in the face of losing allies. He has united a nation after its most perilous times, picked up the broken pieces and retaliated against the scum that attacked the WTC (Clinton had 8 terrorist attacks occur during his tenure and he did nothing, all the while he swore to "hunt down and punish" those responsible). As for Iraq, I would like to point out that Sadaam did have connections to Al Queda. A) Where do you think the Anthrax came from? There are only three nations in the world with military grain Anthrax. One is us, and we clearly did not supply it. The other is Russia, and lets face it they cannot afford postage. Then there is Iraq who hates us. . . hmmmm. There are proven Chemical weapons, satelite images of them leaving in mobile chemical labs as the Weapons Inspectors were coming (Those labs were found burried). The terrifying question of the hour is not IF there are WOMD, but WHERE those WOMD are. He has brought civil liberties to two nations, freed the women of Afghanistan from the sinsiter rule of the Taliban and it was HIS policies that have helped revitalize the nation. BUT, go right ahead impeach him. Oh wait a second, what did he do again?

God how I wish you could see your leader as the terrifying maniac the rest of the world sees him as. Have you got any proof for any of that BS - Anthrax and the like? Thought not.

The only thing more terrifying than Bush for me at the moment is Bliar (sorry, Blair) being his lapdog. Between them they are two of the most dangerous people on the planet, and it's all coming from Bush. You may not want to hear this as an American obviously blinded by patriotism, but Bush has NOT 'bought civil liberties to two countries' he has come very close to destroying two countries that may or may not have had anything at all to do with 9/11.

I also take issue with your dismissal of Russia. Just because the Cold War is over and Russia is keeping quiet, does not mean they are not still powerful. We know next to nothing about Russia's capacity for biological/chemical/nuclear warfare and it would be pure idiocy to dismiss them as useless - the next country that really p*sses Russia off will know about it! Which is why Bush is playing such a dangerous game - America's oldest adversary has been unusually quiet for quite a while, developing god knows what, and Bush is going against the UN and generally p*ssing them off. How long before Russia step in to stop him the way the UK stepped in and stopped Hitler? I'm not saying Bush is as bad as Hitler became, but there are some striking similarities between Bush's 'liberation' of Afghanistan and Iraq and Hitler's invasion of Poland and Czecheslovakia. Think about it.

Analgesica

The only reason that Bush isnt under impeachment, is becuase he refuses to be questioned under oath where his lying can be used against him.

How do you justify a war that was started with false pretences, regardless of where the information came from??
You cannot simply apologize and make it all better.

Bush takes over an entire country under false pretences, and CLINTON gets impeached for getting a hummer?

What kind of insane logic is that?

I wonder what Fat Smelly Bastards would say if he were here now?

I wonder what Fat Smelly Bastards would say if he were here now?


He'd say:

"Hi, Im Rush Limbuagh."

Impeached for what?!?!?! That's just stupid...

(Note: havn't read the thread, just my opinion having read the thread title)

your partisan bigotry blinds you

Your the one that is blind MKULTRA! I've actually read some of the charges and some of the evidence and what i've read would've convicted him. However,what actually made it into the Senate, led by democrats at the time by the way, was all circumstancial evidence. The real evidence never made it into the actual trial in the US Senate!

corporate welfare for Bushs rich friends--the only people he cares about apparently--Bush could care less about the lives of the "little people"--were all expendable to him, as he proved so clearly on 911. Bush is just the american christian- fundie version of Osama.Even the Pope, who I never agree with, can clearly see the evil of the monster that sits in our White house and seeks to be worshipped as a god-he sents his minions of hate to attack anyone who tries to oppose him

This had to be one of your most rediculous lines I've ever heard.

Don't listen to MKULTRA, The Murderous. Though I only have a small inkling on how the parties work, MKULTRA is biased AGAINST the republican party. Though I am leaning towards the Republican Party, I DO LISNTEN to bothsides then I make my decision though right now, my decision means nothing for another 2 years! That is when I'm Eligible to Vote!

Bush is an established liar-therefore reasonable people have to give more credability to the highly ethical CLarke and if Clarke says that Bush deliberately ignored warnings then we must believe him and not that apostate in the White House

Now that is rich! Most people actually trust bush MORE than Kerry! Why? Bush is Consistent, Kerry is not.

