Why should Bush be impeached?

[buffalo]

Because he is not putty in the libs hands.

 

[MikeWM]

Troy7:

I dont know if MikeWM or Thekla believe he should be impeached,

For people who think Clinton should have been impeached, certainly. Bush has done infinitely more damage than Clinton.

But then I thought Clinton’s impeachment was ridiculous.

As for Bush, he needs to explain why, in great detail, his intelligence was wrong. Going to war on the back of incorrect intelligence is an error great enough to require much humble pie and a detailed explanation.

And before someone tediously jumps in with the ‘congressional resolution authorising force against Iraq’, I’d remind anyone of the view of the Attorney-General to Mr Blair before the invasion. If the invasion wasn’t because of a breach of 1441, it was almost certainly illegal under the UN Charter (which is part of US domestic law). Taking the country to war illegally, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, is a rather greater crime than what Clinton did or didn’t do in his personal life in the Oval Office.

but instead of me writing a litany that people will just ignore (just as they have these two posters great wisdoms)

Wow - thanks That’s a nice accolade for my 2,000th post

Mike

 

[jc-servant]

I’m going to risk the wrath of the far right and left and weigh in as a lifelong “moderate” Republican. Gasp! Yes, we do still exist.

I don’t think that Pres. Bush has done anything to justify impeachment, but I also felt the same way about Pres. Clinton. I can acknowledge that Pres. Clinton did not run the country into the ground while also stating that I did not admire his morals or many of his policy decisions.

I can acknowledge that Pres. Bush is neither the best thing since sliced bread nor deserving of impeachment. I believe that Pres. Bush is a genuinely nice man who sincerely holds his Christian beliefs close to his heart. He is a good old boy who can charm pretty much anyone over some beer and BBQ, but the same skill set does not make for a “great” president. I will breath a huge sigh of relief when he is finally out of office. I experienced him as the governor of Texas and I believe that he was only “adequate” at that job. Considering the fact that the GOP has controlled the Congress and the presidency for this many years, I’m afraid that all hot air and partisan posturing aside this president’s legacy will be less than impressive with the perspective of a little time.

 

[rlg94086]

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, while being sued. It is quite a stretch to call that something he did in his personal life.

Bush may have made an error regarding WMDs, but making an error is not an impeachable offense. If there is strong evidence that he fabricated WMD evidence or broke any other laws, then he should be impeached.

The UK Attorney General can argue with all of the other legal experts on both sides of the decision. You can find plenty to support Bush and Blair, as I’m sure you can find plenty to support people who disagree with them.

MikeWM:

For people who think Clinton should have been impeached, certainly. Bush has done infinitely more damage than Clinton.

But then I thought Clinton’s impeachment was ridiculous.

As for Bush, he needs to explain why, in great detail, his intelligence was wrong. Going to war on the back of incorrect intelligence is an error great enough to require much humble pie and a detailed explanation.

And before someone tediously jumps in with the ‘congressional resolution authorising force against Iraq’, I’d remind anyone of the view of the Attorney-General to Mr Blair before the invasion. If the invasion wasn’t because of a breach of 1441, it was almost certainly illegal under the UN Charter (which is part of US domestic law). Taking the country to war illegally, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, is a rather greater crime than what Clinton did or didn’t do in his personal life in the Oval Office.

Wow - thanks That’s a nice accolade for my 2,000th post

Mike

 

[marvin]

Ahimsa:

No need to im-“peach” him. He’s alread im-"pear"ed.

What’s that supposed to mean?

 

[NotWorthy]

marvin:

What’s that supposed to mean?

Don’t you know? Haven’t you listened to the “Talkin’ Heads” on the Left and in the Media? This is the dumbest President we’ve had in the last 230 years (Except for that guy that caught pneumonia in 10 degree weather for walking to his inauguration)!

Notworthy

 

[marvin]

NotWorthy:

Don’t you know? Haven’t you listened to the “Talkin’ Heads” on the Left and in the Media? This is the dumbest President we’ve had in the last 230 years (Except for that guy that caught pneumonia in 10 degree weather for walking to his inauguration)!

Notworthy

Oh I know. It’s just childish and insulting, not only to the Pres. but to people who actually have learning disablilities or are mentally retarded.

 

[jman507]

It will be a great move, master minded by Karl Rove, timed for a Republican win via a backlash.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, while being sued. It is quite a stretch to call that something he did in his personal life.

