I was basically saying that he never did anything really bad. With the exception of the war in Iraq, but he believes that it will cut terrorism. At least he believes he's helping America. Bill Clinton knew damn well he was in the wrong. Bill Clinton was cheating on his wife. You don't want some weasel like that as your president. (I'm not sticking up for Bush or anything)
First off, you can't say that "he never did anything really bad. oh, ummm....except for that whole killing thousands of people thing." Second off, it does not cut terrorism. It does not cut it in the least bit. It creates way, way, way more terrorism. If a group of people came into your town and started blowing up your friends' houses which killed them, wouldn't you be a little mad? If a group of people came into your town and blew up your house killing your wife and your little daughter, wouldn't you be a little angry? Wouldn't you want to get back at these people who killed your family and friends? Of course you would. And that is the exact mentality of the Iraqis. They're angry, they want to get back at America for killing their family and friends. What do they do? They help to fight back against the Americans. They help to kill the people who killed their family. War only creates more war. It's a never ending cycle of death. The way you're coming off is that you think because Bush thought what he was doing was OK that he shouldn't get in trouble. DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. He lied to Americans, he lied to congress, he lied to everyone. He presented false intelligence and over exadurated the "threat" Iraq posed to the United States. He knew he was lieing and he knew it wasn't right to invade Iraq. It wasn't a lie about recieving oral sex. It was a lie that resulted in 1,100+ American soldiers dead, hundreds of coalition soldiers dead, and anywhere from 15,000-30,000 Iraqis dead. But you're telling me it's ok because he thinks what he is doing is right? No. I'm sorry, but that is bullsh*t. Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a bad president. What George Bush has done so far does. I'd take a man like Bill Clinton anyday over a man(if you can even call him that) like George W. Bush.
Yes, Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about that. But that is a personal matter between him and his wife, not a nation-wide affair and certainly not an impeachable offense
Yes, Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about that. But that is a personal matter between him and his wife, not a nation-wide affair and certainly not an impeachable offense [/b][/quote] It wasn't so much that, it was the fact that he lied about it in the supreme court.
That's not a very good reason, considering he had the intelligence to prevent it in the first place. So, no, he didn't do a very good job of that.
That's not a very good reason, considering he had the intelligence to prevent it in the first place. So, no, he didn't do a very good job of that. [/b][/quote] Damn all the different information floating around the net. I'll admit my point was empty for the most part. But I don't think him being empeached is a reality. Look at all the people who still support him.
Once again, there were two separate bills. The first one, the one that Kerry voted for, was the proper $87 billion bill. There was then another bill where a portion of the $87 billion was to be given to ________. (I forget who it was going to be given to, but it wasn't going toward armor and whatnot.) [/b][/quote] Correct, and it was going to the rebuilding of the Iraqi government and towns and whatnot.
Kerry voted against the "2nd $87 billion bill" as a type of protest and so did John Edwards. $20 billion was going to be used to rebuild Iraq. The Bush administration are corrupt assholes who would have used that money to help benefit their companys and their friend's companys. Kerry/Edwards didn't think that was right so they used their 2 meaningless votes as a form of protest. Kerry/Edwards 100% supported the soldiers getting their proper armor...the armor they should have never been sent off to war without. If you believe otherwise your a very stupid person. If you want to hear what is bad then you need to look at the fact that Bush several times threatened to veto that $87 billion bill if it wasn't written the exact way he wanted it. Bush also sent thousands of troops off to a war without the proper armor to begin with. Maybe he should have planned a little more before just starting a war? "We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." -- George W. Bush Oh..?
Bush lied to everyone about the reasons for going to war. Thousands of troops and civilians are suffering and dying because of his lies and downright incompetence, which is 10 times worse than what Clinton did, so I think he should be impeached. If Clinton was impeached merely for having extramarital sex with an intern, then why not Bush? Isn't it worse that he sends countless people to their graves based on a lie? No matter how you look at it, the reason for going to Iraq was a big fat lie and I think he should take some responsibility for that. To exempt Bush from impeachment is to suggest that Clinton's offence was worse than Bush's...which we know is not true. After all, which is worse for a president? Sending troops to war based on a lie? Or having sex with an intern? How many people did Clinton's lie hurt? A few. How many people did Bush's lie(s) hurt? Thousands.
No actually Bush was just sitting in a kindergarten class reading "What Does the Goat See?" while the 9/11 attacks were going on. Bush just took the credit for all the people that helped.
