NationStates Jolt Archive

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

Impeachment is a political process.

There's your answer.

Welcome to American Politics 101

Your doing well so far.

3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?

4640 American Soldiers


according to http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

source is bogus - 1462 deaths

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:
I have lost all respect for the scottish intellect. But then again your main source of news is the BBC so it's somewhat understandable.
1.The supposed lies were espoused by well over 60% of the world leaders leading up to the war.
2. If you are referencing the Iraq war here he technically didn't go against any resolutions the UN made. Given the wording of the resolutions against Iraq the invasion was perfectly legal.
3. About 1400 dead, I think. But given what has been accomplished, not that bad really.
4. The purpose of going into afghanistan was to wipe out Al Qaeda ,whach has for the most part happened. Capturing Bin Laden was high on the list, but finding him is gonna be a pain in the ass. Of course, Clinton had three separate opportunities to kill the fuck. But he didn't.
5. ...
6. What exactly could he heve done again? That's right, nothing. As president you do not panic in front of civilians, especially children. That 7 minutes was probably his security detail planning what would immediately happen.
7. First of all, it was a projected surplus. Secondly it assumed the economy would continue to grow but the start of it's downturn was already discernable. Combined with the economic shock of 9/11 it's suprising things went as well as they did.


As for Clinton being impeached, it was more the fact that he was perjuring himself over the issue that gained him the impeachment attempt. Had he just come out and admitted it the issue would have sank like a rock.

4. The purpose of going into afghanistan was to wipe out Al Qaeda ,whach has for the most part happened.

Are you seriously this delusional?

3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?

4640 American Soldiers


according to http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Um, did you even check your own source?

isnt that where peechland says something awkwardly nice to you and gives you a bunch of fluffles???

also, how the hell does everyone know clinton used a cigar? :eek: or did it slip out at one point??? (the fact that he used a cigar...sicko)

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

(snip)

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

I'll leave your various points of contention regarding President Bush, and your witticisms of President Clinton aside.

Impeachment in the United States proceeds through several stages:

1. The House of Representatives has a majority vote to start the process. If they vote that enough evidence of misconduct to merit an impeachment exists, they start a subcommittee (Judicial I think) finding to proceed with that.

2. The finding from the subcommittee (if it has merit) goes to the floor of the House, and is voted upon with the evidence presented by the Chairman of the Subcommittee. If a majority vote for impeachment, you are now Impeached. Note: being impeached does not mean removed from office.

3. The Senate takes the case under discussion, acting as Jury and Judge. The prosecutor is usually the House Judiciary Subcommittee and the impeached party gets to defend themselves with oral arguments.

4. The Senate votes on the Impeachment proceeding to see if the person is removed from office - 2/3 and the Impeachment proceeds to remove the person from the office.

Impeachment is supposed to be for major offenses (described cryptically as "high crimes and misdemeanors"), not for political differences.

It has happened about a dozen times to various US federal officials - mostly judges. It has happened twice to US Presidents (Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton) both of whom didn't get removed from office by the Senate.

Clinton lied under oath in a case that had little to do with US policy. He committed a felony which is a serious offense for a sitting US president. The Senate determined it didn't meet the level necessary to remove him from office.

Clinton's impeachment was definitely warranted. Arguments for his removal from office both for and against have a lot of merit.

Bush will not be impeached by a dominated Republican House of Representatives unless he commits a provable crime with substantial indication of culpability on his part. Political differences can not, and should not, be used to consider his removal from office. That's what voting is for.

Um, did you even check your own source?

fair play how about I say 1462 and we forget about it :D

isnt that where peechland says something awkwardly nice to you and gives you a bunch of fluffles???

also, how the hell does everyone know clinton used a cigar? :eek: or did it slip out at one point??? (the fact that he used a cigar...sicko)

Someone didn't read the tens of millions of dollars Starr report...

The most common misunderstanding in politics is infact Impeachment. It is actually an Inditement, it's different from being kicked out of office. Usually it can lead up to a President being kicked out of office, I.E. Clinton was impeached (which means accused), but not kicked out.