I have as little desire to go over this as you do Bush v Gore, but I’ll just say : yes, Clinton was wrong to lie. Very wrong. But the case shouldn’t have been brought in the first place while he was still president (another bizarre supreme court decision), and his lie had no impact on the case at hand.

Bush may have made an error regarding WMDs, but making an error is not an impeachable offense. If there is strong evidence that he fabricated WMD evidence or broke any other laws, then he should be impeached.

Making an error that leads to a war is very serious. We should have an explanation of how the error was made, and a whole lot of detail on how such errors won’t be made again. Except it appears they will be made again - the USA has just bombed a sovereign nation based on the ‘intelligence’ that someone was there who wasn’t.

The UK Attorney General can argue with all of the other legal experts on both sides of the decision. You can find plenty to support Bush and Blair, as I’m sure you can find plenty to support people who disagree with them.

I don’t doubt you can find some who support the decision to invade, but my impression is that they are few and far between.

Mike

 

[walstan]

Al Masetti:

Basically, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by student radicals of the Communist stripe, in my humble opinion.

The student radicals are totally unrestrained in their political tactics. They have lost power as a result of their strident speech patterns, which are typical of student radicals.

Student radicals are always ENRAGED about something. Pure unadulterated RAGE. Once upon a time, they could blame air and water pollution for their rage. Or they could blame the draft.

Well, pollution is mostly under control - enormous strides have been made - and the draft went away decades ago. The Vietnam war was lost thanks to them and the Communists took over. But now that Vietnam is behind us, that issue no longer a factor. They won and Communism won and the people of Vietnam lost.

Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro is supported by the left. No interest in elections in Cuba with non-Communist candidates; instead the Cuban prisons are full of political dissenters.

So absent the screen of pollution or the draft, what remains is the undisguised hatred of democracy and capitalism and free market economics and religion.

But they are now naked. Their concealment has been stripped away. And they are seen for what they are. Militant Atheistic Communists.

Also somewhat superannuated.

Ted Kennedy in a thong.

And when people hear them, the people reject them. They try to masquerade as “middle-of-the-roaders”, but increasingly the voters are seeing through their attempts to hide their true nature.

Has it not occured to you that the reason “youth” is full of rage is because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the mess WE have left the world in!

Now there’s a novel thought, It ain’t their fault, it’s ours!!

 

[mlchance]

Gnosis:

Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war?

Have you possibly considered that is was a just war?

Gnosis:

Firstly, the war in Iraq was not a war sanctioned by the world community, mainly, the United Nations.

So? The U.N. doesn’t have any authority to dictate policy.

Gnosis:

I don’t think anyone can deny that there was serious opposition to it.

Again, so?

Gnosis:

Secondly, the war was conducted on false premises, the intelligence that was used was not reliable. The result, we have the U.S subverting international law to remove dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are simply not there.

If the sole purpose behind the U.S. invasion were to remove WMD, you’d almost have a point.

Gnosis:

Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq…

No one operating outside the parameters of Democratic Party talking points ever said Iraq was directly to 9/11.

Gnosis:

the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights.

Humanitarian reasons have been among official U.S. policy objectives for the removal of Hussein from power since 1998.

The rest of your post continues in a similar vein of distortion, nonsense, and utter irrelevancy.

IOW: “George Bush should be impeached because he’s a big poopie head and we don’t like him!”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Al_Masetti]

walstan:

Has it not occured to you that the reason “youth” is full of rage is because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the mess WE have left the world in!

Now there’s a novel thought, It ain’t their fault, it’s ours!!

Not all youth.

Just a handful of student radicals.

And the reason is probably good old fashioned narscisism. THEY want to be the boss; to give the orders. Kind of like unreconstructed two-year-olds. Unrestrained id. If they don’t get their way, they stamp their feet and pout or raise hell. And sometimes, they get their way.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

“its never even been decided by law if what was going on is indeed illegal or not. just opinions all over the place. treason?? some of these darned liberals should be tried for treason in my opinion.”

Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest that the House, at least ,look into these charges. Why can’t our representatives ask a few questions? The last I read, the House asked an independent organization to look into the president breaking the law and the answer was yes. Doesn’t that concern anyone?

 

[bones_IV]

Gnosis:

Your bias is so thorough and unsupported that its very difficult to take you seriously. I somehow doubt that the Vietnam war was lost because of protests and lack of support back on the homefront. Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war? That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology? Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?

