Community >> View Thread

Author
Ironnewenglander




Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows 2000
Messenger




Cheney already is President. Bush is the puppet.


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
Casey Jones




Yes, Bush has made some mistakes, Iraq being at the top of the list.
He had some justification for believing Saddam had WMDs. Clinton talked about WMD's for years, and Saddam's constantly turning away weapons inspectors reinforced the opinion that he was hiding WMDs.






Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 2000
Halo82




should most definetly be impeached. Call me crazy but I take war seriously. E-)

> Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.

*Disclaimer* I do not always think I'm right, I do not have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and I don't consider my opinion to be "fact". If I don't write IMO in front of everything I say or I don't tuck my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me it's simply cause...I mean what I say. I don't say something unless I believe it to be true. So if someone tries to police my opinion or pick an arguement over something trivial all I'll simply say is "read the fine print" I also don't care If I make a grammatical or spelling error. Thank you, have a nice day, Hakuna Matata, Live long and Prosper.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Jae




> Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.

This just reinforces my belief that both parties are exactly the same. They both get into power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far. The public has enough and elects the opposite number, then they undo everything that was changed, and proceed to grab for power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far, ad infinitum.

In the words of Homer Simpson, "Ive said it before and ill say it again, democracy just. dosent. work."


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Stryfe




> Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.

"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" don't see War in there at all. The only real possible charge under Bush that could potentially lead to some of his administrators being impeached(though at this points seems a stretch) is this Scooter Libby buisness. I do hope they investigate that matter to it's fullest.

Some people just want to impeach Bush for the "war" in Iraq. Sorry folks the system wasn't designed to work that way. And if you impeach bush wouldn't you have to impeach all the legislature that voted to approve the war?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Halo82




> Some people just want to impeach Bush for the "war" in Iraq. Sorry folks the system wasn't designed to work that way. And if you impeach bush wouldn't you have to impeach all the legislature that voted to approve the war?

Well it should be set up that way. I don't think it's too much to require that presidents should go to war if absolutely need be. Especially when we've get ANOTHER more important war going on.

*Disclaimer* I do not always think I'm right, I do not have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and I don't consider my opinion to be "fact". If I don't write IMO in front of everything I say or I don't tuck my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me it's simply cause...I mean what I say. I don't say something unless I believe it to be true. So if someone tries to police my opinion or pick an arguement over something trivial all I'll simply say is "read the fine print" I also don't care If I make a grammatical or spelling error. Thank you, have a nice day, Hakuna Matata, Live long and Prosper.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Lord Fear




Can an impeached and convicted President give himself a pardon?

*****************************************************************************************






"And they complained when I smacked my wife."



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP
Stryfe




> > Some people just want to impeach Bush for the "war" in Iraq. Sorry folks the system wasn't designed to work that way. And if you impeach bush wouldn't you have to impeach all the legislature that voted to approve the war?
>
> Well it should be set up that way.

So when the public disaproves of a military action he should face removal from office? This is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy so "shoulds" are not relevant to the procedure of law.

>I don't think it's too much to require that presidents should go to war if absolutely need be. Especially when we've get ANOTHER more important war going on.
>

well, let's clarify war, we haven't had an official war since World War 2 because the president cannot declare war by himself, only the legislature can as defined by the US constitution. The legality of military action in Iraq is basically an extension of established presidence concerning the use of executive authority for military action. Detail details, i know but it's pretty important to understanding when you discuss rule of the land and so forth. Under this idea Bush has used no more executive power than preceding presidents, and yet he should face impeachment charges for it.

What is absolute need for war? Some argue war is never an option, such as pacifist. We can't even agree on the definition of the word "is", better yet something as important as that. Reference any War in our history, from the revolutionary to now and you will find none of them had an absolute need for War.

Now I'm not backing up or justifying our involvement in Iraq, as I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I do understand the arguments to be made for it and recognize the fact that you don't just impeach presidents because they made an unpopular decision. Bush will be gone in 2 years, just be patient.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Stryfe




> > Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.
>
> This just reinforces my belief that both parties are exactly the same. They both get into power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far. The public has enough and elects the opposite number, then they undo everything that was changed, and proceed to grab for power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far, ad infinitum.
>
> In the words of Homer Simpson, "Ive said it before and ill say it again, democracy just. dosent. work."

my only argument is that they are corrupt or unprincipaled PRIOR to being elected. South Park episode "Duesch and Turd Sandwich" basically sums up my entire view on politics..


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Halo82




> So when the public disaproves of a military action he should face removal from office? This is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy so "shoulds" are not relevant to the procedure of law.