Anywho, the only things retarded democrats ever look at is the lives lost... Do you have any idea how much better life will be for Iraqis? Now women can actually walk around without having to be scared shitless, please wise your scottish ass up.

Anywho, the only things retarded democrats ever look at is the lives lost... Do you have any idea how much better life will be for Iraqis? Now women can actually walk around without having to be scared shitless, please wise your scottish ass up.

So Iraq just stopped being an islamic country and the election was not at all a success for fundamentalists? And peace reigns there?

And would this have happened if Iraq wasn't invaded...


A great idea! We should have went and asked Saddam Hussein nicely if he would like to leave so they can have a democratic society, where people will get the rights they deserv!

BRILLIANCE.

I think we need to make a distinction between democracy and peace. 38 soldiers died in the last 19 days in iraq. Thats not peaceful. Lets just see how "democratic"iraq is

Impeachment is when the president commits a crime and is found guilty. Our third president was impeached but wasn't voted out of office. So that means, Bush must be voted out or do some horrible crime to leave office.

Yukino

PS, My attention span couldn't handle reading all the replies, so I just put a short definition here so he wouldn't be left confused. Btw, contact me if you have more questions...Nation States only.

Impeachment is when the president commits a crime and is found guilty. Our third president was impeached but wasn't voted out of office. So that means, Bush must be voted out or do some horrible crime to leave office.

Yukino

PS, My attention span couldn't handle reading all the replies, so I just put a short definition here so he wouldn't be left confused. Btw, contact me if you have more questions...Nation States only.
He can be impeached, if there was a democratic majority, he most likely would have been impeached by now.

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

Not when you put it that way. However, when you look at what actually happened, it's quite different. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not sexual misconduct.

Here is the list Ken Starr delivered to the House on September 9:

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

Note that nowhere is there a charge of sexual misconduct.

The actual charges brought were:
The Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

Articles 1 and 3 passed, 2 and 4 did not.

The full text of The Articles of Impeachment can be found here (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm#9-9) (The Starr charges can also be found there.)



To sum it all up, Bush has not to date been shown to have commited a crime.* There was enough evidence Clinton had that was disbarred from practicing law for five years by the State of Arkansas and the United States Supreme Court.

*There have been many suggestions, of course, of crimes related to 9/11, Enron, and the current wars. I personally am of the opinion that certain Bush policies re POWs may well constitute crimes both under international and US law.

Impeachment is when the president commits a crime and is found guilty.

Wrong. Legally, it is related to an indictment.

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm)

Our third president was impeached but wasn't voted out of office.

Wrong. Andrew Johnson (http://www.andrewjohnson.com/) was the only other US president to be impeached. He was also found not guilty by the Senate.

So that means, Bush must be voted out or do some horrible crime to leave office.

Misleading.

Yukino

PS, My attention span couldn't handle reading all the replies, so I just put a short definition here so he wouldn't be left confused. Btw, contact me if you have more questions...Nation States only.

Unfortunately, it was incorrect.

Wow... just wow...

Part of the problem with American impeachment at the moment is that it's driven almost entirely by party politics. The vote to impeach Clinton was distgustingly across party lines - whether or not either side was correct was obviously not an issue, as it was a matter of supporting one's party, not finding the truth and coming to a reasonable conclusion.

And I guarantee you, if Bush were ever impeached [not possible until, perhaps, 2006], it would again be along party lines. So, yes... impeachment in the current political environment isn't an issue of truth. It's an issue of power - those who have it, and those who want it.

Well, of course Clinton wasn't actually put into the impeachment process because of...youthful indiscretions (I really don't blame him, as Hillary is a man.) He was put into the process for the charges of lying under oath in a related civil trial.

Are you seriously this delusional?
If he is, then I am as well.

If he is, then I am as well.

If you think you've even made a dent in Al Qaeda, you are.

If you think you've even made a dent in Al Qaeda, you are.
In the leadership, of course, we've been able to knock out some twenty odd top officers, the resulting situation being that Al Qaeda has been fragmented, leaving dozens of smaller groups, with far less global reach, and mainly isolated to a far away region on the other side of the world.