Firstly, the war in Iraq was not a war sanctioned by the world community, mainly, the United Nations. I don’t think anyone can deny that there was serious opposition to it. Secondly, the war was conducted on false premises, the intelligence that was used was not reliable. The result, we have the U.S subverting international law to remove dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are simply not there.
1. I think you can at least see that the opinion of this war being illegal is legitimate (in the sense that this opinion is not irrational) even if you disagree.
Look back to when Israel bombed Iraq in the eighties to remove nuclear facilities that it felt posed a national threat. The UN condemned this action as did the US. Consider that America condemned this action when there were actual facilities that could be bombed!!! Forward twenty years later and America justifies an ENTIRE WAR based on vague intelligence with no evidence that, even if there were weapons, they would pose a national threat. How can it condemn Israel, than conduct a war of its own?

Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights. It is literally tearing this nation apart in the name of freedom, in the name of giving them democracy, an ideology. They have successively removed the tyrant Saddam, only to watch it be replaced by the tyranny of anarchy. 2. The United States has invaded a foreign nation in the name of its ideology
3. It is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in the name of this ideology

The definition of terrorism is this: Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The United States is using violence, in an unlawful manner, to place tremendous pressure upon an entire society so as to adopt American democratic values. It is an act of terrorism. In invading the nation is has turned many people, who would otherwise have been civilians, to take up arms to defend their nation against this invasion. As well, countless civilians have died. Furthermore, this is done in the name of freedom and human rights. Just because this does not involve suicide bombers, does not mean it is not terrorism. What if every nation was allowed to invade another country in the name of human rights and spreading democracy? What if we simply invaded every non-democratic nation in the name of our own values? Could nations not be invaded under the guise of bringing freedom, when in fact, they did so for alternative reasons? What if there was no international body that could determine which invasions were legitimate, and which were done for the benefit of the nation invading?

Communism is always evil. Not all communism is bad, in the words of my father to my brother, “Say that again and I’ll smack you”.

 

[donosti]

MrS:

what a picture that makes
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_75.gif TK is a thong!

Oh no,that is going to be on my nightmares…:bigyikes:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Gnosis:

Your bias is so thorough and unsupported that its very difficult to take you seriously.

What evidence do you have to support the notion that Al’s point of view might be biassed? Any? None? What makes your point of view not biassed?

Gnosis:

I somehow doubt that the Vietnam war was lost because of protests and lack of support back on the homefront.

Then your doubt would be unfounded.

Gnosis:

Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war?

What relevance does the justness of the war have on losing it?

Gnosis:

That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology?

Who were the invaders again?

Gnosis:

Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?

No need to demonize communism. It has done quite a respectable job of demonizing itself.

Gnosis:

Firstly, the war in Iraq was not a war sanctioned by the world community, mainly, the United Nations.

The UN does not represent the world community. It is a corrupt, ineffectual club for insider profiteers. Its very name refers to nations. The War on Terror goes beyond nations. Those we are fighting are nationless.

Gnosis:

I don’t think anyone can deny that there was serious opposition to it.

There was opposition to the invasion of Iraq, but since very little rationale has been given for that opposition, it can’t be taken seriously.

Gnosis:

Secondly, the war was conducted on false premises, the intelligence that was used was not reliable.

If you had read the Resolution to go to war, you would have realized that a long list of reasons were given to invade Iraq – not just WMD.

Gnosis:

The result, we have the U.S subverting international law to remove dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are simply not there.

Subverting international law… specifically what does that international law say?

Gnosis:

1. I think you can at least see that the opinion of this war being illegal is legitimate (in the sense that this opinion is not irrational) even if you disagree.

The rationality of most of what I have heard so far in opposition to the War has been imho questionable. If people had bothered to support their opposition with logical argumentation and references to events which actually happened, their opposition might appear to be more plausible. Instead we have seen endless tautologies notable for their rhetoricism and absence of credible links.

Gnosis:

Look back to when Israel bombed Iraq in the eighties to remove nuclear facilities that it felt posed a national threat. The UN condemned this action as did the US. Consider that America condemned this action when there were actual facilities that could be bombed!!! Forward twenty years later and America justifies an ENTIRE WAR based on vague intelligence with no evidence that, even if there were weapons, they would pose a national threat. How can it condemn Israel, than conduct a war of its own?

America’s case for war should be assessed on its own merits, not in comparison to another war.

Gnosis:

Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found

This is simply another example of arbitrarily defining what WMD look like and then dismissing the case for WMD. Enough bits and pieces were found which could readily be assembled on short notice into WMD. If those bits and pieces were innocuous then why did Saddam go to so much trouble to hide them and then move them and then hide them again? That in the biz is called guilty mind.