Yes. Absolutely.
And afterwards he should answer in front of the ICJ/ICC for his war crimes.

bashing Bush adds to my high--its lame that you dont even care about your own country

Actually calling him names degrades you! Look at what happened to Whoopie. And before you say anything, the person that Canned her is a Democrat who supports Kerry!

Yes. Absolutely.
And afterwards he should answer in front of the ICJ/ICC for his war crimes.

Charges? Sorry, but he broke NO US Law!

As for the ICJ, ICC? Not recognized by the USA! Sorry

Charges? Sorry, but he broke NO US Law!

As for the ICJ, ICC? Not recognized by the USA! Sorry
Not recognized doesnt mean he should be immune. US Laws mean nothing in front of the ICJ/ICC. He violated several International Laws and the UN Charter, which weigh imeasureably more than any US Laws.

Also.. why does the US not recognize the ICJ/ICC? Why do you remove yourself from International Justice all the while claiming to bring it to other countries? I dont understand the hypocrisy...

Not recognized doesnt mean he should be immune. US Laws mean nothing in front of the ICJ/ICC. He violated several International Laws and the UN Charter, which weigh imeasureably more than any US Laws.

Also.. why does the US not recognize the ICJ/ICC? Why do you remove yourself from International Justice all the while claiming to bring it to other countries? I dont understand the hypocrisy...

ACtually it does mean something Gigatron.

Under US Law and if we actually recognized the ICJ, ICC isn't nonbinding, He would have to be removed from office first before he could go to the ICJ! That former Bosnia Leader was ousted by war, that is why he is at the Hague and frankly, his trial is a joke!

As for removing international justice? I don't believe I did. Just because we don't recognize the ICJ/ICC doesn't mean that we have removed international justice.

should is one of those words, as krishnamurti once put it, best reserved for the little room with the mirrors.

be that as it may, do the forces that brought to power mr shrubery as their hood orniment deserve the unlimate censor
for their crimes against the planet, every living species on it, and every sentient being among our own?

it is my firm belief that they unambiguously do.

the message he has served the rest of the world being that any nation which does not kiss his backside will get theirs
kicked cannot rationaly be expected to go forever unopposed nor fail in time to be opposed effectively.

no place to day is safe from the machinations of corruption, even the place it now calls home.

i do not look forward to the terrible days ahead but with great hope toward the day of their ending, be it my fortune
to witness such a day or my own be numbered short of it.

mr shrubbery himself is but symptomatic of deeper and systematic flaws. the appointment of the attorny general
by the executive and the lack of the final veto not resting
with some elected popinjay but where it belongs with the
consent or lack of it of the majority of every liveing life
form having the capacity to voice its vote.

yet this absolves him not as perpetrator from his freely choosen guilt.

would that every voter could know the realities of what his adminstration's policies have wroght, in every corner of
our worlds globe, and in our own home as well, not one day would likely pass without his being taken out and lynched.

=^^=
.../\...

Bush is an established liar-therefore reasonable people have to give more credability to the highly ethical CLarke and if Clarke says that Bush deliberately ignored warnings then we must believe him and not that apostate in the White House

It's funny... you believe Clarke is "highly ethical" even tho most of his claims were disproven and he was found to have exagerated them in an attempt to discredit this administration.

Yet since he spoke out against Bush, you believe him without question.

It's funny... you believe Clarke is "highly ethical" even tho most of his claims were disproven and he was found to have exagerated them in an attempt to discredit this administration.

Yet since he spoke out against Bush, you believe him without question.

You are right there Politigrade!

He broke international law by killing people.

Plus he made alot of mistakes, but those aren't illegal. I would like to see him in court for war crimes, but that doesn't happen anymore(well it never happened actually) because almost prime minister/president of a important country has committed war crimes. All post-war presidents could have been hanged and would have hanged if they were trialed with the same principles as the nazi's at Nuremberg.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard all day. He broke international law by killing people? First off, American soldiers killed people, not Bush. Second, international law does not prohibit killing people in war. The Geneva Convention specifically addresses the issue of war crimes. You obviously don't know what they said, so read it at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. Next, American soldiers did not kill innocent unarmed civilians. Those losses came from Iraqi terrorists strapping bombs to their asses and blowing up the closest market. There were some losses due to American fire, but not many. In any case, if you think that war, by nature, is bad then you are a fool. It sometimes becomes necessary to fight for what is right, and in that case it is unavoidable that people will be killed. Will you blame Roosevelt for all the people that died in World War II? Please, don't compare our president to the Nazi's that were at Nuremburg. In case you haven't noticed, they were killing innocent civilians. At worst, you can only claim that his subordinate (possibly under his direction, but you can't prove that) ordered torture to be used in the interrogation of known terrorists who killed more of their own people than they did American soldiers.