We haven't seen any of the buggers in the US since, have we?

al qaeda is an international organization. cutting its funding from the taliban isnt going to bring it down, seeing how impoverished afghanistan is.

al qaeda is an international organization. cutting its funding from the taliban isnt going to bring it down, seeing how impoverished afghanistan is.
I'm just saying that we broke it into little, easier to swallow chunks.

In the leadership, of course, we've been able to knock out some twenty odd top officers, the resulting situation being that Al Qaeda has been fragmented, leaving dozens of smaller groups, with far less global reach, and mainly isolated to a far away region on the other side of the world.

Wow, you don't understand how a network of terrorists with independant cells functions at all, do you?

We haven't seen any of the buggers in the US since, have we?

I have this pet rock. It's said to ward off elephants. And we haven't seen any of the buggers roaming the streets in Sweden, have we? The rock must be working!

Wow, you don't understand how a network of terrorists with independant cells functions at all, do you?
You clearly aren't seeing what I'm saying. I'm saying that al-Qaida is broken into little chunks in Afghanistan. And as such, it is working to rebuild itself there. We probably didn't do all that much to destroy it, but we've been able to limit the interaction of a command structure.

And beyond that, cells are typically to be found in hostile nations, not in the host nation. Afghanistan was a clearinghouse for various al-Qaida related groups, and we've been able to disrupt, although not destroy al-Qaida.

Al-Qaida was previously cell based, whose attacks were notable, but not above normal terrorist cell level. And with very few instances in the US. But, Al-Qaida was becoming increasingly centralized in Afghanistan, while not necessarily gaining much in the form of wealth, the organization did have a level of safe haven there, and a level of freedom of operation. Where they could plan, fairly free of concern of being stopped by a government. This centralization led to the ability to plan and carry out a massive, coordinated attack. This centralization is what led to the attacks on September 11, not nearly as much a result of a cell based structure as it might seem.

I have this pet rock. It's said to ward off elephants. And we haven't seen any of the buggers roaming the streets in Sweden, have it? The rock must be working!
The analogy is a.)overused and b.) dumb. You see, a pet rock has nothing to do with elephants, and there are other circumstances leading to the lack of elephants. Such as the fact that they don't live where you live naturally. But with terrorists, they can slip across borders, they can get into and out of nations fairly rapidly. Terrorists are people, they are crafty, they adapt, they can blend in and they can survive wherever.

Beyond that, there were no elephants before your pet rock.

The rock is non-related to elephants, but the invasion of Afghanistan is related to terrorists.

But, a lack of terrorist attacks in a certain location as a result of a change in policy (i.e. war) can be a causal relationship.

But, it can be seen that there have been terrorists in the US, albeit in very few and far between groups.

In recent times al-Qaida had grown stronger, more centralized and more capable of carrying out large scale overseas operations, The September 11 attacks were a result of this. Part of what the invasion of Afghanistan has done has been to break up this centralization. For, after all, the hijackers were all trained in Afghanistan. What if the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan? What if we had let al-Qaida be? Would they have carried out further attacks on the US? We can judge that they probably would have when considering their past behavior, but we will never know, as that is the road not taken.

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:
First of all, everything you said is patently false. I don't feel like even bothering with them, but I'll adress two points.
1. If the head of CIA tells you that "it's a slam dunk" regarding the existance of WMDs, and every intelligence agency in the world says this, it's not a lie. He was provided with bad information.
2. So, he was supposed to scream out loud in front of the little kids? He was listening to the girl read the book, and how would it have looked if the President of the US cut her off? A few minutes weren't going to make a difference.
3. It had nothing to do with the "wee bit of stain". Cheating on one's wife is not a crime in the US; lying under oath to a federal jury is.

In the leadership, of course, we've been able to knock out some twenty odd top officers, the resulting situation being that Al Qaeda has been fragmented, leaving dozens of smaller groups, with far less global reach, and mainly isolated to a far away region on the other side of the world.

We haven't seen any of the buggers in the US since, have we?

Would you like to buy my magic tiger-repelling rock? I've been carrying it for about a week now, and a tiger hasn't attacked me once. :D

If anyone's interested let me know and I'll consider putting it up on eBay. But you'll have to bid high to justify my risking my life by making myself vulnerable to such vicous beasts.

