Remember back to the Clinton scandal; he got serviced by an intern and there was all this talk of impeachment. However, as many of you have noticed, what we see as atrocities commited by the Bush administration that has not only put our troops, but our well-being in danger, or at least in jeopardy, isn't drawing any where near as much attention as Clinton's little personal fling. What does that say about Americans as a whole? Do you think Bush should be impeached for his actions? Why? Why not?
That's because America's favorite thing to read about in the newspaper is controversial sex. China could magically sink into the ocean, but we'd rather read about a sex tape of an old rich guy and an underage girl. Pathetic, yes. On topic...I don't think Bush should be impeached. He's made bad choices, but a lot of it has enough shady ground to be debatable (do a Google if you want to hear both sides).
Explain to me what Bush has done that has been different than half of our presidents (including the ones that are Democratic) that deserves him being impeached? Bush isn't the first president to go to war and put 'troops in harms way' and he certainly wont be the last. Kerry himself even said he will wage war if need be, so I find your post to be lacking some serious substance. For one, I believe us to no longer be in danger as we have not had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Had we been doing a terrible job of protecting our country we would have probably had a terrorist attack TWICE as bad as that happen since then. You know damn well that the terrorists have more planned then 9/11, and the fact that nothing has happened to us since then is considerably important. I do not feel us to be in harms way. Troops are in jeopardy the minute they sign up for military service. These guys know that at any time they could be launched into war or sent to defend their country. That's what an army is all about, they aren't made to just sit there limply and not do anything at all. They sign up knowing their lives are at risk, and although its VERY unfortnate to lose a soldier...these casualties have happened in every single war America has had. And if anyone is putting the soldiers in danger, its Kerry. He's the who voted against giving our soldiers the proper funding, and don't claim its "Republican Nonsense" because Kerry admitted to being for it and then voting against it at the same time. Nobody is looking at it wrong because wars happen all the time. Presidents getting oral in the White House by women other than their wives, however; does not.
Explain to me what Bush has done that has been different than half of our presidents (including the ones that are Democratic) that deserves him being impeached? Bush isn't the first president to go to war and put 'troops in harms way' and he certainly wont be the last. Kerry himself even said he will wage war if need be, so I find your post to be lacking some serious substance. For one, I believe us to no longer be in danger as we have not had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Had we been doing a terrible job of protecting our country we would have probably had a terrorist attack TWICE as bad as that happen since then. You know damn well that the terrorists have more planned then 9/11, and the fact that nothing has happened to us since then is considerably important. I do not feel us to be in harms way. Troops are in jeopardy the minute they sign up for military service. These guys know that at any time they could be launched into war or sent to defend their country. That's what an army is all about, they aren't made to just sit there limply and not do anything at all. They sign up knowing their lives are at risk, and although its VERY unfortnate to lose a soldier...these casualties have happened in every single war America has had. And if anyone is putting the soldiers in danger, its Kerry. He's the who voted against giving our soldiers the proper funding, and don't claim its "Republican Nonsense" because Kerry admitted to being for it and then voting against it at the same time. Nobody is looking at it wrong because wars happen all the time. Presidents getting oral in the White House by women other than their wives, however; does not. [/b][/quote] Can you really not see what a drastic direction Bush has taken from every other president we've ever had? You're just fooling yourself if that's the case. Even the republicans state that he's taken a completely different direction in foreign policy, its just certain republicans believe its the right thing to do. So if you in fact, can't see what he's done differently, I'll sum up the points for the 1000th time so that they'll just be forgotten and/or ignored to be brought up in another post. - He went to war without solid proof or reasoning - He LIED, yes you know that thing Clinton got impeached for, about intelligence. - That lie helped lead us to war, which then costs lives. - That lie is in part responsible to the deaths of our soldiers, which makes Bush a murderer. That's just focusing on Iraq, there are plenty of other reasons Bush should be questioned for impeachment (can anyone say Enron?). The whole thing about 'well other presidents have gone to war' only shows that you are completely missing the point. The fact that we went to war isn't the real reason to question, its the reasons and lies behind what made us go to war, and the preemtive policy we've now taken.
