The impending impeachment attempt on GWB

Umm... CTL...... we knew about the genocide and did nothing. The u.s. and france are probably the countries most to blame (outside of the hutus who started the killings), as france trained the hutu's and worked with them up to the start of the genocide and the u.s. knew full well what was going on and had recognized early warning signs, and refused to label it genocide knowing it would require them to act. But, at least france was the country that also did the most to stop it (backing the tutsi controlled rebel group that eventually ended it).

Though, again, we're n ot exactly doing anything with darfur (hey, at least the u.n. is doing something with attempts at diplomacy, which is more than we're doing). The strongest peacekeeping force in darfur is the african union. Last week I saw Canada was sending them armored equipment to help, but there were strong fears the u.s. might refuse to allow it (they have final say since it had some u.s. equipment in it). Not sure what has happened to it since, if it's been accepted, rejected or yet to be decided.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/12/grizzly-sudan050612.html
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Umm... CTL...... we knew about the genocide and did nothing. The u.s. and france are probably the countries most to blame (outside of the hutus who started the killings), as france trained the hutu's and worked with them up to the start of the genocide and the u.s. knew full well what was going on and had recognized early warning signs, and refused to label it genocide knowing it would require them to act. But, at least france was the country that also did the most to stop it (backing the tutsi controlled rebel group that eventually ended it).

Though, again, we're n ot exactly doing anything with darfur (hey, at least the u.n. is doing something with attempts at diplomacy, which is more than we're doing). The strongest peacekeeping force in darfur is the african union. Last week I saw Canada was sending them armored equipment to help, but there were strong fears the u.s. might refuse to allow it (they have final say since it had some u.s. equipment in it). Not sure what has happened to it since, if it's been accepted, rejected or yet to be decided.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/12/grizzly-sudan050612.html[/QUOTE]

Oh, you mean the US should have acted unilateraly without the UN, like we did in Bosnia to save lives?

But that kind of cuts against the grain of the need for a UN doesn't it?

The UN is trying with diplomacy....its so feeble it would be comical except for the number of people who are dead and will die while the "civilzed" world waits around.

Quackzilla - you couldn't be more incorrect.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Which happened ONLY because Russia walked out.

Just an inconvient fact you all missed.

But hey, compare 2,000 years of history and wars to two instances when the US went the UN and think you have a precendednt, be my guest.[/QUOTE]

Yes, correct, it only happened because Russia stupidly (from their POV) walked out. But you asked a question and I simply pointed out a piece of factual information showing you were wrong, that is all. And while continuing not to take a side on this issue, I would point out that the U.N. has only been around for 60 years, not 2,000...not to mention that the U.S. has only been around for just short of 229.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Umm... CTL...... we knew about the genocide and did nothing. The u.s. and france are probably the countries most to blame (outside of the hutus who started the killings), as france trained the hutu's and worked with them up to the start of the genocide and the u.s. knew full well what was going on and had recognized early warning signs, and refused to label it genocide knowing it would require them to act. But, at least france was the country that also did the most to stop it (backing the tutsi controlled rebel group that eventually ended it).

Though, again, we're n ot exactly doing anything with darfur (hey, at least the u.n. is doing something with attempts at diplomacy, which is more than we're doing). The strongest peacekeeping force in darfur is the african union. Last week I saw Canada was sending them armored equipment to help, but there were strong fears the u.s. might refuse to allow it (they have final say since it had some u.s. equipment in it). Not sure what has happened to it since, if it's been accepted, rejected or yet to be decided.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/12/grizzly-sudan050612.html[/QUOTE]

Actually we've done a lot more than the Europeans on Darfur. We've been the prime motivators behind the AU involvement, providing support to them logistically and politically. We're also the ones that have declared it a genocide when others would not. The U.N. hasn't done much on it because China (and to a lesser extent Russia) has major oil interests in the country and has blocked just about everything we want to do in the Security Council on the issue.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, correct, it only happened because Russia stupidly (from their POV) walked out. But you asked a question and I simply pointed out a piece of factual information showing you were wrong, that is all. And while continuing not to take a side on this issue, I would point out that the U.N. has only been around for 60 years, not 2,000...not to mention that the U.S. has only been around for just short of 229.[/QUOTE]

And? Its an issue of nation states requiring a multinational organization to ok their going to war.

