ABC news poll: should bush be impeached?

mammasan

enharmonic wrote:

How can congress support a war without a declaration of war? Is the declaration an antiquated process?

They didn't declare war they basically handed the authority over to the President,which was just plain ass irresponsible of them and in my opinion a failure of carrying out their responsibilities.

tor

cornnifer wrote:

Cheney would never win so... yeah. I still want it.

ditto. if any republican wins, let alone cheney, after the mess they've made in the past however many years, im moving out of this country. pearl jam tours the world, ill be all right.

gimmesometruth27

#17,662 in favor here.

prljam85

there is no reason to impeach president Bush since he has done nothing wrong and has followed the same intellengence info that president Clinton received and stated. Clinton refered to saddam and the threat of Saddam and his WMD's back in the late 90's right around the time he was being impeached so to impeach Bush for following the same intelengence as Clinton is stupid considering Clinton was the one who lied under oath in front of congress and America and engaged in unsavory activities in a federal office.

gimmesometruth27

and bush has never lied about anything.

i am sorry, but lying about a blow job and lying about iraq are two entirely different things. bush's lies have cost us $300 billion in iraq and 2700 american soldiers and countless iraqi civilians have been killed. that invasion alone is an impeachable offence at very least. at worst it is worthy of a war crimes trial at the hague. his numerous attacks on civil liberties, habeas corpus, and his negligent katrina response are worthy of impeachment proceedings.

in fact with bush's string of bullshit he has been spewing the last few years, it is impossible for me to believe him about anything. he should have been gone a long time ago.

prljam85

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

and bush has never lied about anything.

i am sorry, but lying about a blow job and lying about iraq are two entirely different things. bush's lies have cost us $300 billion in iraq and 2700 american soldiers and countless iraqi civilians have been killed. that invasion alone is an impeachable offence at very least. at worst it is worthy of a war crimes trial at the hague. his numerous attacks on civil liberties, habeas corpus, and his negligent katrina response are worthy of impeachment proceedings.

in fact with bush's string of bullshit he has been spewing the last few years, it is impossible for me to believe him about anything. he should have been gone a long time ago.

you forget that Bush back in '03 when this war started recieved the same intelengence that Clinton received.Bush knew as much about Saddam's WMDs as Clinton and made the same conclusion. You must not remember Clinton bombing Iraq on the night of his impeachment. Clintons reasons for bombing Iraq were the same Bush spoke of at the UN and congress in '03. Katrina was the falt of FEMA and those individuals in New Orleans who decided to stay before Katrina hit. They had the option of leaving which many of the N.O. citizens did. These people were told to leave by their state and local gov't's but many of them refused, so thats their fault for not listening to their elected leaders advice not Bush's.

gimmesometruth27

prljam85 wrote:

you forget that Bush back in '03 when this war started recieved the same intelengence that Clinton received.Bush knew as much about Saddam's WMDs as Clinton and made the same conclusion. You must not remember Clinton bombing Iraq on the night of his impeachment. Clintons reasons for bombing Iraq were the same Bush spoke of at the UN and congress in '03. Katrina was the falt of FEMA and those individuals in New Orleans who decided to stay before Katrina hit. They had the option of leaving which many of the N.O. citizens did. These people were told to leave by their state and local gov't's but many of them refused, so thats their fault for not listening to their elected leaders advice not Bush's.

for the sake of preventing a pissing match, let me just say that you are not going to change my opinion on whether or not bush should be impeached and i am not going to change yours. the guy has made mistake after mistake and has exaggerated the threat posed by saddam to justify his invasion of iraq. now we are stuck there trying to deliver gift wrapped democracy to people that do not seem to want it. it was all one big lie and we are going to be paying for it in terms of money and american blood both in the middle east and god forbid maybe on our own turf as a result of our occupation. we have made ourselves a target and we will be one for a considerable number of years with all of the terrorists we have created as a result of bush's foreign policies.
as far as katrina goes, don't give me that shit about people refusing to leave. most of them were poor that had no access to tv so they did not know what was coming. most of them had no car or transportation to get out of there. those that had the means got out. bush appointed "brownie" who was inexperienced and vastly underqualified to handle his postion as head of fema. so knowing that his appointee was underqualified, bush failed the people in louisiana as well and bt doing so he should lose his job. i could go on but i won't. i am sick of talking to people that constantly defend this "leader".

igotid88

know1 wrote:

My thoughts are that lying under oath is a really bad thing for anyone, but especially a President, to do. I don't care what the lie was, but the fact that he did lie was an impeachable offense, in my opinion.