At worst, you can only claim that his subordinate (possibly under his direction, but you can't prove that) ordered torture to be used in the interrogation of known terrorists who killed more of their own people than they did American soldiers.

I can agree with most of what you said, but have to comment on this.

What happened at Abu-Grahib prison was not torture. Humiliation, degredation yes, torture no.

Having your 5 month pregnant wife brought in front of you, repeated raped by guards while you were forced to watch. Having the unborn baby cut from her body and then killing her. After which you are beaten and beheaded. That is torture. That is what Saddam did to people who spoke out against him.

See a difference?

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have heard all day. He broke international law by killing people? First off, American soldiers killed people, not Bush. Second, international law does not prohibit killing people in war. The Geneva Convention specifically addresses the issue of war crimes. You obviously don't know what they said, so read it at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. Next, American soldiers did not kill innocent unarmed civilians. Those losses came from Iraqi terrorists strapping bombs to their asses and blowing up the closest market. There were some losses due to American fire, but not many. In any case, if you think that war, by nature, is bad then you are a fool. It sometimes becomes necessary to fight for what is right, and in that case it is unavoidable that people will be killed. Will you blame Roosevelt for all the people that died in World War II? Please, don't compare our president to the Nazi's that were at Nuremburg. In case you haven't noticed, they were killing innocent civilians. At worst, you can only claim that his subordinate (possibly under his direction, but you can't prove that) ordered torture to be used in the interrogation of known terrorists who killed more of their own people than they did American soldiers.

According to your logic, Hitler did nothing. It was only his subordinates who commited these atrocities during the Third Reich. Your logic is flawed. Bush is ultimately responsible for all American deaths and Iraqi deaths caused by American soldiers. There's a law in the International laws of warfare which clears up Military Command Responsibility. Bush, as the (unskilled) Commander in Chief of the US Forces, is responsible for each and every dead Iraqi that died during the Iraq war and afterwards by (carpet) bombings of the US (which were illegal aswell).

If you have nothing to fear, recognize the ICC/ICJ and see what they have to say. It is an international court, which would agree with you, if everything the US did was legal and right. Alas, the fear of the US that the court might actually sentence someone from the US to life imprisonment for their crimes during all sorts of wars and afterwards, apparently entitles you to not recognize the court. Way to show your superior motives and honesty.

Let's clarify. He should be impeached AND removed from office.

Let's clarify. He should be impeached AND removed from office.
And put to trial before the ICC.

According to your logic, Hitler did nothing. It was only his subordinates who commited these atrocities during the Third Reich. Your logic is flawed. Bush is ultimately responsible for all American deaths and Iraqi deaths caused by American soldiers. There's a law in the International laws of warfare which clears up Military Command Responsibility. Bush, as the (unskilled) Commander in Chief of the US Forces, is responsible for each and every dead Iraqi that died during the Iraq war and afterwards by (carpet) bombings of the US (which were illegal aswell).

If you have nothing to fear, recognize the ICC/ICJ and see what they have to say. It is an international court, which would agree with you, if everything the US did was legal and right. Alas, the fear of the US that the court might actually sentence someone from the US to life imprisonment for their crimes during all sorts of wars and afterwards, apparently entitles you to not recognize the court. Way to show your superior motives and honesty.

Idiot, Hitler actually ordered and encouraged the actions of his subordinates. And regardless, he killed himself (supposedly, I think it was the Russians) and therefore can not be brought to trial. Your point is moot. You can not prove that Bush had anything to do. And yes, I agree that what was done by US forces was not torture. However, I was willing to make a concession for this time. Regardless, Bush had nothing to do with it. And if he had wanted to torture people, believe me, it wouldn't have been by stripping them naked and embarrassing them. British soldiers used bullets dipped in pigs blood when they were fighting in the Middle East, although that was many years ago. If we wanted to f*** them up, we could do a lot better than we did. And Bush can not be considered responsible for unsanctioned actions committed by a subordinate.