Two times in 2,000 year (or 60 for that matter) does not a precedent make.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And? Its an issue of nation states requiring a multinational organization to ok their going to war.

Two times in 2,000 year (or 60 for that matter) does not a precedent make.[/QUOTE]

Never mind, you obviously can't read or understand what I'm saying. Are you always so argumentative with people quoting facts, or just on the CAG VS board?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Never mind, you obviously can't read or understand what I'm saying. Are you always so argumentative with people quoting facts, or just on the CAG VS board?[/QUOTE]

No the issue is two resolutions over 2000 years or 60 years does not a precedent make.
 
So where did CTL go? Quack kept mentioning that he was a lawyer, but early posts of CTL's claimed that he was in Iraq (which, de facto, makes him far superior to Quackzilla). I'd love to find out what his real story is.

Anyway, what makes you think these guys will get impeached? Who's gonna start that ball rolling? Democrats? They don't have any power!
 
You know, I agree with GWB being impeached (and I look forward to the day), but what does it say about us as a country if we have 2 presidents in a row that are impeached?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So where did CTL go? Quack kept mentioning that he was a lawyer, but early posts of CTL's claimed that he was in Iraq (which, de facto, makes him far superior to Quackzilla). I'd love to find out what his real story is.[/QUOTE]
CTLesq is an army lawyer. Esq is shore for esquire.

And being in Iraq does not mean that someone is superior, a lawyer is a lawyer no matter where they are.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']You know, I agree with GWB being impeached (and I look forward to the day), but what does it say about us as a country if we have 2 presidents in a row that are impeached?[/QUOTE]

Hopefully it would mean an end to the bipartisan system. The first one was a dem and the second a rep... Have you ever taken an online personaly test? The results are something like "ESTJ" E being an extrovert as apposed to introvert and the other letters meaning other things... I think thats how politicians should be categorized.

Prolife/prochoice L(ife)/C(hoice)
Gay mariage/not G(ay)/T(raditional)
Religion in school/ evolution in school/both/ none R/E/B/N
More government intervention/ less... I/A
So a politician would be billed as LTRI if he were really conservative. This way we wouldn't have people automatically lumpted into one of two groups. You can't automatically label someone a democrat if they are pro choice or a republican if they are opposed to gay marriage. You'd know exactly where they stand on what issues.

Instead of two groups that grow more and more fractured as time progresses, we'd get more speciallized groups that would more accurately reflect the desires of that group. Instead of saying I'm kinda a Democrat except this and that and the next thing, you just say Im LTEI and know exactly who you share a mindset with.
 
I think if the CIA leak goes all the way to the top, the public will pressure congressional leaders to hold the administration accountable. I think we'll learn more in the next few weeks.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Hopefully it would mean an end to the bipartisan system. The first one was a dem and the second a rep... Have you ever taken an online personaly test? The results are something like "ESTJ" E being an extrovert as apposed to introvert and the other letters meaning other things... I think thats how politicians should be categorized.

Prolife/prochoice L(ife)/C(hoice)
Gay mariage/not G(ay)/T(raditional)
Religion in school/ evolution in school/both/ none R/E/B/N
More government intervention/ less... I/A
So a politician would be billed as LTRI if he were really conservative. This way we wouldn't have people automatically lumpted into one of two groups. You can't automatically label someone a democrat if they are pro choice or a republican if they are opposed to gay marriage. You'd know exactly where they stand on what issues.