Gnosis:

nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq

There were enough Iraqi players who dabbled in 9/11, there were enough money trails to Iraq, there were enough Al Queda operatives in Iraq and invitations to same including OBL that the case for the link between 9/11 and Iraq is obvious.

Gnosis:

the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights.

You mean folks who were gassed, fed into wood shredders, raped, had their skin peeled off, and so on?

Gnosis:

It is literally tearing this nation apart in the name of freedom, in the name of giving them democracy, an ideology.

Hyperbole.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Gnosis:

They have successively removed the tyrant Saddam, only to watch it be replaced by the tyranny of anarchy.

Misrepresentation of a fluid situation.

Gnosis:

1. The United States has invaded a foreign nation in the name of its ideology

I would say that it was a just war.

Gnosis:

1. It is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in the name of this ideology

Totally wrong. America has not been willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians. The terrorists, on the other hand, have deliberately targetted innocent civilians. As for ideology: are you suggesting that Islam-or-death is a just ideology?

Gnosis:

The United States is using violence, in an unlawful manner

There is nothing unlawful about a just war.

Gnosis:

to place tremendous pressure upon an entire society so as to adopt American democratic values.

Who – besides you – has said that the democratic values which Iraq is embracing are American?

Gnosis:

It is an act of terrorism.

Wrong. Ploughing airplanes into the sides of buildings is terrorism. Gassing the Kurds is terrorism. The suicide bombing of civilian populations is terrorism. Kidnapping folks and carving through their necks with blunt knives is terrorism.

Gnosis:

In invading the nation is has turned many people, who would otherwise have been civilians, to take up arms to defend their nation against this invasion.

Non sequitur. The instigators have been non-Iraqis. More and more Iraqis are embracing the ideal of a productive society which can only come about by means of democracy.

Gnosis:

As well, countless civilians have died.

Courtesy of suicide bombers.

Gnosis:

Furthermore, this is done in the name of freedom and human rights.

Wrong. It is done in the name of Jihad.

Gnosis:

Just because this does not involve suicide bombers, does not mean it is not terrorism.

It does involve suicide bombers and therefore what we are fighting is terrorism.

Gnosis:

What if every nation was allowed to invade another country in the name of human rights and spreading democracy?

Every country like France and Russia? Truth of the matter is that every country did have the opportunity to defend human rights. Only a very few responded to that challenge in an honourable way.

Gnosis:

What if we simply invaded every non-democratic nation in the name of our own values?

What if? What is your point?

Gnosis:

Could nations not be invaded under the guise of bringing freedom, when in fact, they did so for alternative reasons?

The point is not could they, but were they. The reasons were given in the Resolution to go to war which you have sidestepped.

Gnosis:

What if there was no international body that could determine which invasions were legitimate, and which were done for the benefit of the nation invading?

Then we would have to do the best we can without such a body, which is exactly what we are doing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st.jerome:

Waging war, an intrinsically violent act, has a way of traumatizing large numbers of people. Some might even think that they are being violently repressed.

No doubt the war has traumatized large numbers of people. But that observation is not a comment on the justness of the war.

As for the Iraqis being violently repressed: yes, indeed they were. By Saddam Hussein. Now they are free.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Ani:

Nice set of posts.

During the past weeks, I’ve posted a series of posts on the Iraq issue with multiple dozens of links demonstrating:

1. Saddam’s connections to International terrorism and to al Queda. This included training camps run by Saddma’s secret police. This gave him a network to attack other countries (including the USA) using terrorist Proxies.
2. Saddam’s involvement in the 1st WTC attack in 1993 which was demonstrated in a court of law and his involvement with at least one of the hijackers involved in the attacks on 9/11.
3. Saddam’s purchase and production of WMD and their relocation to three locations in SYRIA. Saddam’s use of Chemical Weapons and other WMDs against the Iranians during the Iran-Iran War and against his own citizens during the late 1980’s.
4. Saddam’s mass torture and slaughter of his own citizens - a total of 800,000 during his reign of terror and some 500,000 from 1990-2002.

And, still, some of the partisans defend Saddam and oppose the war that removed him! What they should be asking instead is why we waited so long to do what so obviously needed to be done.

I’m sure there are moral reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. I just haven’t heard it from the Bush-haters.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

walstan:

Has it not occured to you that the reason “youth” is full of rage is because they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the mess WE have left the world in!

Now there’s a novel thought, It ain’t their fault, it’s ours!!

I am 21. I support the president’s policy in Iraq precisely because had we left Saddam in there, I wouldn’t want to be picking up those pieces!