Will Bush be impeached??

[germanos]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, I'm in a bit of trouble here since that program ran on DR2 wich isn't exactly youtube material.

I was more asking for evidence of Blix's findings being politically motivated against a 'repugincal' Prez.
(I guess that's a republican prez?)

quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat

the fact that he was convinced that Bushy had to be wrong since he was a repugincal prez.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by germanos
Bush can at best plea willfull ignorance.

The question of the existance of WMDs in Iraq wrt the question of justifying the invasion. It wouldn't even if they had been there. The real question I'd like an answer to from Congress is why they voted to authorize a war that had no compelling strategic objective. Somehow I don't think we'll get those hearings though.

[Berzerker]

Can someone list out the lies, because I still don't see them clearly.

There are too many to list, just think of all those times we were told Saddam had WMD and wanted to attack us here. Or that those aluminum tubes are used for enriching plutonium, or Saddam has drones he wants to use to spray WMD over the USA. Atta met with Iraqi intel in Prague, Zarqawi was training in Iraq (a half truth, he was training with Kurds in northern Iraq under our air protection). Saddam has reconstituted WMD. "Everyone" thought Saddam had WMD. From mobile bio-weapons labs to buying yellowcake in Niger, everything we were told was designed to lead us to believe Saddam was going to attack us with nukes. Is that a ****ing coincidence? There are so many God damned lies I no longer laugh my ass off when someone says they think Bush was honest, its just really sad now...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The real question I'd like an answer to from Congress is why they voted to authorize a war that had no compelling strategic objective. Somehow I don't think we'll get those hearings though.

Let's hold them.

[Ned]

Nixon was a good president and did not deserve to be the target of impeachment. But he was hated by the left and by the media and they did everything in their power to bring him down.

When Clinton got into office and the Republicans finally took control of Congress, it was time for payback. Even though they successfully impeached Clinton, what he was guilty of was not worthy of the charge. His "crimes" were adequately dealth with by suspending his license to practice law (hah, he needed that like a hole in the head) and by paying a fine to the court.

Now the left is on the warpath against another hated Republican president and it is the Dems who are now looking for payback. These are the real motivations for all the impeachment talk.

Both parties were wrong in the past. As soon as we can accept that, we should move on and junk all this talk of impeachment. But, if neither party has yet learned its lesson and the left (for example) still thinks that going after Nixon was right and that going after Clinton was wrong, then I say let's continue this war until one side wins.

You get Bush.

We get Clinton (Mrs.) when she is elected.

And so on and so on until we stop.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
Nixon was a good president and did not deserve to be the target of impeachment.

Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Darius871




Ned

Darius, Don't you find it amazing that one of the central operators in the coverup, John Dean, is a HERO to the left?

[Zkribbler]

Not one of the central operatives. He was the one that went to Nixon to tell him of the "cancer on the Presidency," i.e. the illegal acts being used to cover up the break in.

It was then that Nixon et al began plotting to hang Watergate on Dean.


Dean was an honest man, who stood up for honest government. As such, he was Kryptonite to the Nixon Administration. That's why the left loves him.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
Darius, Don't you find it amazing that one of the central operators in the coverup, John Dean, is a HERO to the left?

Why should I care who the left idolizes? He has nothing to do with finding it reprehensible for any President to order and/or conceal criminal activity. That is not a partisan sentiment.

[Ned]

Darius, by that standard, you would have impeached Clinton, who comitted perjury, which is a crime.

Do you have a double standard?

[Darius871]

Good, your partisan lenses are even more obvious if you assume I'll gladly fellate Slick Willy.

To answer your question, I'd wager that at least 60% of past Presidents have deserved impeachment at some point. Their parties are merely incidental.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Darius871
Good, your partisan lenses are even more obvious if you assume I'll gladly fellate Slick Willy.

To answer your question, I'd wager that at least 60% of past Presidents have deserved impeachment at some point. Their parties are merely incidental.

I think you are right about this. But is this an argument for or against impeachment in general? Once a rare tool, it has become virtually mandatory today. The impeachment process is not so much designed to actually remove a president as it is designed to hamstring his administration and smear the opposition party. It's pure politics, but politics at its worst.

If the Dems pass on Bush now, I would oppose any attempt to get the next Dem president. But if they make the effort now, then I say that we have to pay them back once more until they get the message.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Darius, by that standard, you would have impeached Clinton, who comitted perjury, which is a crime.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. He did not commit perjury.

Perjury is the knowing mistatement of a material fact.

In deposition, while under oath, Clinton was asked for the names of women with whom he had had sex.

The judge had given him a list of activities that constituted "sex." Not included on this list was oral sex.

Clinton did not respond with Lewinski's name.

(a) This was not a false statement...using the definition given to him by the judge
(b) nor was it a material fact. The claim in the Flowers' case was that Clinton deprived Flowers of her "property rights" (e.g. job) when he sexually harassed her. The question of whether Clinton had had concentual sex with other women had no relevance to the Flowers' case.

The judge later imposed monetary sanctions on Clinton for giving an "evasive" answer, presumably meaning he should have volunteered an answer to a question he was never asked.

[Ned]

Z, you are being too artful by a long shot. He was accused of perjury and was actually impeached for it. Clearly the special prosecutor and the House thought there was a crime comitted.

Contrast Nixon who was accused of obstruction of justice, but was not convicted of it just like Clinton was not convicted of perjury. Still, Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned because the Dems believed he was guilty and they had majorities in both Houses.

But what shows the blatant political hypocrisy of the left is their gloating over Dean who was heavily involved in the coverup. He suffers no permanent calumny from the crimes he comitted while Nixon does. Dean is the Dems' hero because he helped bring Nixon down. Nixon is the villain because he was hated by the Dems and the press even though he was a very successful president until ensared in the clutches of the apoplectic Democrat-control Congress.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nixon is also the villain because he was "a crook". He just resigned before they could impeach him and then convict him... and was pardoned or else he'd spend some time in federal jail.