(and Bush lying about going to war is a completely different thing. It was not under oath and the Congress all supported going to war)

Everyone seems to forget Clinton was acquitted. The repbulicans just went on and impeached anyway.And it's not just about Bush lying about the war. It's about what they did to lead us into war. What they knew. The money that went missing. The money they took from the Afghanistan war without asking congress and put towards the Iraq war. Also people think the that went people voted for the war in Iraq that they had the same intelligence Bush had and they didn't. Then there's the illegal wiretapping. There's so many bad things Bush and this adminstration has done we'll be here forever. But we need hearings on these things. We need subpoena power. We won't know the full story if we don't get to ask questions and actually make them answer. We need oversight. And they also won't stop with Bush. They'll go after Cheney also. Either way vote if you want justice.

igotid88

prljam85 wrote:

there is no reason to impeach president Bush since he has done nothing wrong and has followed the same intellengence info that president Clinton received and stated. Clinton refered to saddam and the threat of Saddam and his WMD's back in the late 90's right around the time he was being impeached so to impeach Bush for following the same intelengence as Clinton is stupid considering Clinton was the one who lied under oath in front of congress and America and engaged in unsavory activities in a federal office.

And Clinton got rid of most if not all of those when he was president. And I would think intelligence would change after a few years. And the CIA were pressured into finding something that would link Iraq with 9-11. And there was nothing. So they made stuff up. And the White House was Clinton's home at the time. And the only one's who had a problem with what he did were the republicans(hypocrites) and the conservative media.

reeferchief

Can someone explain how 47% of democrats think Bush should be impeached, yet only 28% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. Where are these other 19% of democrats coming from?

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

Can someone explain how 47% of democrats think Bush should be impeached, yet only 28% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. Where are these other 19% of democrats coming from?

of the total people polled 28% think he should be impeached. and within that of ALL the people polled who were democrats only 47% of them believe in inpeachment.

Abuskedti

metsfan531941 wrote:

and the fact that congress "reluctantly" support the war and presdient bush make a difference to u.both things are wrong and both will go down as a dark time period in this once great nation.one will just have a lasting effect

the fact that congress supported the president against their better judgement in a time of crisis and war is not a problem for me..

However, the fact they has sat as they are dragged around for 5 years of this does.

aNiMaL

prljam85 wrote:

you forget that Bush back in '03 when this war started recieved the same intelengence that Clinton received.Bush knew as much about Saddam's WMDs as Clinton and made the same conclusion. You must not remember Clinton bombing Iraq on the night of his impeachment. Clintons reasons for bombing Iraq were the same Bush spoke of at the UN and congress in '03. Katrina was the falt of FEMA and those individuals in New Orleans who decided to stay before Katrina hit. They had the option of leaving which many of the N.O. citizens did. These people were told to leave by their state and local gov't's but many of them refused, so thats their fault for not listening to their elected leaders advice not Bush's.

Dude, if you can defend the Federal Governments response to hurricane Katrina, then there is something SEVERELY wrong with you. And this clearly shows what kind of person you are.

Eliot Rosewater

Abuskedti wrote:

He has repeatedly been dishonest with the American People. This however, is the American way. Impeaching him would imply that we demand better - and obviously we do not.

Great post.

Eliot Rosewater

prljam85 wrote:

there is no reason to impeach president Bush since he has done nothing wrong and has followed the same intellengence info that president Clinton received and stated. Clinton refered to saddam and the threat of Saddam and his WMD's back in the late 90's right around the time he was being impeached so to impeach Bush for following the same intelengence as Clinton is stupid considering Clinton was the one who lied under oath in front of congress and America and engaged in unsavory activities in a federal office.

Bush didn't follow anyone's "intelligence." He manufactured it. It's already been proven that his administration forged documents to make it look like Iraq was buying nuclear weapon supplies from Africa. And as for him not lying under oath - bullshit. Isn't he under oath when he's sworn in as President? He's sworn in and agrees to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Not wipe his ass with it like he's done.

qwerty1

Can someone explain to me how a blow job is more scandalous than the Iraq war?

Hope&Anger

qwerty wrote:

Can someone explain to me how a blow job is more scandalous than the Iraq war?

Oh no, it's not the blow job. It's the fact that he lied about the blow job under oath during an eight-year independent counsel investigation (that cost the American taxpayers over $40 million) into a land deal years and years before in which he lost money.

So no, it wasn't the blow job. :rolleyes:

bootlegger10

don't gimme no wrote:

Bush didn't follow anyone's "intelligence." He manufactured it. It's already been proven that his administration forged documents to make it look like Iraq was buying nuclear weapon supplies from Africa. And as for him not lying under oath - bullshit. Isn't he under oath when he's sworn in as President? He's sworn in and agrees to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Not wipe his ass with it like he's done.

Weren't the documents forged in Great Britain? I don't know. Keep whining all.

Jackhammer

Hope&Anger wrote:

Oh no, it's not the blow job. It's the fact that he lied about the blow job under oath during an eight-year independent counsel investigation (that cost the American taxpayers over $40 million) into a land deal years and years before in which he lost money.

So no, it wasn't the blow job. :rolleyes:

hahaha hihi hahahaha hehehehe

Damn it, What's about the lies Junior said?

I mean, EVEN if Clinton lied to a commision blah blah blah, all it was about was first that blow job. A few days later only, it was more important if he lied or not, probably cause republicans realized they wouln't be able to do anything with that blow job thing.

stuckinline

when clinton lied, nobody died!