Idiot, Hitler actually ordered and encouraged the actions of his subordinates. And regardless, he killed himself (supposedly, I think it was the Russians) and therefore can not be brought to trial. Your point is moot. You can not prove that Bush had anything to do. And yes, I agree that what was done by US forces was not torture. However, I was willing to make a concession for this time. Regardless, Bush had nothing to do with it. And if he had wanted to torture people, believe me, it wouldn't have been by stripping them naked and embarrassing them. British soldiers used bullets dipped in pigs blood when they were fighting in the Middle East, although that was many years ago. If we wanted to f*** them up, we could do a lot better than we did. And Bush can not be considered responsible for unsanctioned actions committed by a subordinate.
Sure mate... he's the holy spirit himself, incapable of any wrongdoing. In fact, Bush started the illegal war, he is responsible for every crime that resulted from it, commited by the uber-holy superior US soldiers.

Sure mate... he's the holy spirit himself, incapable of any wrongdoing. In fact, Bush started the illegal war, he is responsible for every crime that resulted from it, commited by the uber-holy superior US soldiers.

He may be responsible for those deaths (I don't actually know), but this is wartime. These deaths are not illegal.

On a further note, why'd you call Bush the Holy Spirit? I can safely say that this is NOT true. Even though it is obviously sarcasm, what brought it up? Are you just adding random words and stringing them together to reinforce an already-broken point?

He may be responsible for those deaths (I don't actually know), but this is wartime. These deaths are not illegal.

On a further note, why'd you call Bush the Holy Spirit? I can safely say that this is NOT true. Even though it is obviously sarcasm, what brought it up? Are you just adding random words and stringing them together to reinforce an already-broken point?

Almost forgot; this is not an illegal war. Bush was acting on the current intelligence at the time. Regardless of whether it was flawed or not, he had no idea it was flawed at the time. Seriously, in Bush's position, if you were told by intelligence that a country renowned for being lead by an obvious madman still had weapons when they were told not to have them... What'd make you doubt it? That Saddam is a kind and loving leader? Last time I checked... No. Regardless of whether there are weapons anyway, we did manage to get rid of Saddam. That we can be proud of.

He may be responsible for those deaths (I don't actually know), but this is wartime. These deaths are not illegal.

On a further note, why'd you call Bush the Holy Spirit? I can safely say that this is NOT true. Even though it is obviously sarcasm, what brought it up? Are you just adding random words and stringing them together to reinforce an already-broken point?

He may be responsible for those deaths (I don't actually know), but this is wartime. These deaths are not illegal.

On a further note, why'd you call Bush the Holy Spirit? I can safely say that this is NOT true. Even though it is obviously sarcasm, what brought it up? Are you just adding random words and stringing them together to reinforce an already-broken point?

Almost forgot; this is not an illegal war. Bush was acting on the current intelligence at the time. Regardless of whether it was flawed or not, he had no idea it was flawed at the time. Seriously, in Bush's position, if you were told by intelligence that a country renowned for being lead by an obvious madman still had weapons when they were told not to have them... What'd make you doubt it? That Saddam is a kind and loving leader? Last time I checked... No. Regardless of whether there are weapons anyway, we did manage to get rid of Saddam. That we can be proud of.
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse criminals". Bush had no right whatsoever to attack Iraq. As a signatory and founding member of the UN, the US violated the UN Charter with their act of aggression against Iraq. He will be responsible for it mainly because he literally threw the weapons inspectors out when they didnt get him the results he wanted to justify his war. Instead he attacked without UN mandate.

Flawed or not, had he actually taken the time to properly investigate and not send Powell with forged intelligence to the UN to try and "convince" other nations to back the US in their illegal war, he might have seen that nothing supports his claims of WMD in Iraq or that Iraq was a threat to the US or the world. In my eyes, the US is a greater threat to the world than Iraq ever was.