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

so I am, and I am an American voter (who voted against President George Herbert Walker Bush twice)

technically, the US Constitution says that the President can be convicted for "committing high crimes and misdemeanors". Technically lying to a court is a crime (usually considered perjury, which can be prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the seriousness). More importantly, Clinton was immensely popular, and it was the only way for the Republican dominated Congress of that time to reduce his power. Cheap shots all the way, but it did work somewhat (from a strictly partisan political sense)

Bush, bless his simplistic world view, hasn't actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Thus we can't impeach him. Although there is a provision to remove him from office if he is clearly incapicated due to medical or mental reasons. We will do our best to keep an eye on him for that one.

That make you feel any better?

Thanks to everyone who have enlightened me on the impeachment process, and my point is still kinda there.

I will concede that I was being generous to Mr Clinton with my putting of the facts, hell aint that what the media does all the time. ;)

I have lost all respect for the scottish intellect. But then again your main source of news is the BBC so it's somewhat understandable.

Thanks for this sweeping piece of racism!!

And the BBC is worse than Fox/CNN for what reasons?

Anywho, the only things retarded democrats ever look at is the lives lost... Do you have any idea how much better life will be for Iraqis? Now women can actually walk around without having to be scared shitless, please wise your scottish ass up.

Again I must thank you for your sweeping racism.

&
Under Sadam, not that I think he was an angel, there was a catholic chapel - a sinigogue (sp), one of the oldest christian tribes (Asyrrians). Under the Shi-ite leadership and control this will be under threat big time so your a touch misguided....

And would this have happened if Iraq wasn't invaded...


A great idea! We should have went and asked Saddam Hussein nicely if he would like to leave so they can have a democratic society, where people will get the rights they deserv!

BRILLIANCE.

Democracy doesn't = rights they deserv (sp) e

First of all, everything you said is patently false. I don't feel like even bothering with them, but I'll adress two points.
1. If the head of CIA tells you that "it's a slam dunk" regarding the existance of WMDs, and every intelligence agency in the world says this, it's not a lie. He was provided with bad information.
2. So, he was supposed to scream out loud in front of the little kids? He was listening to the girl read the book, and how would it have looked if the President of the US cut her off? A few minutes weren't going to make a difference.
3. It had nothing to do with the "wee bit of stain". Cheating on one's wife is not a crime in the US; lying under oath to a federal jury is.

False?? I'll leave that one as if you can't be bothered explaining then I can't be bothered defending them.

But.
1. Ignorance isn't a defence, didn't work at the end of WW2 for the SS it certainly ain't gonna work for the man in charge!!!
2. I think I and many others expected him to say "erm....ladies and gentleman....excuse me I am the president of America and now more than ever in my short reign.....my people need me....I'm sure you will all understand when you see the news tonight..." Don't think that it's much to ask!!!
3. True, I used that for dramatic effect.

So Iraq just stopped being an islamic country and the election was not at all a success for fundamentalists? And peace reigns there?
I unfortunately think this is a question that deserves to be repeated every time people say a lot was reached by the invasion. If someone could proof the current situation is better I would hug them.

As to the original question.. Clinton lied under oath. One can argue that the question should not have been asked at all since having an affair is not a crime -but it was and he lied. This implies he could be blackmailed - which makes him unfit to rule. George Bush, while being in my personal opinion not suited to be president (and considering how often I hear he was 'misinformed' not good at picking advisors either), has done no such thing as far as I know/can proof.

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,


Lies is too harsh a word. That would imply that he actively knew that there were no WMD before he went. America and their intellegence agency made the same mistake as everyone else's intellegence agency. You cant call it lying unless you can prove he actively knew.


2. goes against the UN


If America goes against the UN it is the UN's responsability to do something about it. Not the American government


3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).


By your logic here, it would seem any American president going to any war is guilty and should be heald up for impeechment


6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.


Would you have him run away, scaring all the kids. He was trying not to start a panic.


7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.