Instead of two groups that grow more and more fractured as time progresses, we'd get more speciallized groups that would more accurately reflect the desires of that group. Instead of saying I'm kinda a Democrat except this and that and the next thing, you just say Im LTEI and know exactly who you share a mindset with.[/QUOTE]

What about the death penalty? International involvement? Sex ed? Environment? Nuclear prolifieration? That would get way to complicated. Before we know it we'd be "Hi, I'm the candidate of the CGEALISEN party"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What about the death penalty? International involvement? Sex ed? Environment? Nuclear prolifieration? That would get way to complicated. Before we know it we'd be "Hi, I'm the candidate of the CGEALISEN party"[/QUOTE]

I know they're would be more topics, and I welcome them. There could be 5 main points people come to a consensus about... that'd still be 32 groups given 2 options. But given the population we have... thats still 10 mil a group. And they could give names to the parties to spare the awkward AEDBWASWDBA names.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']CTLesq is an army lawyer. Esq is shore for esquire.

And being in Iraq does not mean that someone is superior, a lawyer is a lawyer no matter where they are.[/QUOTE]

Freudian slip, I meant Scrubking. Find room in your heart to forgive me, willya?

WTF does esquire mean? I'm not up on suffixes (except my own), and anybody can give themselves an online name with a made up suffix (e.g., DrLoveHandlesfuckYou, Ph.D.). Hell, I think the last time I heard the name 'esquire' was in a movie was followed by the sentence "...and we are, WYLD STALLYNS!!!!"
 
Of course, this is a message board. Anyone can SAY they went to Iraq, and there is no way to prove/disprove it.

My name is Richard Samson, Private First Class (Purple Heart medal awarded May 19th, 2005). I served two tours of duty in Iraq, and have been honorably discharged due to a shrapnel injury that paralyzed me from the waist down. I can't walk, I have to go everywhere in a wheel chair.
 
Sounds like Dubya KNEW of Rove's involvement all along.

WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Sounds like Dubya KNEW of Rove's involvement all along.

WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html[/QUOTE]

Wow, if that's true then he lied right through his teeth (Bush) when he promised to fire anyone who leaked the name...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, if that's true then he lied right through his teeth (Bush) when he promised to fire anyone who leaked the name...[/QUOTE]
At least Bush didn't lie about something important like a blowjob. :)
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']At least Bush didn't lie about something important like a blowjob. :)[/QUOTE]

However you might like to spin it, Clinton perjured himself and that is a crime. Our laws are important and the president should not be above them, including perjury. But let's not get into that again.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']However you might like to spin it, Clinton perjured himself and that is a crime. Our laws are important and the president should not be above them, including perjury. But let's not get into that again.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't convicted/10
 
[quote name='elprincipe']However you might like to spin it, Clinton perjured himself and that is a crime. Our laws are important and the president should not be above them, including perjury. But let's not get into that again.[/QUOTE]

Yes - I am very sure that the puritan mid-west public cared that Clinton perjured himself. Republicans were able to get Clinton to testify for the perjury reason alone - it had nothing to do with the fact that this story could be sensationalized enough with values-oriented voters that Repubicans and the special prosecutor were able to put enough pressure on Clinton to testify. The "Clinton perjured himself" story was the story that sold newspapers and was talked about around the water cooler. Noone cared that the most powerful man in the world having a sex affair with an intern, they only cared about legal perjury.
 
If Clinton would've told the truth Republicans would've gotten their panties in a twist so there's your answer el. If people would leave other people alone with their sexual perversions considering most are probably freaks themselves and not care Clinton may have been forthcoming as well as people coming to grips that some people marry for show then Clinton may not have lied.
Let me explain this. The Republicans were player haters, Clinton was a player and they wanted to nail him. They couldn't nail Clinton for SHIT except this. The Republicans have such CONTEMPT for him they would nail him anyway they could. I repeat, "Player haters". Granted I admit I'm a "Player hater" when it comes to Reagan but his policies were destructive to the Middle Class.
Regardless anyone who's not a pervert and has sex always in a Missionary Position, MAN your love life must be off the HOOK! /end sarcasm.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Regardless anyone who's not a pervert and has sex always in a Missionary Position, MAN your love life must be off the HOOK! /end sarcasm.[/QUOTE]