Both actually. The Clintons could actually afford to support the oppulent (by comparison) lifestyle of alcoholics. The nerve of people like the Clintons', going arround drinking and eating every day, while the okies were starving.
what conservatives dont understand is that liberals have no problem with people being rich--they just have a problem with conservatives STEALING wealth with corporate welfare to unamerican corporations and promoting class warfare

Your the one that is blind MKULTRA! I've actually read some of the charges and some of the evidence and what i've read would've convicted him. However,what actually made it into the Senate, led by democrats at the time by the way, was all circumstancial evidence. The real evidence never made it into the actual trial in the US Senate!
even other conservatives who all worked in the Bush administration(like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who has ALOT more credability then Bush) all admit that Bush was planning on attacking Iraq since even before he stole the election--so its pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that with or without WMDS Bush was going into Iraq for his own reasons-no amount of republican spin can change that well known fact

This had to be one of your most rediculous lines I've ever heard.

Don't listen to MKULTRA, The Murderous. Though I only have a small inkling on how the parties work, MKULTRA is biased AGAINST the republican party. Though I am leaning towards the Republican Party, I DO LISNTEN to bothsides then I make my decision though right now, my decision means nothing for another 2 years! That is when I'm Eligible to Vote!
yeah riiiight LOL your as hardcore fundamentalist rightwing republican as they come :D

Now that is rich! Most people actually trust bush MORE than Kerry! Why? Bush is Consistent, Kerry is not.
better a flipper who will be right at least 50% of the time then a failed and divisive leader who is consistently wrong 100% of the time

Actually calling him names degrades you! Look at what happened to Whoopie. And before you say anything, the person that Canned her is a Democrat who supports Kerry!
Whoopi being penalized for speaking truth to power makes her a heroin for social justice--what good is knowing the right thing if your never willing to put it on the line to fight for it?

even other conservatives who all worked in the Bush administration(like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who has ALOT more credability then Bush) all admit that Bush was planning on attacking Iraq since even before he stole the election--so its pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that with or without WMDS Bush was going into Iraq for his own reasons-no amount of republican spin can change that well known fact

I actually have to agree with you here TRA, much evidence has now been reported that Iraq topped the Bush administration from day one when they assumed office. This isn't exactly a secret any more. It's been reported by a high level British Intel officer that Tony Blair had to talk Bush into going into Afghanistan before they could go into Iraq, Bush wanted to start with Iraq if you can believe that. Very scary stuff when you think about it. I believe Zep wrote a post about it at the time when it came out on the BBC.. If some one disputes this and needs the link, I'll ask Zep to find it again.

It's funny... you believe Clarke is "highly ethical" even tho most of his claims were disproven and he was found to have exagerated them in an attempt to discredit this administration.

Yet since he spoke out against Bush, you believe him without question.
foxnews lies and the GOP smear machine that cranks up everytime someone reveals Bushs terrorism against the american people doesnt constitute any kind of "proof" in my book--if you can even provide ONE source that isnt a part of the rightwing conspiracy to back up your spin cycle I might consider it

According to your logic, Hitler did nothing. It was only his subordinates who commited these atrocities during the Third Reich. Your logic is flawed. Bush is ultimately responsible for all American deaths and Iraqi deaths caused by American soldiers. There's a law in the International laws of warfare which clears up Military Command Responsibility. Bush, as the (unskilled) Commander in Chief of the US Forces, is responsible for each and every dead Iraqi that died during the Iraq war and afterwards by (carpet) bombings of the US (which were illegal aswell).

If you have nothing to fear, recognize the ICC/ICJ and see what they have to say. It is an international court, which would agree with you, if everything the US did was legal and right. Alas, the fear of the US that the court might actually sentence someone from the US to life imprisonment for their crimes during all sorts of wars and afterwards, apparently entitles you to not recognize the court. Way to show your superior motives and honesty.
its funny how rightys consistently wag their self righteous fingers at poor people preaching "personal responsibility" (as if poor people have anything at all to do with the state of Bushs terrible economy)--yet when it comes to Bush its everyone elses fault under the sun and they wont let Bush be held personally reponsible for ANYTHING at all--just another way rightwingers give special rights for the rich and nothing but blame for everyone else

I actually have to agree with you here TRA, much evidence has now been reported that Iraq topped the Bush administration from day one when they assumed office. This isn't exactly a secret any more. It's been reported by a high level British Intel officer that Tony Blair had to talk Bush into going into Afghanistan before they could go into Iraq, Bush wanted to start with Iraq if you can believe that. Very scary stuff when you think about it. I believe Zep wrote a post about it at the time when it came out on the BBC.. If some one disputes this and needs the link, I'll ask Zep to find it again.
right-which means all this debating over WMDs or whether the unarmed helpless Saddam posed any kind of threat or not (even tho all terrorism came from Bushs Saudi friends) is just a big smokescreen--the reality is Bush stole the election in the first place exactly BECAUSE he was planning on having this war in Iraq prolly for the past DECADE

right-which means all this debating over WMDs or whether the unarmed helpless Saddam posed any kind of threat or not (even tho all terrorism came from Bushs Saudi friends) is just a big smokescreen--the reality is Bush stole the election in the first place exactly BECAUSE he was planning on having this war in Iraq prolly for the past DECADE