Unless he has broken the law, there is nothing bad about this execpt poor judgement. .And that is for the American people to judge in elections.You dont fire politicans for poor decisions, you just vote them out of office.


And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

Clinton had broken the code of personal responsitly (His private life became public and it wasnt perfect) Bush has not had anything significently wrong with his private life as of yet. When that happens then maybe he will be impeched.

1. Ignorance isn't a defence, didn't work at the end of WW2 for the SS it certainly ain't gonna work for the man in charge!!!


The SS did not use ignorence as a defence. They used "I was only following orders" as a defence. They are very diffrent.


2. I think I and many others expected him to say "erm....ladies and gentleman....excuse me I am the president of America and now more than ever in my short reign.....my people need me....I'm sure you will all understand when you see the news tonight..." Don't think that it's much to ask!!!


They are both equally vaild things to do. He only had a few seconds to decide what to do. You have had a lot of heinsight.

I'm just saying that we broke it into little, easier to swallow chunks.

It was never one big chunck in the first place! :rolleyes: That's where everyone's getting it wrong, Al'Quaeda is not some 'organisation', but, I suppose you might put it, many many very small chunks. The 'top officers' didn't so much hold power, but influence - there is no real 'command structure', as you put it, and if anything, knocking them out will cause more anger - if someone you very much admired was 'knocked out', then you would be angry, right? By taking out the...ermm...."bigger chunks", all you'll do is spawn more "smaller chunks" who want to take action.

But, it can be seen that there have been terrorists in the US, albeit in very few and far between groups.

So perhaps this is just the gap between another attack, no?

I think it's great that someone would consider "going against the U.N." an impeachable offense, as if their hands are any cleaner than ours, or the UN security council cares the slightest bit about our interests.. Too funny.. :D

Anywho, the only things retarded democrats ever look at is the lives lost... Do you have any idea how much better life will be for Iraqis? Now women can actually walk around without having to be scared shitless, please wise your scottish ass up.

Actually, the Iraqis are a lot more scared now...people were walking around without having to be scared 'shitless' before the war or anything, if you look at footage, but now, now people are scared that, completely randomly, they may be caught near a bomb explosion, hit by American fire by accident, or guerilla fire, or that when the Americans finally pull out, that the guerillas will move back in, and that perhaps the new government won't cope and the police and buildings and people will suffer. During the bombardment of Saddam's palace, houses were hit too, and during that time, people feared that they'd wake up and houses around them would be demolished, their friends killed, perhaps. Iraqis are scared because they face spontaneous death from all sides, American included. Before, there has been footage shot of children playing happily in playgrounds in Bagdad, Stefanos mentioned a catcholic chapel there - people were religiously free too. Not everyone was walking arund thinking they'd be mass-murdered, far from it, although Bush would like you to believe everyone posed a much greater threat of death then than now, when in fact, it is the other way around. And who DESERVES democracy? There's nothing wrong with a monarchy or a dictatorship. Sure, you might get leaders you don't want, but then, you do with democracy too, and one man's hero is another man's nemesis. (coughBushcough) And who says all dictatorships are bad? It depends on the dictator, and even if Saddam wasn't a good one by far, it doesn't give countries who view themselves as more civilised to declare war (don't say WMD, because there aren't any). Don't you realise that for many you have just made the situation worse?

I think it's great that someone would consider "going against the U.N." an impeachable offense, as if their hands are any cleaner than ours, or the UN security council cares the slightest bit about our interests.. Too funny.. :D

Keep in mind if someone tried to go to war with America for the same reasons you put for Iraq that the UN would actually do the same thing as it did for Iraq to America (i.e, send in inspectors...). For start, if the UN acts biased, how's that going look? :rolleyes:

George Bush, while being in my personal opinion not suited to be president (and considering how often I hear he was 'misinformed' not good at picking advisors either), has done no such thing as far as I know/can proof.


If you are referring to George Tenet, he was the Clinton appointee to be the head of the CIA.

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:


Looks like someone forgot to put their criticical thinking skills cap on when they went to see F 9-11.....

1. The President has to have potentially committed a crime that is on the books. And, the Congress has to have probable cause that he has committed a crime. Bush has not committed any crime under United States Code. So he can't be impeached.