Can you really not see what a drastic direction Bush has taken from every other president we've ever had? You're just fooling yourself if that's the case. Even the republicans state that he's taken a completely different direction in foreign policy, its just certain republicans believe its the right thing to do. So if you in fact, can't see what he's done differently, I'll sum up the points for the 1000th time so that they'll just be forgotten and/or ignored to be brought up in another post. - He went to war without solid proof or reasoning - He LIED, yes you know that thing Clinton got impeached for, about intelligence. - That lie helped lead us to war, which then costs lives. - That lie is in part responsible to the deaths of our soldiers, which makes Bush a murderer. That's just focusing on Iraq, there are plenty of other reasons Bush should be questioned for impeachment (can anyone say Enron?). The whole thing about 'well other presidents have gone to war' only shows that you are completely missing the point. The fact that we went to war isn't the real reason to question, its the reasons and lies behind what made us go to war, and the preemtive policy we've now taken. [/b][/quote] If you go to the site in my signature (I'm sure you'll dismiss it as 'lies' without even reading it) you'll see more than enough reasons as to why the war was justified. There's evidence that Saddam had mustard gas and etc., as well as evidence supporting Saddam's ties to Al-Queda and other terrorists. It's almost pointless to try and suggest anything other than what you're saying because it'll be passed off as "republican lies and half truths". I know this is the case because the democrats follow Michael Moore as if he was a god. There's no possibility he could falsify information, apparentely. Nope, unless you didn't know..Michael Moore is incapable of lying. Sure, other filmmakers can bend the truth, but from what I've heard its impossible for Moore to screw up on Bush. Pretty astounding, wouldn't you say? It's funny how some people who should be supporting Moore (the democrats supposed prime source for anti-bush information) accuse him of purposely misleading the Americans. When some democrats (even those who hate Bush) cannot support Moore, something has to be completely wrong here. I'm still wondering what this plan that Kerry has, is supposed to be. Maybe it's to reveal to people that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Word of advice for Kerry, keep family out of debates. Like Cheney's wife said..that statement was a "cheap, tawdry political trick" and was totally uncalled for. Apparentely I'm not the only one who thinks it, as he was under attack for it the next morning on several big news stations that apparentely support him.
Explain to me what Bush has done that has been different than half of our presidents (including the ones that are Democratic) that deserves him being impeached? Bush isn't the first president to go to war and put 'troops in harms way' and he certainly wont be the last. Kerry himself even said he will wage war if need be, so I find your post to be lacking some serious substance. For one, I believe us to no longer be in danger as we have not had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Had we been doing a terrible job of protecting our country we would have probably had a terrorist attack TWICE as bad as that happen since then. You know damn well that the terrorists have more planned then 9/11, and the fact that nothing has happened to us since then is considerably important. I do not feel us to be in harms way. Troops are in jeopardy the minute they sign up for military service. These guys know that at any time they could be launched into war or sent to defend their country. That's what an army is all about, they aren't made to just sit there limply and not do anything at all. They sign up knowing their lives are at risk, and although its VERY unfortnate to lose a soldier...these casualties have happened in every single war America has had. And if anyone is putting the soldiers in danger, its Kerry. He's the who voted against giving our soldiers the proper funding, and don't claim its "Republican Nonsense" because Kerry admitted to being for it and then voting against it at the same time. Nobody is looking at it wrong because wars happen all the time. Presidents getting oral in the White House by women other than their wives, however; does not. [/b][/quote] This isn't just any war, Derek. The war in Iraq was launched based on falsehoods. I know you're well aware of that, and I won't go into what Shade already said. Our "war" on terror has no end, is only running our economy and civil liberties into the ground. I'm not just talking about the consequences of war in general or for signing up for the military. Bush is wasting lives over there, through the groundless war, AND the endless one, and then flip flopping his justifications for our occupation. The whole mess is unnecessary. There is a BIG difference between this war we're in and others fought before it. And you're little grievance with Kerry's vote is a spun fact. There was an X amount of money proposed to be sent for ammunition, fuel, ect., which Kerry voted FOR. Then later, the proposition was re-written so that X% of that money (a substancial amount, at least 20% if I recall) would be put toward the rebuilding of Iraq, which Kerry did not agree with, and voted against. EDIT: To your last post. I'm not a Democrat, as you can tell from my sig and avatar, and I don't like Moore. All you did in that little rant was generalize the opposing view. I'll take a look at your site with an objective and open mind momentarily.