No, what I'm saying is that if a president says "I'm going to war with Iraq cause they have WMD's" and lo and behold there are no WMD's he should be impeached. Especially when has everyone around him saying don't go but instead chooses to listen to one piece of intel and the Vice President. There was plenty of room for doubt in this war and what I'm saying is there shouldn't be. We convict of crimes only if the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt and that's how it should be for going to war.
>
> well, let's clarify war, we haven't had an official war since World War 2 because the president cannot declare war by himself, only the legislature can as defined by the US constitution.

Which is a bullshit technicality but I know what your saying.

>The legality of military action in Iraq is basically an extension of established presidence concerning the use of executive authority for military action. Detail details, i know but it's pretty important to understanding when you discuss rule of the land and so forth. Under this idea Bush has used no more executive power than preceding presidents, and yet he should face impeachment charges for it.

Again, he used bad judgement going into a war and ignored everyone who was apparently alot smarter then him. I'm saying he didn't think this through and more people are dead because of it then people who died in 9/11.
>
> What is absolute need for war? Some argue war is never an option, such as pacifist. We can't even agree on the definition of the word "is", better yet something as important as that. Reference any War in our history, from the revolutionary to now and you will find none of them had an absolute need for War.

Afghanistan is a justified war, Iraq is not. I know what people will say "so you just want to wait till we're attacked again" and the answer is YES I'd rather retaliate then go around blindly swinging at anyone who MIGHT be a danger to us.
>
> Now I'm not backing up or justifying our involvement in Iraq, as I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I do understand the arguments to be made for it and recognize the fact that you don't just impeach presidents because they made an unpopular decision. Bush will be gone in 2 years, just be patient.
>
I understand. 2 years is a long time though. As an aside it always kills me when people justify the actions of the President by saying "you don't like him? Vote against him" as if the next vote is right around the corner. Four years is a long time and ALOT of damage can be done in that period. End rant.

*Disclaimer* I do not always think I'm right, I do not have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and I don't consider my opinion to be "fact". If I don't write IMO in front of everything I say or I don't tuck my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me it's simply cause...I mean what I say. I don't say something unless I believe it to be true. So if someone tries to police my opinion or pick an arguement over something trivial all I'll simply say is "read the fine print" I also don't care If I make a grammatical or spelling error. Thank you, have a nice day, Hakuna Matata, Live long and Prosper.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Banned by fascists




That's why more and more people have been catching onto an idea I've been proposing for nearly two years -- impeach Cheney first, *THEN* impeach Bush.

> I don't like bush much myself, but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 2000
TC




>


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
RodimusPrime




>
> Now I'm not backing up or justifying our involvement in Iraq, as I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I do understand the arguments to be made for it and recognize the fact that you don't just impeach presidents because they made an unpopular decision. Bush will be gone in 2 years, just be patient.
>
And what then?
Bush Sr. drops a couple paychecks, the electorate basically over-rules THAT election, and our pres is be named Jeb. And his vp is be Condy.

Agreed though, that there really is no way to impeach Bush. Even then, an impeachment will have about as much effect as the Clinton impeachment.
Unless people can actually prove that Howdy Doody knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time, which I highly doubt because he's not smart enough to read a freakin file, there will be no impeachment.
But seriously, the rest of the world has got to think that the current administration is some kind of divine comedy. I mean, old Lex Luthor had a beer and shot a congressman in the face... and he got away with a simple apology! WTF!?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
RodimusPrime




> > Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.
>
> This just reinforces my belief that both parties are exactly the same. They both get into power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far. The public has enough and elects the opposite number, then they undo everything that was changed, and proceed to grab for power, go completely ape-sh!t and corrupt, and go way too far, ad infinitum.

"There are only three classes in life. The upper class holds the power. The middle class wants the power. And the proletarian lower class just wants to be left alone. The middle class stews until they can find a way to overthrow the upper class. When they do, the upper class settles into the middle, until they can figure out a plan to get back on top. The cycle continues indefinately, with the middle often using the lower to help them achieve their goals, and then forgeting that the lower class ever existed until they need them again."
-George Orwell-



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
FZ




> Idon't like bush much myself,but impeaching him is not a good idea.rember dick chaney is vice president and if something happens to bush,HE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT.how many of us would actually want that.

I think he did the best anyone could with the available information and removing Saddam and the Taliban were 'good' things. It speaks volumes of what kind of world we live in that removing Saddam is a 'war crime' to some. In any case, after 9/11, this world is lucky a nuclear arsenal was in the hands of nation like the USA. I would say any other nation with similar power after an attack of this magnitude would not send troops, but, just launch ICBMs. G-D Bless Bush and our Troops. \:\)


Posted with Mozilla 0.9.4.2 on Windows XP
zvelf




>I think he did the best anyone could with the available information

I strongly disagree. A Gore Administration, like every other government in the world would not have attacked Iraq under these circumstances. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. The Bush Administration clearly saw what it wanted to see despite numerous notes of caution about the intelligence from the CIA and elsewhere.