2. Clinton committed perjury under oath. It doesn't matter what he lied about - something as silly as sex - it's the fact that he lied under oath. Politically, it was also damaging because he then turned around and lied to the American public on television.

If Clinton had said, "hell yes, she sucked my dick" the whole thing would have been over. But, no, for some stupid reason he had to lie about it under oath.

Lawyers always tell their client - if you lie, or perjure yourself, I will not be able to defend you. I always tell my clients that if they lie, I will stop representing them at the point where I discover the lie. No matter how stupid or seemingly innocuous.

You can't impeach a President just because you don't like him. You have to catch him doing something. You know, like illegal wiretaps, ordering break-ins, or lying under oath. Bush hasn't done ANYTHING illegal at this point, much to the chagrin of his opponents.

I'm just saying that we broke it into little, easier to swallow chunks.

Not really. It only took 20 men to perpetrate 9/11. One wealthy one (still around and still wealthy) and 19 poor schmucks to follow his command.

How small of a chunk do you think they need?

1. The President has to have potentially committed a crime that is on the books. And, the Congress has to have probable cause that he has committed a crime. Bush has not committed any crime under United States Code. So he can't be impeached.

2. Clinton committed perjury under oath. It doesn't matter what he lied about - something as silly as sex - it's the fact that he lied under oath. Politically, it was also damaging because he then turned around and lied to the American public on television.

If Clinton had said, "hell yes, she sucked my dick" the whole thing would have been over. But, no, for some stupid reason he had to lie about it under oath.

Lawyers always tell their client - if you lie, or perjure yourself, I will not be able to defend you. I always tell my clients that if they lie, I will stop representing them at the point where I discover the lie. No matter how stupid or seemingly innocuous.

You can't impeach a President just because you don't like him. You have to catch him doing something. You know, like illegal wiretaps, ordering break-ins, or lying under oath. Bush hasn't done ANYTHING illegal at this point, much to the chagrin of his opponents.

You know many people like OJ and many others lie under oath and get away with it.
My brother works with them as a lawyer. You have to help them even if you are sure they might have done it.
Only proven lies would stop a lawyer fromn defending them. Subjecture is nothing.

You know many people like OJ and many others lie under oath and get away with it.
My brother works with them as a lawyer. You have to help them even if you are sure they might have done it.
Only proven lies would stop a lawyer fromn defending them. Subjecture is nothing.you have proof that OJ lied? or is it your opinion. If your Brother knew that his client committed purjury, then he is assisting in a crime and should it come to light that your brother knew, he can, and most likely will, be disbarred.

OJ trial isn't just about the lies on the stand, but the police bungled the investigation. had they taken the care that it needed, the outcome may have been different.

you have proof that OJ lied? or is it your opinion. If your Brother knew that his client committed purjury, then he is assisting in a crime and should it come to light that your brother knew, he can, and most likely will, be disbarred.

OJ trial isn't just about the lies on the stand, but the police bungled the investigation. had they taken the care that it needed, the outcome may have been different.
Look you know as well as I that OJ put a glove over another glove to prove it didn't fit.
That should have mean something, but no. OJ got off.

1. The President has to have potentially committed a crime that is on the books. And, the Congress has to have probable cause that he has committed a crime. Bush has not committed any crime under United States Code. So he can't be impeached.

2. Clinton committed perjury under oath. It doesn't matter what he lied about - something as silly as sex - it's the fact that he lied under oath. Politically, it was also damaging because he then turned around and lied to the American public on television.

If Clinton had said, "hell yes, she sucked my dick" the whole thing would have been over. But, no, for some stupid reason he had to lie about it under oath.

Lawyers always tell their client - if you lie, or perjure yourself, I will not be able to defend you. I always tell my clients that if they lie, I will stop representing them at the point where I discover the lie. No matter how stupid or seemingly innocuous.

You can't impeach a President just because you don't like him. You have to catch him doing something. You know, like illegal wiretaps, ordering break-ins, or lying under oath. Bush hasn't done ANYTHING illegal at this point, much to the chagrin of his opponents.