This isn't just any war, Derek. The war in Iraq was launched based on falsehoods. I know you're well aware of that, and I won't go into what Shade already said. Our "war" on terror has no end, is only running our economy and civil liberties into the ground. I'm not just talking about the consequences of war in general or for signing up for the military. Bush is wasting lives over there, through the groundless war, AND the endless one, and then flip flopping his justifications for our occupation. The whole mess is unnecessary. There is a BIG difference between this war we're in and others fought before it. And you're little grievance with Kerry's vote is a spun fact. There was an X amount of money proposed to be sent for ammunition, fuel, ect., which Kerry voted FOR. Then later, the proposition was re-written so that X% of that money (a substancial amount, at least 20% if I recall) would be put toward the rebuilding of Iraq, which Kerry did not agree with, and voted against. EDIT: To your last post. I'm not a Democrat, as you can tell from my sig and avatar, and I don't like Moore. All you did in that little rant was generalize the opposing view. I'll take a look at your site with an objective and open mind momentarily. [/b][/quote] Before I reply, let me say that the only link you can ever truly believe as credible on behalf of ANY party is the 'fact check' link in my signature. That link I put in there purposely as an unbiased source of information on both candidates. Fact check reveals lies stated during campaigns/debates without leaning toward a specific candidate. It is a good way to point out the fact that politicians often like to bend the truth in order to villainize their opposing candidate. It's happened in every run for the White House and this election (easily the most important in decades) is no different. While "Fahrenheit 9/11" is being used as the vehicle against Bush, it should be stated that nobody should closely follow one thing as a their main source of information. You can never be exactly sure if a source has their facts straight or is telling the exact truth and thats why I provided several links in my signature. I'm letting open-minded people come to their own conclusions by reading the links provided. As evidenced by my posts, I believe the war in Iraq is still justified and from the information I collected I (like Kerry has been quoted as saying at one time) viewed Saddam as a threat and I am glad that he is out of office. I remember when we first caught him everyone was so happy of Bush's accomplishment, and now people seem to resent him for it because matters out of our control (insurgents) are keeping us from total victory. It doesn't make sense.
Well Derek, let me first say that I certainly respect you're opinion. Again, if I recall correctly, what I said about Kerry and his voting twice differently on an original, and then rewritten $87million (or billion?) proposition was directly from FactCheck. But what you're saying about media is old news to me. I most certainly recognize Fahrenheit 9/11 as biased and highly errant, which is why you never see me quoting it, or even referring to Moore in any of my arguements. He's just as bad as any other biased source of media. I try to be as critical as I can be of media that's presented to me, to find out fact for myself. It's human nature to agree with a presented "fact" when it goes along with a person's personal reasoning, even if there is little or false evidence for it. I try to go against this and remain as objective as possible when I'm looking at a site. As for Iraq, I just don't see the ends as justifying the means. Bush claims it's now a humanitarian deal, and that we're liberating Iraq, yet you won't be seeing us "liberate" any other nations if we can't gain from it. We will not "liberate" Sudan or many other countries in horrible condition in Africa simply because they have nothing to offer. This denounces his statement of it being an act of humanity, and even then I don't think we as a country have the right to forcably spread democracy and capitalism through force; it is, in my mind, nothing but an imperialistic act of manifest destiny. And then to look at what Kerry has said, (btw, I don't like Kerry either, don't confuse my defense as support) couldn't he have been fooled by the same false information provided to him as many Americans have? I don't see Saddam as a threat to us, therefore I saw no reason for an entire war over it. I do not think the ends of this war justified the means of which they were accomplished.
But the simple fact is that the President's reason to go to war was a lie. However justified--I'm not saying I think it is-- you do not tell soldiers who're putting thier lives on the line a lie. Which is, in my opinion, like about a billion times worse than covering up a sex scandal. It just boggles my mind that Bush is still in office; America is so incredibly silly sometimes. :wth:
This one article from your site got a rise out of me, Derek http://www.conservativepunk.com/ColumnItem....asp?reviewId=7 -_-
Would you be willing to go into more detail as to how you felt about that article? Personally I agree with it due to the fact that I have commonly thought of what was going on with Saddam as "Hitler Pt. 2". As with Hitler, Saddam's worst offense on his record is the genocide of his people. Just like Hitler, Saddam Hussein had people killed in large numbers and if we were to allow that to go on then I think we certainly are not good people. There were attempts on Hitler's life to end this madness, and the same applies with Saddam. Sure we captured him and didn't kill him, but now we can know that his madness will never happen ever again. Think of it this way, if you captured Hitler..do you think all of his people would've backed down? No. Just like with Saddam there probably would've been insurgents destined to kill American troops because they don't believe in what we stand for. There's always going to be people against us no matter what we do for them and unfortunately in this war it's more apparent than ever.