Well, the choice, yes, choice to go to war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or oil or 9/11 or any other theory some may have. It was a geo-political strategic move, which is laid out in the PNAC doctrine.

This is actually being discussed in another thread HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344425) If you have the time TRA or any one for that matter, read post #3 that I posted. It explains what this is really about and what the men who currently run the white house really have in mind.

its funny how rightys consistently wag their self righteous fingers at poor people preaching "personal responsibility" (as if poor people have anything at all to do with the state of Bushs terrible economy)--yet when it comes to Bush its everyone elses fault under the sun and they wont let Bush be held personally reponsible for ANYTHING at all--just another way rightwingers give special rights for the rich and nothing but blame for everyone else
Damn TRA, spike the ball and have a victory dance. That one went to the bone.

Can Bush be impeached? I don't think it can be sensibly questioned whether the Bush administration has acted in an unethical manner; they have exploited the highest American office(s) and the military of the last superpower in an extraordinarily clear conflict of interests. The reason for targeting vital civilian infrastructure in Iraq, as detailed in Bush's pre-war speech to the Iraqi people, makes a lot more twisted, evil sense when you realize whose private enterprises are "rebuilding Iraq".

But can Bush be impeached? The Bush administration has more protective slime than a hagfish. Even now, in the wake of obscene death-for-profit warmongering, selective slashing and burning of the American constitution, and not so selective slashing and burning of environmental protection legislation, half the American population still thinks that 'Dubbya' can do no wrong.

Well, we foriegners don't generally feel that way. I think it's safe to say that most of us hate what the Bush regime has done to the global political environment. Think carefully on this: most of us also have a hard time differentiating between the American government and American citizens. There's no shortage of helpless, hopeless people the American government has estranged. People too angry for words, with little left to lose. Think on that a good long while. Bush -should- be impeached simply on the grounds of endangering the American people in what history will probably note as the single stupidest piece of accidental reverse psychology ever thrown into the diplomatic arena. Assuming, of course, that the spin-doctors don't point to the desperate acts and say, "See! We were just barely in time!" Bloody spin-doctors

All I can say, I don't see anything Bush has done wrong deserving impeachment and it'd be pointless now, unless Cheney would run, which ultimetly would make the race much easier for the crats.

MKULTRA, start talking factual and leave the democracynow.org, moveon.org and air america at the door.

Put on your thinking cap! is it on?

Without your usual brainwashed mind, name one thing that Bush can be impeached on?

You can't! Why? Because he has broken no US Law! About time you realize this fact.

MKULTRA, start talking factual and leave the democracynow.org, moveon.org and air america at the door.

Put on your thinking cap! is it on?

Without your usual brainwashed mind, name one thing that Bush can be impeached on?

You can't! Why? Because he has broken no US Law! About time you realize this fact.
he has imprisoned people indefinately without trial or access to lega counsel

he has imprisoned people indefinately without trial or access to lega counsel

Plus, we still don't know yet if he did in fact mislead further or lie/exaggerate the already faulty Intel to the Congress, if he did, that is a federal offence and also an impeachable offence.

Plus, we still don't know yet if he did in fact mislead further or lie/exaggerate the already faulty Intel to the Congress, if he did, that is a federal offence and also an impeachable offence.
He's a religiously fundamental, lieing, despicable monster. He made the US start a war that is illegal and was unneccessary. He "sacrificed" US citizens for his own personal goals.If the US decide to sacrifice their children for the rich and powerful, who would never set foot into a war area themselves or who would never send their children, then so be it. I'll not support them.

Plus, we still don't know yet if he did in fact mislead further or lie/exaggerate the already faulty Intel to the Congress, if he did, that is a federal offence and also an impeachable offence.

Well we shall see! It is MY OPINION however that he stated what he was given by the CIA! We will find out though and it will be interesting to see what they say. Thus at this point, he is innocent of misleading the nation until this is done. Therefor, he can't be impeached.