>and removing Saddam and the Taliban were 'good' things.

Good, yes, from some perspectives, but I bet a lot of Iraqis would rather have food, electricity, a job, and their lives while being under Saddam’s rule than facing the civil war they are right now. Even Saddam wasn’t killing dozens of his people EVERY SINGLE DAY. More to the point, the criticism of Bush isn’t that he removed Saddam. It’s that his Administration totally failed to plan for the insurgency afterward that has led to more than 3,100 American lives lost, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and over $400 billion spent on this war.

>It speaks volumes of what kind of world we live in that removing Saddam is a 'war crime' to some.

That’s a straw argument. Removing Saddam is not the war crime. Keeping thousands of people imprisoned with no stated charges and often under torture for YEARS is a crime.

>In any case, after 9/11, this world is lucky a nuclear arsenal was in the hands of nation like the USA. I would say any other nation with similar power after an attack of this magnitude would not send troops, but, just launch ICBMs. G-D Bless Bush and our Troops.

That is wild and unwarranted speculation. I severely doubt any of the European nations would launch nuclear weapons in the event of the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben getting blown up with thousands of casualties. Russia or China may be more likely to respond this way, but still highly unlikely to do so. Who exactly would they bomb anyway? Al Qaeda is not a location.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 2000
FZ




> >I think he did the best anyone could with the available information
>
> I strongly disagree. A Gore Administration, like every other government in the world would not have attacked Iraq under these circumstances. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. The Bush Administration clearly saw what it wanted to see despite numerous notes of caution about the intelligence from the CIA and elsewhere.

If Clinton/Gore had acted in the 1990's, there may not have been a 9/11. Yesterday was the anniversary of the first WTC bombing in 1993, not enough was done or in place in the 8 years and numerous attacks after it. Be that as it may, President Clinton had put into affect a plan to remove Saddam in 1998. 20/20 hindsight is easy, but, Gore as well as most in Congress were in favor of removing Saddam.
>
> >and removing Saddam and the Taliban were 'good' things.
>
> Good, yes, from some perspectives, but I bet a lot of Iraqis would rather have food, electricity, a job, and their lives while being under Saddam?s rule than facing the civil war they are right now. Even Saddam wasn?t killing dozens of his people EVERY SINGLE DAY. More to the point, the criticism of Bush isn?t that he removed Saddam. It?s that his Administration totally failed to plan for the insurgency afterward that has led to more than 3,100 American lives lost, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and over $400 billion spent on this war.

Well, the hundreds of thousands already dead, while the 'Peace Coalition' of China, Russia, Germany and others were getting ready to have a sanctionless Iraq with Saddam still there was a relief to most Iraqis. No, every single day TERRORIST KILL CIVILIANS, and we better hope we don't totally fail. There are always 'insurgencies' after every war, people have been removed from power. The WTC Bombing took 19 guys and blew a $500 Billion dollar hole in the economy with 3,000 civilians dead, and Iraqi's were dying wholesale every day with Saddam in charge and the UN doing nothing as usual, except blaming the USA and Israel.
>
> >It speaks volumes of what kind of world we live in that removing Saddam is a 'war crime' to some.
>
> That?s a straw argument. Removing Saddam is not the war crime. Keeping thousands of people imprisoned with no stated charges and often under torture for YEARS is a crime.

What people? You mean those at Gitmo, unfortunately, it's not thousands and they certainly are way better off than the civilians or anyone who have fallen into the hands of Al Qeada around the world. Beheading is a war crime still, isn't it? Where is OUTCRY of the crimes of AL QEADA and the Muslim Fascists? It is amazing many who care of so-called torture , care nothing of the rest of that imprisoned Island, Cuba, where librarians are still jailed for 10 years for the wrong books. People picked up, in most cases, were not innocent bystanders.
>
> >In any case, after 9/11, this world is lucky a nuclear arsenal was in the hands of nation like the USA. I would say any other nation with similar power after an attack of this magnitude would not send troops, but, just launch ICBMs. G-D Bless Bush and our Troops.
>
> That is wild and unwarranted speculation. I severely doubt any of the European nations would launch nuclear weapons in the event of the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben getting blown up with thousands of casualties. Russia or China may be more likely to respond this way, but still highly unlikely to do so. Who exactly would they bomb anyway? Al Qaeda is not a location.
>

You're probably right , sadly, about Europe, especially France which has ceded whole neighborhoods to laws of Islam. I'm glad you said Al Qaeda is not a location, it could be and is in places from Afghan and Iraq, to Iran and Saudi. We picked two, the war continues and no amount of childish so-called 'anti-war' marches, which are really 'pro-terrorist' marches, will stop this global war.


Posted with Mozilla 0.9.4.2 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software