Exactly. Although the very last point is still under debate re the POW rights issue that may or may not lead to the top. (I suspect it does, but my suspicions are not legal grounds, for dome odd reason... ;))

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:

Just to clear up your logic here. IF Bush were impeached and found guilty and removed from office. Would you really want Cheney as president??

:D


I don't!

Just to clear up your logic here. IF Bush were impeached and found guilty and removed from office. Would you really want Cheney as president??

:D


I don't!

Impeachment isnt necessarily removal from the office. It's more like a warning. I mean, look at Nixon first off. He was supposed to be impeached but not long before he resigned from office. And then Clinton was impeached but wasn't removed. So I consider it a warning of some sort. Although no..I wouldn't want Cheney as president either.

Bush hasn't done ANYTHING illegal at this point, much to the chagrin of his opponents.

That you can show evidence for, and attempt to prove to the US Congress.

The Bush Administration is masterful at information suppression.

There are certainly cases that could be made against the Bush Administration regarding Joseph Wilson's wife and the charge of Treason; as well there are the unresolved instructions from the Bush Administration to commit torture at Guantanamo, etc.

Presidents are powerbrokers, and powerbrokers often feel inappropriately constrained by "the law". It should come as no surprise when the people who have the arrogance of thinking they know best how to lead the United States bend the rules in their favor occassionally.

Nixon just showed the American people they could actually hold the Executive accountable. I'm sure every president since him has cursed Nixon for this little revelation in their more private moments.

i've only read page one, so if this has been said, don't flame


in order for the president to be impeached, congress has to have a majority (1/3? 3/4? ) vote on it.

congress is controlled by the republicans.

gg

:(

Look you know as well as I that OJ put a glove over another glove to prove it didn't fit.
That should have mean something, but no. OJ got off.and if the Prosicutors did not catch that... then it's not OJ's fault.

Just to clear up your logic here. IF Bush were impeached and found guilty and removed from office. Would you really want Cheney as president??

:D


I don't!

good point

False?? I'll leave that one as if you can't be bothered explaining then I can't be bothered defending them.

But.
1. Ignorance isn't a defence, didn't work at the end of WW2 for the SS it certainly ain't gonna work for the man in charge!!!
2. I think I and many others expected him to say "erm....ladies and gentleman....excuse me I am the president of America and now more than ever in my short reign.....my people need me....I'm sure you will all understand when you see the news tonight..." Don't think that it's much to ask!!!
3. True, I used that for dramatic effect.
1. It's not a crime to listen to the CIA, and all the major intelligence agencies in the world. A mistake, but not a crime.
2. He didn't want to panic the kids. Actually, he thought it was an accident at first, but then was told a few minutes before he finished of the second plane. Anyway, he did the right thing. Him leaving two minutes earlier would have made no difference, and he didn't scare off the kids.

A question I asked recently that I think deserves it's own attention being Scottish and not understanding completely the whole impeachment thing in the American Constitution can some one answer me this question -

Bush,
1. Lies about WMD,
2. goes against the UN,
3. sends how many thousand troops to Iraq with how many dead so far?
4. Goes to war with afghanistan to capture OBL (where is he??).
5. Camp x-ray?
6. Read's a kids book (or at least looks at the pictures) for 6 minutes and 55 seconds too long during the biggest moment of crisis in recent American history.
7. Turns around a record surplus to a record deficit in erm....record time.

And then there's Clinton

1. Has some fun with a Cigar!
2. Leaves a wee bit of a stain on a dress!!!

Doesn't quite add up does it??? :confused:
You can't impeach a president for being a complete economical, military, and social moron. And he denied involvment in x-ray. So congress believed him. And going to war is not a crime. Nor is lieing. And everyone in congress goes against the UN themselves anyways.

fair play how about I say 1462 and we forget about it :D
where did you get THAT number?

perhaps you mean 2462?

Look you know as well as I that OJ put a glove over another glove to prove it didn't fit.
That should have mean something, but no. OJ got off.
ohmygod thats not true. you think that the prosecution didnt NOTICE another glove? you think the JUDGE didnt notice? you think the JURY didnt notice? you think that the REPORTERS didnt notice?

not that that has anything to do with this thread.