But you're forgetting the experience of the love of Jesus




... :rofl:
 
[quote name='Sarang01']If Clinton would've told the truth Republicans would've gotten their panties in a twist so there's your answer el. If people would leave other people alone with their sexual perversions considering most are probably freaks themselves and not care Clinton may have been forthcoming as well as people coming to grips that some people marry for show then Clinton may not have lied.
Let me explain this. The Republicans were player haters, Clinton was a player and they wanted to nail him. They couldn't nail Clinton for SHIT except this. The Republicans have such CONTEMPT for him they would nail him anyway they could. I repeat, "Player haters". Granted I admit I'm a "Player hater" when it comes to Reagan but his policies were destructive to the Middle Class.
Regardless anyone who's not a pervert and has sex always in a Missionary Position, MAN your love life must be off the HOOK! /end sarcasm.[/QUOTE]

Look, I've got no problem with people and their own sexual perversions. People can do what they want. They can do what they want even in the White House, I really don't care. However, Clinton took advantage of someone in an employer-employee relationship, a young girl at that, and then he lied about it in court under oath. "Not convicted" meaning not removed from office, fine, no doubt that is true, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it. We all know he did.

And yes, Republicans hated (hate) Clinton the same way you Democrats hate Bush, and no doubt that played a big part in all of this. I don't think there's any doubt about that. If Bush did the same thing Clinton did, you all would be screaming for him to be removed from office. If you're honest you'll admit that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Look, I've got no problem with people and their own sexual perversions. People can do what they want. They can do what they want even in the White House, I really don't care. However, Clinton took advantage of someone in an employer-employee relationship, a young girl at that, and then he lied about it in court under oath. "Not convicted" meaning not removed from office, fine, no doubt that is true, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it. We all know he did.[/QUOTE]

Already moving off-point. I thought it was all about the perjury, Elprincipe. Like it or not, the blowjob was what the values voters were upset about, not perjury, if you're honest you'll admit that.

[quote name='elprincipe']And yes, Republicans hated (hate) Clinton the same way you Democrats hate Bush, and no doubt that played a big part in all of this. I don't think there's any doubt about that. If Bush did the same thing Clinton did, you all would be screaming for him to be removed from office. If you're honest you'll admit that.[/QUOTE]

I cannot speak for others, but I would not "scream" for Bush to be removed over a blowjob. I couldn't care less about the sexual activities between two consententing adults - it is truly their own business. Yes, Clinton lied about a blowjob but to be honest I do not care much about that either. You are being awfully naive if you think that every president does not make much bigger lies, or at the very least vast omissions of the truth. Everyone knows it - it's why the right still protects Bush W even after we know that either he or his administration lied again and again about Iraq - the right likes his policies and they've vowed to stand by their man.

Here's how I break it down for a President's past:
Consentual Blowjob: Don't care
Consentual Sex: Don't care
Consentual Freaky Sex: Don't care
Alcohol: Don't care
Marijuana: Don't care
Alcoholic/Stoner: Care - how long since they had a drink or smoke?
Harder drugs (coke, acid): Care - was it one time or habitual?
Meth, crack, heroin, etc: Care greatly
Religious fanatic, unable to distinguish religious allegory from literal truth: Care greatly
 
And yes, Republicans hated (hate) Clinton the same way you Democrats hate Bush, and no doubt that played a big part in all of this. I don't think there's any doubt about that. If Bush did the same thing Clinton did, you all would be screaming for him to be removed from office. If you're honest you'll admit that.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be overly concerned. I would be screaming for a bit though, as a kind of tit for tat revenge thing. But I wouldn't be able to get angry enough to carry it through.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Look, I've got no problem with people and their own sexual perversions. People can do what they want. They can do what they want even in the White House, I really don't care. However, Clinton took advantage of someone in an employer-employee relationship, a young girl at that, and then he lied about it in court under oath. "Not convicted" meaning not removed from office, fine, no doubt that is true, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it. We all know he did.

