Should Bush be Impeached??

inmytree

perhaps...depending on results and outcomes of any investigations that may or may not take place...

if that makes any sense....

FredFlintstone

No - the constitution is overrated.

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

Talkin' of redneck money-Nazis, I learn't a new term today: Goat-Roper.

'The term "goat roper" is sometimes used as a term of derision for unsophisticated rural people in the Southwestern United States, Arkansas Mississippi and Louisiana. It alludes to the belief that a person who raises or "ropes" goats is inferior to a cowboy or cattle rancher. This term may have roots in the range wars between ranchers and sheep or goat ranchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

Outstanding!

i just want it to be known that rednecks have fuck all to do with scottish people... Wikipedia has been tainted by some english scotophobe... now if y'all excuse me i'm off to shag my sister!!!!

"McBrandeen were are ya... i dones need to get ma oats a spillin... now git here!!!"

Byrnzie

dunkman1974 wrote:

i just want it to be known that rednecks have fuck all to do with scottish people... Wikipedia has been tainted by some english scotophobe... now if y'all excuse me i'm off to shag my sister!!!!

"McBrandeen were are ya... i dones need to get ma oats a spillin... now git here!!!"

Damn! He found me! :eek:

jeffer96

Byrnzie wrote:

1. Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Yeah, so is Papua New Guinea, and tierra del fuego.
The intelligence was doctored and manipulated. This has already been proven, although two non-independent inquirys in the U.K - the Hutton report and the Butler inquiry were both complete white-washes.

2. Says who?

1. If the intelligence was doctored and manipulated, then it was done so during the Clinton era. It's been 15 years since Gulf War I. From the end of that war right up until the invasion of Iraq, we were led to believe that Iraq had the capabilities to, and may already have been in possion of nuclear weapons. I guess if you want to start impeachment processes You had just as well include the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

2. Here's the definition of collateral damage for you:

Inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations. Notice the keyword here? Inadvertant. You will never, ever find a court of law that will hold the President of the United States of America responsible for inadvertently killing civilians in the course of military action. If you do, then each and every Congressman and woman that voted to give authorization for the use of military force is also accountable.

chromiam

Quick answers:

No

No

Scratchin a Letter

jeffer96 wrote:

1. If the intelligence was doctored and manipulated, then it was done so during the Clinton era. It's been 15 years since Gulf War I. From the end of that war right up until the invasion of Iraq, we were led to believe that Iraq had the capabilities to, and may already have been in possion of nuclear weapons. I guess if you want to start impeachment processes You had just as well include the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

2. Here's the definition of collateral damage for you:

Inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations. Notice the keyword here? Inadvertant. You will never, ever find a court of law that will hold the President of the United States of America responsible for inadvertently killing civilians in the course of military action. If you do, then each and every Congressman and woman that voted to give authorization for the use of military force is also accountable.

interesting how you assume anybody who is against bush must be a democrat...

Byrnzie

jeffer96 wrote:

You will never, ever find a court of law that will hold the President of the United States of America responsible for inadvertently killing civilians in the course of military action. If you do, then each and every Congressman and woman that voted to give authorization for the use of military force is also accountable.

So then Hitler was innocent?

farfromglorified

The Republicans really have no one to blame but themselves for setting the now very low standards for impeachment. But, no, George Bush should not be impeached because nothing good would come of it except for furthering a precedent of impeachment for any sign of ineptitude.

Impeachment is about punishment for the mistakes of the past. Perhaps we'd all be better served if we actually did something to avoid the mistakes of the future?

mammasan

If the Democrats are seriously considering impeachment for Bush they should hold off on it. First they need towork with him on some of the issues we have here at home; immigration, tax reform, and uncontrolled spending in Congress. Second they need to work on a strategy for Iraq. I don't think it would be good for the country to have our troops dying over in Iraq and the Dems focusing on impeachment when they should be focusing on a plan to get them home. If those can be accomplished by all means go forward with impeachment.

jeffer96

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

interesting how you assume anybody who is against bush must be a democrat...

Um...where exactly did I state that those against Bush had to be democrats? The question was whether or not Bush could be impeached for Iraq. The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs. Look, I'm a Republican, but I'm not the biggest Bush supporter by any means. All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade. It wasn't just a Bush II thing. I'm sure a good portion of this board hates the President, but the fact he is hated is not enough to impeach him.

jeffer96

Byrnzie wrote:

So then Hitler was innocent?

Hitler ordered the murder of millions of civilian jews. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq based on intelligence reports of Iraq possessing the capability to produce WMDs. Not really sure where you want to pull comparisons from, but to each their own.

Byrnzie

On a similar note:

9 November 2006 15:23

US was warned of Iraq chaos, says ex-diplomat
By Andy McSmith

A former diplomat has revealed that the British mission to the United Nations opposed the policy of regime change in Iraq but was ordered by London to change its position in the lead-up to war.

The disclosure was made to MPs yesterday by Carne Ross, a member of the mission who resigned in protest at the Iraq war. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the US government was repeatedly warned by British diplomats that Iraq would fall apart if Saddam Hussein was toppled. But from mid-2002 instructions were received to change that view to fall in with the Bush administration.