First off, I will read your site because, as you apparently Derek do not do, I read both sides of the story. I watch Fox, and I read Al Franken. I listen to republican commentators, and to Michael Moore. I have NEVER stated that Moore isn't biased, of course he is. The difference is he bases his information on FACTS from the US Government. If those are not valid, then there isn't anything that can be. He provides sources for all those facts on his website, which if you were inclined to, you could go look at. I do not worship Moore as a God, nor to most Democrats I believe, as you seem to constantly suggest. That's republican propoganda talking. Time and time again we reach the same point. You think the war was justified, I do not. Period. I don't like Kerry because he supports the war, I sure as hell can't stand Bush for the reason, among others. I believe it wrong to go and attack a country because we are afraid of them. We have become the ultimate cowards. Bush seems to think that by constantly staying on the offensive (which to him means bombing arbitrary countries) we will 'win' this war on 'terror'. Two wrongs don't make a right, we cannot win such a war by using terror as our means. This just confuses me. What the hell is your point? Of course some people don't like Moore. Some conservatives can't stand O'Rielly, yet he is somewhat of an idol for Republicans as well. This statement has no merit. More republican propoganda talking. If you had watched the debates instead of taking your points from conservative commentators, you would have realized that Kerry was supporting and praising Cheney and his family with their acceptance of their daughter, not attacking him. And Kerry wasn't revealing anything in the first place, everyone who pays attention to this sort of thing knows Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Back to the topic though: If you believe it was right to impeach Clinton for lying You MUST believe it is right to impeach Bush for lying. There's no way around it. EDIT: Started reading the site, it makes some points, but is also misrepresenting some information to make those points. More later.
bush should be impeached and then locked in a mental facility. he put way too many people in danger and doesn't care about anyone but himself, and that kind of person should not be president.
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.)
Bush/Administration has; -- Lied about intelligence. -- Lied about weapons of mass destruction. -- Lied about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. These lies have attributed to the deaths of thousands of coalition troops, and tens of thousands of innocent muslims. Such mass murdering based on lies is unacceptable and terrible. Of course he should be impeached. I was searching for the longest time for a decent quote; -- Condoleeza Rice, National Security Adviser, Press Conference, 2002. Which has been disproved vehemontly by the 9/11 Commission Report, and documented here. -- George W. Bush, "President" of the United States, State of the Nation Address, 2002. This has also been disproved by a CIA report and is proven here. This is concrete proof. This is undeniable. You cannot keep denying this to yourself without doing yourself a major disservice. What you just read above is absolute proof backed by actual quotes and documented and proven reports by highly-regarded sources. And what really pisses me off is that Republicans continue to think Saddam had weapons of mass dstruction, in the face of these official reports. Read here and be suprised by the ignorance. And I know, Will! How hard is it to read that? Nobody understands! Nobody even pays attention to it.
Yeah I totally agree. Why should Saddam have all the fun of killing innocent Iraqis? Let's jump in there, capture him, and then bomb citys killing hundreds of innocent civilians because we think 1 terrorist is in that city. War only creates more war. As for the impeachment thing... If Bill Clinton can almost get impeached for lieing about receiving oral sex then George Bush should damn well get impeached for what he's done. Someone made a list before saying Clinton did the same things Bush did. I'll use that idea... Bill Clinton lies about recieving oral sex. - BAD George Bush lies about reasons for war resulting in over 20,000 deaths, most innocent Iraqi civilians. - GOOD Yeah that makes perfect sence.
He shouldn't get impeached, people should just vote him out of office. However if he gets elected again...impeachment doesn't sound like a bad idea.
He'll defidently get voted out of office but he should be impeached just so he can't run for office again.
Bill Clinton also did a lot of positive things. Using your logic would be like saying that I can't get in trouble for murdering someone because I once helped an old woman cross the street.