He's a religiously fundamental, lieing, despicable monster. He made the US start a war that is illegal and was unneccessary. He "sacrificed" US citizens for his own personal goals.If the US decide to sacrifice their children for the rich and powerful, who would never set foot into a war area themselves or who would never send their children, then so be it. I'll not support them.

We all know of your hatred for Bush, however he has done absolutely nothing that deserve impeachment (Steph read what I wrote above before posting)! He had no personal goals except those to rid a tyrant and to bring stability to the region. Don't bring up the oil war crap. It doesn't fly with me.

Well, the choice, yes, choice to go to war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or oil or 9/11 or any other theory some may have. It was a geo-political strategic move, which is laid out in the PNAC doctrine.

This is actually being discussed in another thread HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344425) If you have the time TRA or any one for that matter, read post #3 that I posted. It explains what this is really about and what the men who currently run the white house really have in mind.
thanks Steph I will do that--the people know they werent given the real story by Bush or the untrustworthy US media and thats the foundation of my opposition to this war

thanks Steph I will do that--the people know they werent given the real story by Bush or the untrustworthy US media and thats the foundation of my opposition to this war

Then why do you listen to our untrustworthy media? You listen to Air America, that is part of US Media wether you like it or not. As for Bush lieing, you've been listening to much to the untrustworthy US Media.

Damn TRA, spike the ball and have a victory dance. That one went to the bone.
its time to cut the shit ^5

MKULTRA, you are an insipid communist twit. No one takes you seriously.

Let's see, what has Bush done AT ALL that merits impeachment?

Lying to Congress? Intel was either faulty or Iraqi WMD was moved. Until more information can uncovered, this point is nil.


He's a religiously fundamental, lieing, despicable monster. He made the US start a war that is illegal and was unneccessary. He "sacrificed" US citizens for his own personal goals.If the US decide to sacrifice their children for the rich and powerful, who would never set foot into a war area themselves or who would never send their children, then so be it. I'll not support them.

You sir, are a moron. Being religious does not qualify you as unfit for leadership.

It's spelled "lying" and I challenge you to find just ONE point where he willfully lied.

Sacrificing U.S citizens for his own personal goals? Take the tinfoil off your head. Only a complete moron would seriously entertain the notion of an evil conspiracy led by Bush. If that's what you truly believe, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy.

And like I said in the 2nd post of this worthless thread...

This thread is so pathetic, I don't think I can muster up the words to effectively show how stupid it is.

So here's a picture:
http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/TS5.jpg

After all... it's worth a thousand words.

Then why do you listen to our untrustworthy media? You listen to Air America, that is part of US Media wether you like it or not. As for Bush lieing, you've been listening to much to the untrustworthy US Media.
I may not know what the truth is but I know what it isnt and so far the only thing I ever heard out of Bushs lips are infernal lies that insult my intelligence

I may not know what the truth is but I know what it isnt and so far the only thing I ever heard out of Bushs lips are infernal lies that insult my intelligence

Then they must be really obvious lies, considering your inability to use punctuation in your posts.

Then they must be really obvious lies, considering your inability to use punctuation in your posts.
when faced with a decent point attack their grammar

BRILLIANT

I may not know what the truth is but I know what it isnt and so far the only thing I ever heard out of Bushs lips are infernal lies that insult my intelligence

Then why do you listen to air america where most of it gets debunked by reports?

You really are not intouched with the rest of the world are you? Read the 9/11 Commission report before spouting insane things about Bush and 9/11! I'm on Chapter 3!

As for WMD, it was mostly the CIA exaggerating about it! I think they were moved. However, until I have more facts on these, SSIC report aside, I'm with holding judgement on Bush. I suggest you do the same!

Then they must be really obvious lies, considering your inability to use punctuation in your posts.

I agree Tyrandis!

MKULTRA, you are an insipid communist twit. No one takes you seriously.

Let's see, what has Bush done AT ALL that merits impeachment?

Lying to Congress? Intel was either faulty or Iraqi WMD was moved. Until more information can uncovered, this point is nil.



You sir, are a moron. Being religious does not qualify you as unfit for leadership.

It's spelled "lying" and I challenge you to find just ONE point where he willfully lied.