Notice Derek's not responding now? Its easier to back people that have covered up some of their "mistakes", but Bush has f*cked up so badly, there is literally no way of defending himself other than blindly stating "He will protect America", "Saddam was a threat", etc.... Also notice Derek's website has more lies (and more substanial ones) by Bush than by Kerry, even though he's not much better: Wrong on Tax Cuts Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans." That's just not true. In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661. And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush. The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect. In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.
Oh please this was a completely reasonable question for the same reasons Radical Dreamer posted. If you're a fan of Bush, of course you're going to dismiss his "offenses" as nothing, but if Clinton was so scrutinized for his personal life, why shouldn't Bush be so scrutinized for....let's just say his possible mishandlings of the situation presented to him.
You know, you're really starting to get annoying with these posts of yours. [/b][/quote] Why, because he's starting to notice some of the pure foolishness involved with some of these things Kerry supporters are saying? Maybe it's because of my pure hatred for Moore, but I watched Farenheit 9/11 and I was not as 'moved' to not vote for Bush as everyone was claiming I should be. Perhaps I'm a cold hearted illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents, maybe I'm ignorant, but I figure that if they can edit Michael Moore to come in with a comb for Bush's hair they can definetely edit him into some of these other scenes. When Bush was apparentely telling Moore to "GET A REAL JOB!" He didn't even appear to be looking towards where Moore was 'standing'. Also add to that, in the heavily criticized "10 minute classroom wait" you can tell that Bush is heavily disturbed by the solemn expression on his face. I admit that the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't the best thing for this administration. But there is absolutely no way that ONE report can cover one whole movie as the prime source of it's legitimacy. One website has published a .pdf with FIFTY-NINE deceitful statements in which Moore has said in the film. See Here. Note that quite a few of these statements use the 9/11 commission as their source of information. The same document you are using to support Moore..is going against him as well. I can already smell the irony. Plus, nice move on targeting me out of the blue Odaton. Personally I dont like to contribute to threads such as this as I think the whole concept of impeaching Bush is complete foolishness.
Why, because he's starting to notice some of the pure foolishness involved with some of these things Kerry supporters are saying? Maybe it's because of my pure hatred for Moore, but I watched Farenheit 9/11 and I was not as 'moved' to not vote for Bush as everyone was claiming I should be. Perhaps I'm a cold hearted illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents, maybe I'm ignorant, but I figure that if they can edit Michael Moore to come in with a comb for Bush's hair they can definetely edit him into some of these other scenes. When Bush was apparentely telling Moore to "GET A REAL JOB!" He didn't even appear to be looking towards where Moore was 'standing'. Also add to that, in the heavily criticized "10 minute classroom wait" you can tell that Bush is heavily disturbed by the solemn expression on his face. I admit that the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't the best thing for this administration. But there is absolutely no way that ONE report can cover one whole movie as the prime source of it's legitimacy. One website has published a .pdf with FIFTY-NINE deceitful statements in which Moore has said in the film. See Here. Note that quite a few of these statements use the 9/11 commission as their source of information. The same document you are using to support Moore..is going against him as well. I can already smell the irony. Plus, nice move on targeting me out of the blue Odaton. Personally I dont like to contribute to threads such as this as I think the whole concept of impeaching Bush is complete foolishness. [/b][/quote] It seems you keep dragging this back to Kerry supporters and Michael Moore. Let me say again I'm not a Kerry supporter and I don't like Michael Moore. But again, like I said in my previous post, this was a completely reasonable question. Why shouldn't he be under the same scrutiny as Bill Clinton, when what Bush is "charged" with could in fact be so much worse of a crime than having an affair with an intern?
Why, because he's starting to notice some of the pure foolishness involved with some of these things Kerry supporters are saying? [/b][/quote] No, because he's not contributing to the topic at hand. I don't care if you don't agree with it. If you don't make a post that contributes to the topic, then don't post. Period.
Aren't you going OTT? That was a perfectly valid question. If Clinton was impeached, why shouldn't we consider George Bush for impeachment? Like I said, just look at it this way: Clinton lied. Bush lied. Clinton was impeached. Bush was not. How many people did Clinton's lie hurt? How many people did Bush's lie hurt?
how am I going off the topic? If I gave my reason for why I think Bush shouldn't be impeached, Will or others would come in here and tear my opinion apart with fact after fact, which I don't really care for. So, I said that. I think this topic is extremely stupid, sorry.