And yes, Republicans hated (hate) Clinton the same way you Democrats hate Bush, and no doubt that played a big part in all of this. I don't think there's any doubt about that. If Bush did the same thing Clinton did, you all would be screaming for him to be removed from office. If you're honest you'll admit that.[/QUOTE]

Look I use to be a douche about Clinton and what he did and I got over that. I really don't see the big deal about it.
How's that? Bush started a war against Iraq where he said WMD's were and before that said Nuke's but changed that. It's also been there are connections to Al Quaida. Also to top it all off no one like Rumsfeld prepared properly in case we were there for a long stay. Tell me where Clinton fits in all this? Clinton went after a man who was having Genocide committed and talk radio Conservatives were bashing him about it and all these Republican politicians were saying that you can support the troops but not the President then they flip it when we're against Iraq and Bush but support the troops. But I'm getting off the subject? Now enlighten me again. Why am I hating on Bush? He's only been destroying our economy, granting tax cuts for people when we don't have the money to spend and then spending for the War In Iraq. Don't forget Hurricane Katrina and he says he's not gonna raise taxes. Yeah keep following Reaganomics moron and bankrupt this country thanks.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Look I use to be a douche about Clinton and what he did and I got over that. I really don't see the big deal about it.
How's that? Bush started a war against Iraq where he said WMD's were and before that said Nuke's but changed that. It's also been there are connections to Al Quaida. Also to top it all off no one like Rumsfeld prepared properly in case we were there for a long stay. Tell me where Clinton fits in all this? Clinton went after a man who was having Genocide committed and talk radio Conservatives were bashing him about it and all these Republican politicians were saying that you can support the troops but not the President then they flip it when we're against Iraq and Bush but support the troops. But I'm getting off the subject? Now enlighten me again. Why am I hating on Bush? He's only been destroying our economy, granting tax cuts for people when we don't have the money to spend and then spending for the War In Iraq. Don't forget Hurricane Katrina and he says he's not gonna raise taxes. Yeah keep following Reaganomics moron and bankrupt this country thanks.[/QUOTE]

In spite of your poorly-worded tirade, I'll restrict myself to responding that it was Mr. Bad Example, not me, who first brought up Clinton. I feel that subject's been talked out on way too many occasions and I'm certainly tired and bored of it, so I'm going to stop it right now and quit responding on that. Certainly you already know my views on his indiscretions.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']In spite of your poorly-worded tirade, I'll restrict myself to responding that it was Mr. Bad Example, not me, who first brought up Clinton. I feel that subject's been talked out on way too many occasions and I'm certainly tired and bored of it, so I'm going to stop it right now and quit responding on that. Certainly you already know my views on his indiscretions.[/QUOTE]

I see you've abandoned the perjury issue. What a surprise! :lol:
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Let's hope this thread title bears fruit for the new year.[/QUOTE]
It'd make for a nice Christmas Gift. Five Golden Subpoenas.... Four Indictments.... Three Caged Cronies.... Two Congressional Hearings.... And An Asshole In Ft. Leavenworth!
 
I actually would wish for everyone BUT GW to get indicted. If GW goes down it's President CHENEY, if he goes down it's President HASTERT, if HE goes down it's President TED STEVENS (who will finally get his self named Alaskan bridge to no where, goddamn it!) Sheesh, what a bunch of awesome prospects. (note: sarcasm)
 
[quote name='javeryh']This would be 2 in a row! Let's impeach all our leaders!!![/QUOTE]
Hmm.... Impeach all..... I like it! Do we get to guillotine them?
 
"Abortions for all!"
"Boo!"
"Okay, no abortions for anybody!"
"Boo!"
"Hmm. Abortions for some, mini American flags for others!"
"YAY!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top