I think it's great that someone would consider "going against the U.N." an impeachable offense, as if their hands are any cleaner than ours, or the UN security council cares the slightest bit about our interests.. Too funny.. :D
Are you kidding? Of course the security council cares about US interests! Or are you forgetting that one of the permanent members with the power of veto is the US? How many resolutions have you seen passed that works against US interests?

And would this have happened if Iraq wasn't invaded...


A great idea! We should have went and asked Saddam Hussein nicely if he would like to leave so they can have a democratic society, where people will get the rights they deserv!

BRILLIANCE.

Yes, because that's what they've got now isn't it?

For the first time in years Iraqi women are forced to wear the veil for fear of execution. Women are also warned not to leave the house without a male relative or they will be murdered.

Shops which sell alcohol are routinely firebombed and the owners murdered.

Religous minorities such as Christians are in constant danger.

Millitias roam the streets, Mosques are bombed, suicide bombings are a daily occurence.

If this is your idea of 'getting the rights they deserve' then I pity you.

You can't impeach a president for being a complete economical, military, and social moron. And he denied involvment in x-ray. So congress believed him. And going to war is not a crime. Nor is lieing. And everyone in congress goes against the UN themselves anyways.


Lying under Oath, however, is a crime.

Thing is, Bush and his cronies refuse to testify under oath.
In order to force Bush to testify under oath, you have to impeach him.
To do so, (unless Im mistaken) you need a 2/3 majority vote by Congress.
With a Republican majority controlled Congress, its not going to happen.

They arent going to Impeach thier own man.

There are a million quasi-legal things Bush has done that are border-line illegal.
Torturing children at Gitmo, illegally wiretapping civillians, etc...thing is, these are relatively small things, (sadly) and not quite impeachment-worthy things.

Remember it wasnt Clinton getting head from a heffer that landed him in impeachment proceedings, it was lying about the event under oath that was the mistake.
Had he simply said, "Why yes, I shagged her mooing ass on the oval office rug, and its really none of your business."
...he would have been fine.

But, like all men who get busted cheating on thier wives, they attempt to lie thier asses off.

Impeachment is where a president is challenged to a mortal duel by the United States Congress, and if he loses, he is imbedded in a giant peach with a bunch of talking insects and sent floating around the world.

Impeachment is where a president is challenged to a mortal duel by the United States Congress, and if he loses, he is imbedded in a giant peach with a bunch of talking insects and sent floating around the world.


Um...I think your thinking of James Madison and the Giant Peach.

Lying under Oath, however, is a crime.

Thing is, Bush and his cronies refuse to testify under oath.
In order to force Bush to testify under oath, you have to impeach him.
To do so, (unless Im mistaken) you need a 2/3 majority vote by Congress.
With a Republican majority controlled Congress, its not going to happen.

They arent going to Impeach thier own man.

There are a million quasi-legal things Bush has done that are border-line illegal.
Torturing children at Gitmo, illegally wiretapping civillians, etc...thing is, these are relatively small things, (sadly) and not quite impeachment-worthy things.

Remember it wasnt Clinton getting head from a heffer that landed him in impeachment proceedings, it was lying about the event under oath that was the mistake.
Had he simply said, "Why yes, I shagged her mooing ass on the oval office rug, and its really none of your business."
...he would have been fine.

But, like all men who get busted cheating on thier wives, they attempt to lie thier asses off.
lying under oath was the EXCUSE.

the REASON is that certain republicans hated bill clinton with a passion that was scary. and they still do.

because they had an excuse, an irrational hatred and the majority in both houses, they tried to do what the electorate refused to do, get him out of office.

im sure that certain democrats would love to do the same to george bush but they dont have the political clout to give it a try. i dont think that the public would put up with it either. it was such a mistake with clinton we dont need to make that mistake again.

lying under oath was the EXCUSE.

Sadly, also a rather good one.

Sadly, also a rather good one.

no, its a piss poor excuse. one just good enough to get the job done in an extremely bitter political climate. if the republican hate of clinton hadnt been out of control it never would have been considered anyone's business if he lied about blowjobs or not.