WP - Impeachment Whispers Grow

[Johnny Punani2]

Sure I do and I posted them.

Do you have any original thought's or is calling out someone for using a cliche the extent of what you have to offer to this discussion?

Can you give a valid answer on your own without twisting what I asked you around and asking me the samething? I seriously doubt it Mr. Cliche...

[mjah]

I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to see the following impeached:

Byrd (D-WV)

Clinton (D-NY)

Hatch (R-UT)

Helms (R-NC)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Specter (R-PA)

Not based on their war votes, but rather on general principle.

Might have missed a few on that list, of course...

[chomerics]

All these folks voted to go to war. All based on the same intel Bush had.

That is not true, and you KNOW they did not have the same intel. Do you actually think they have the same clearances as Bush? Do you actually think Bush let negating arguments get put into documents that were released? Hell the entire Army dissention on the nuclear connection was a one line quip in the 2002 NIE, and placed in the back of the estimate and there were over 40 "facts" based on conjecture, coerced testimony, and known liars at the time placed in it. For example, they had satellites of chemical trucks outside of a chemical plant. They said well, if this is an every day operation, and say these are happening all the time, then the plant has the capibility to produce 500,000 tons of VX nerve gas. It was then put in the SOTU address as fact, and in the NIE as fact that Saddam Hussen has 500,000 tons of VX nerve gas. :doh:

It was a con job from top to bottom, and those that don't see it are either blinded by ideology, or can't come to the conclusion that this is what our leaders would do. . . unfortunately I am right on this one, as horrible as it is, the American public was used and abused. I am just glad I was one of the people against Iraq from day one because I saw through their veil of BS.

:2cents:

[chomerics]

All these folks voted to go to war. All based on the same intel Bush had.

Do we impeach them as well? Senators ARE impeachable you know.

Chafee (R-RI), Nay

Lincoln Chafee should get a medal for voting what he knew was right, and broke party line because he knew it was bogus. If we had more people like him in government, we'd be sooooo much better off.

[Chief skin]

First things first, the DEMS need to shut up about this and focus all their efforts wiining back the majority in November. If they win then impeach the lyimg texas $hit, if they don't then it is all just talk. 240 days before the election and this kind of talk could backfire and cost them the election. The Dems need to pound the idea home to the voters and leep pounding the fact that the GOP controlled House and Senate has just rubber stamped, no questions asked every hair brained scheme screwup Bush has proposed. The key is to link them all to the bungling that has been going for the lost 6 years.

[twa]

Chief, I think the Dems are incapable of shutting up.

One of the many reasons they keep losing

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Nah......Howard is too fixated on grossing people out for my tastes...but I see that it appeals to you....figures.

Well, maybe you should take a camping trip on Brokeback Mountain. As for me, I'm very interested in the hot women he routinely has on his show AND laughing at people very much like you. :laugh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Funny how people defend Bush's deception by posting deceptive quotes from other people. For one, other people being deceptive as well does not mean it is ok for Bush to be. And secondly, last time I checked, Kerry and Gore aren't the President of the United states, and don't speak at the State of the Union address.

The majority has woken up to Bush and his cronies. I know it was a fun ride full of horsesh!t while it lasted, but time is up and Bush's rhetoric cannot stand up to the facts.

Impeachment sounded funny a month ago, but the support is growing and will continue to grow until Bush and Rove come up with some new way to terrify the public.

I can't wait until California floats away into the Pacific Ocean. Freaks.

[Sarge]

That is not true, and you KNOW they did not have the same intel. Do you actually think they have the same clearances as Bush?

They are all cleared Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) or

Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). And even if they weren't, with the bunch that's in there now they could have always just picked up the New York Times

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Yea Sarge, and they were wrong too, but they did not make the decision for war, Bush did.

.

Typical response from a Democrat. Who the F authrorized the war? It wasn't just the Republicans - everyone bought into the intel at that time, and much of it may very well end up being valid.

[Sarge]

First things first, the DEMS need to shut up about this and focus all their efforts wiining back the majority in November. If they win then impeach the lyimg texas $hit, if they don't then it is all just talk. 240 days before the election and this kind of talk could backfire and cost them the election. The Dems need to pound the idea home to the voters and leep pounding the fact that the GOP controlled House and Senate has just rubber stamped, no questions asked every hair brained scheme screwup Bush has proposed. The key is to link them all to the bungling that has been going for the lost 6 years.

Problem is the Dems just want to keep talking, which is fine by me

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

'Course, so is wiretapping an american citizen without a warrant.

(I'll also point out: What has actually "been proven" (meaning: has been ruled on in a court of law) is that what Clinton did wasn't illegal.)

And then I'll point out: IMO, the Republicans were correct when they decided that just because what Clinton did wasn't illegal, the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually say that the President can only be impeached if he did something illegal. But I'd bet that, if you'd asked the framers to invent a future scenario in which a President would be impeached for something that wasn't specifically covered by any statute, they'd be more likely to impeach for "making american citizens disapear with neither probable cause nor due process" than "telling a political investigation, under oath, something that technically isn't a lie under the letter of the law, but it sure looks like one, anyway".