Sacrificing U.S citizens for his own personal goals? Take the tinfoil off your head. Only a complete moron would seriously entertain the notion of an evil conspiracy led by Bush. If that's what you truly believe, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy.

And like I said in the 2nd post of this worthless thread...
If I'm a moron and this thread sucks so much, you are welcome to stay away from it and ignore it. Nobody forcesyou to read and post here, so you may keep your personal attacks and stick them where the sun doesnt shine. In addition to that, you may keep all grammar or spelling mistakes and add them to the pile sticking where the sun doesnt shine. Good Bye.

Then they must be really obvious lies, considering your inability to use punctuation in your posts.

That's weak. Are you saying if I went back to all your posts I would find not a single error in grammar or spelling, or punctuation?

Besides, that doesn't invalidate some ones' argument. It's a bad response.

That's weak. Are you saying if I went back to all your posts I would find not a single error in grammar or spelling, or punctuation?

Besides, that doesn't invalidate some ones' argument. It's a bad response.

I agree here too! :)

Then why do you listen to air america where most of it gets debunked by reports?

You really are not intouched with the rest of the world are you? Read the 9/11 Commission report before spouting insane things about Bush and 9/11! I'm on Chapter 3!

As for WMD, it was mostly the CIA exaggerating about it! I think they were moved. However, until I have more facts on these, SSIC report aside, I'm with holding judgement on Bush. I suggest you do the same!

The whole argument that I'm seeing here is just questioning each others sources' credibility. Nothing will change, Air America, moveon.org, etc., will keep on "debunking" the American media reports, and the American media reports will keep on "debunking" them. It is a vicious cycle reducing us to nothing but nitpickety old ladies searching for the others mistakes so voraciously. If we all talk instead of argue and discuss what we agree with instead of what we disagree with, we will be able to better understand each others arguments.

And as for the CIA, do you really trust anything they say? The CIA is just like the Freemasons. Scary, secretive, and unpredictable. Facts are a rare commodity in these troubled times, which is sad to say. Almost all media reports are untrustworthy and leave need for further investigations. But I don't agree that waiting to judge Bush is a good idea; election's too soon!

He will be responsible for it mainly because he literally threw the weapons inspectors out when they didnt get him the results he wanted to justify his war. Instead he attacked without UN mandate.


I assume by 'He' you mean Bush. Bush didnt throw the inspectors out. Funny... in prewar Iraq.. I seem to remember Saddam being in charge.. and him expelling the weapons inspectors, and refusing them access while they were there, and violating 14 seperate UN resolutions following his defeat in 91, and killing/starving millions of his own people by corrupting (with France and Russia's and the UN's help) the oil for food program.

The UN wouldnt give a mandate, even though Saddam flagrantly violated human rights/UN resolutions/international law, because France and Russia were making money from Iraq.

even other conservatives who all worked in the Bush administration(like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who has ALOT more credability then Bush) all admit that Bush was planning on attacking Iraq since even before he stole the election--so its pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that with or without WMDS Bush was going into Iraq for his own reasons-no amount of republican spin can change that well known fact

::sigh:: Richard Clarke was discredited by the SSIC and the 9/11 commission. But again, since he can be used against Bush, you believe him in the face of "well known fact"s.
Who's spinning now MKULTRA?

Whoopi being penalized for speaking truth to power makes her a heroin for social justice--what good is knowing the right thing if your never willing to put it on the line to fight for it?

ummm what the heck did you just say? I've read it 5 times and cant quite get what you meant to come accross.

Whoopi was canned because she used vulgar language/sexual innuendo and otherwise disrespectful and inappropriate statements in what should have been a somber/respectful event.

Making connections between the Presidents name and a slang expression for female genitalia. That's speaking the truth all right. That's the right thing to say. :rolleyes:

ummm what the heck did you just say? I've read it 5 times and cant quite get what you meant to come accross.

Whoopi was canned because she used vulgar language/sexual innuendo and otherwise disrespectful and inappropriate statements in what should have been a somber/respectful event.

Making connections between the Presidents name and a slang expression for female genitalia. That's speaking the truth all right. That's the right thing to say. :rolleyes:
goldberg is a comedian its her job to make jokes

goldberg is a comedian its her job to make jokes

yes, but if she is disrespectful, and bring discredit to her hosts, then she is responsible for her actions and if that means censure and getting canned, so be it.