Speaking in public for the first time since he left the diplomatic service two years ago, Mr Ross also confirmed suspicions that the Prime Minister made up his mind months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003 that the war was going to happen and British troops would take part. Mr Ross said when he was serving in the embassy in Afghanistan, as early as April 2002, British officials there knew troops were being held back in readiness for the Iraq invasion.

He claimed that when official documents from the Foreign Office are made public, they will prove that the view of British officials, repeatedly conveyed to the Americans, was that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cause chaos.

He told MPs: "I took part in the bilateral discussion between the State Department and the Foreign Office for four years. One of the items repeatedly on the agenda was regime change. Whenever that item came up, the leader of our delegation would say, with emphasis: 'We do not believe regime change is a good idea in Iraq. The reason we do not believe that is because we believe Iraq will break up and there will be chaos if you do that'. That view will have been recorded in the telegrams that have remained secret, and will do for years. That was emphatically the unified view of the Foreign Office.

"That view changed in mid-2002. There was no basis for changing the view from what was going on inside Iraq. What changed was our view of what the future policy would be."

Mr Ross was in charge of imposing sanctions on Iraq when he handled Middle East policy at the British mission in the UN from 1998 to 2002. He was a friend and colleague of David Kelly, the government scientist who killed himself after being named as the source of leaks about the Iraq dossier. His evidence to Lord Butler of Brockwell's inquiry into the Iraq war has been kept secret. Mr Ross told MPs that his union's lawyer had warned him that he could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if it was published. But he said it had "been on his conscience" for two years that his evidence had been withheld from the public and he was prepared to hand it over to the committee. He also gave a description of how foreign policy is set by groups of four of five officials, looking over their shoulders at all times to work out what the Prime Minister wants. Because the impact of foreign policy is felt far away, there was a "pact of irresponsibility" that allowed officials to get on with it without political supervision.

During the years when he was imposing sanctions on Iraq, he never felt that he was under scrutiny by Parliament or the public. He added: "There wasn't a component of moral accountability, for instance. I felt, looking back, that what I did on sanctions for Iraq was fundamentally wrong. Sanctions were ill-engineered, misdirected, targeted at the wrong group of people and caused, as a result, immense suffering in Iraq, and did not achieve the ends that they were designed to do."

Byrnzie

jeffer96 wrote:

The quotes I posted, which do in fact happen to be from Democrats, all point at Iraq possessing the capabilites to make WMDs... All I'm saying is that intelligence pointed at Iraq having or being able to have WMDs for over a decade.

You confused the claims of 'Politicians' with 'intelligence'. Are they the same thing?

jeffer96

Byrnzie wrote:

You confused the claims of 'Politicians' with 'intelligence'. Are they the same thing?

You make a good point!

I wish I knew when the political parties in this country fell apart. I suppose it is something that has been gradually happening since long before I was born, but it used to be that Republicans stood for less government, thus why I am a Republican. If we could find someway to get by with a government that would provide the basics: protection, education, etc., and then have a flat tax or user tax for everything else, well, that would be the ideal government for me. As is, both parties of our government are currently crap.

All this political discussion makes me want a beer. Is 9:52 AM too early to crack one open? I am on vacation from work for a few days, so...then again, my wife would come home for lunch and kill me.

Byrnzie

jeffer96 wrote:

All this political discussion makes me want a beer. Is 9:52 AM too early to crack one open?

Do it man! It would be rude not to! If your wife gives you a hard time just tell her you've cleaned the windows and done the hoovering.

hippiemom

Yes, he probably should be impeached, but he's not going to be. Dean and Pelosi have both said it's not on the agenda. And honestly, with two years left in his term and the democrats running congress, I don't think it needs to be a priority. Of course, if investigations turn up anything even worse than what we already know or suspect, that could change.

As for the Hague, I'd very much like to see Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc. held to account, but I'm not holding my breath.

NCfan

hippiemom wrote:

Yes, he probably should be impeached, but he's not going to be. Dean and Pelosi have both said it's not on the agenda. And honestly, with two years left in his term and the democrats running congress, I don't think it needs to be a priority. Of course, if investigations turn up anything even worse than what we already know or suspect, that could change.

As for the Hague, I'd very much like to see Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, etc. held to account, but I'm not holding my breath.

Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.

Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

Look, I don't like Bush. But there is no evidence to impleach him, or more importantly to take him before the Hague.

Just becuase the Democrats won the majority in Congress, doesn't mean Bush is guilty of anything other than losing the confidence of the electorate. It doesn't mean he's a bad or evil person, it just means people disagree with him.

I disagree. Although I will say that I'm fully aware Bush is just a giddy puppet and it's the shifty bastards behind him in the shadows pulling the strings who should be held to account. I doubt Bush is even aware of half of his parties policies or decisions.

floyd1975

I don't think there is any evidence of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" that would justify the high cost of impeachment. When people talk about how they waste billions on the war to "line Halliburton's pockets," they somehow don't seem to mind the billions that would line the lawyers' pockets.