Ah yes, the King of the Red Herring has made his entrance. Wonderful.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

They are all cleared Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) or

Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). And even if they weren't, with the bunch that's in there now they could have always just picked up the New York Times

:laugh: Sarge, this guy is clueless. I suspect that you understand these things pretty well. I do.

[sknsrbck26]

The Washington Post is about the most biased newspaper besides NY Times.

Fai and Balance my *****.

[Patrick Evidente]

The Washington Post is about the most biased newspaper besides NY Times.

Fai and Balance my *****.

The same can be said about Faux News.

[Larry]

Ah yes, the King of the Red Herring has made his entrance. Wonderful.

OK, let's look at a chronology.

• Thread about rumors of a Bush impeachment
  
• OSF posts a "Blame Clinton" post which claims that:
  
  1. Bill Clinton committed a crime.
     
  2. His guilt has been proven.
     
  3. It's impossible to prove that Bush lied.
     
  4. Absent proof of lieing, Bush can't be impeached.
     

  (and a personal insult).

  First, you need to prove that Bush has lied about Iraq II. You can't, so don't bother responding with the typical drivel. Secondly, LYING UNDER OATH is a crime AND that has been proven. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

  [*]I point out that OSF's points a, b, and d are, in fact, all false. And that "lieing to start a war" isn't the only possible "crime" that he could be impeached for.

  'Course, so is wiretapping an american citizen without a warrant.

  (I'll also point out: What has actually "been proven" (meaning: has been ruled on in a court of law) is that what Clinton did wasn't illegal.)

  And then I'll point out: IMO, the Republicans were correct when they decided that just because what Clinton did wasn't illegal, the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually say that the President can only be impeached if he did something illegal. But I'd bet that, if you'd asked the framers to invent a future scenario in which a President would be impeached for something that wasn't specifically covered by any statute, they'd be more likely to impeach for "making american citizens disapear with neither probable cause nor due process" than "telling a political investigation, under oath, something that technically isn't a lie under the letter of the law, but it sure looks like one, anyway".

  [*]OSF (above) accuses me of attempting to divert the thread. (And throws in some personal insults.)

That seems to sum up this sub-thread. Have I missed anything?

[NoCalMike]

I can't wait until California floats away into the Pacific Ocean. Freaks.

You do know America would crumble without California and it's 4th largest economy in the entire world....right?

It just amazes me that people have this fake notion about California, I don't know where it comes from, or how it even started. I guess right-wing radio does have that much power over people's minds.

I am just glad to live in a state that usually seems to be politically ahead of the rest of the country by about 25 years, and anytime you go outside of this state, it feels like things have been wound back.

[mjah]

You do know America would crumble without California and it's 4th largest economy in the entire world....right?

Suffer mightily, yes. Collapse to the ground in a heap of Constitutional ash... no. As with any other state, California benefits more from its membership in the United States than the United States benefits from its membership.

With that said, I would hope nothing happens to California. Nice place to visit, and I could definitely live there -- even if I woke up every morning to find the ocean on the wrong side of the land.

I am just glad to live in a state that usually seems to be politically ahead of the rest of the country by about 25 years, and anytime you go outside of this state, it feels like things have been wound back.

Were you purposefully teeing that one up for equally asinine responses?

Let's remember that there are millions of people from other countries who have come to California and wondered why all the supposedly "progressive" bumpkins make such a big deal over issues like race, abortion, sex, nudity, marijuana, alcohol, etc. Oh, and why they felt that they had to give the world Ronald Reagan.

To some international visitors, whether right or wrong, folks in the US seem like prudish hicks no matter what state we're from. I know this discussion is a national one, not international, but let's keep this in some sort of perspective. Even California is backwards by many folks' standards.

As for California vs. the rest of the US, it depends on where you go, and of course the notion of "ahead" is a personal one. Much of California's recently prevailing legislative and judicial ethic certainly strikes some folks as a step in the wrong direction, which from their point of view would put the state in Iowa's rear-view mirror.

It is a benefit for our republic to have a government that isn't overreactionary, so personally I'm rarely bothered when obvious improvements take a little while to get through the system in much of the country. As with everything, there is a balance, with some states being too hasty in enacting legislation without due consideration for its effects. Other states are too slow. Massachusetts and Texas come to mind, respectively. In the balance, being quick to enact what seems correct today can be a real liability. As progressive legislation is essentially a social experiment with the potential for real improvment and real harm, I'd actually prefer to see smaller but progressive states like Maryland and Massachusetts serve as the guinea pigs. Let them do the experiments on smaller sample sizes, lest we do real damage to the well-being of the 4th largest blah blah blah economy.

On a different note, I wonder how well our electoral politics work when large, hotly contested "winner-take-all" states of sizes never seen by the Founding Fathers can turn completely for one candidate or another at the bang of a judge's gavel. But that's a different topic for a different thread...