Should Bush be impeached?

[quote name='steveinneed']Do you believe Bush should be impeached for seemingly breaking the law with spying on americans without warrants?[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone should be impeached for "seemingly breaking the law." I think Congress should conduct a thorough investigation as to whether the law was broken, and if so absolutely yes, he should be.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think anyone should be impeached for "seemingly breaking the law." I think Congress should conduct a thorough investigation as to whether the law was broken, and if so absolutely yes, he should be.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I was thinking that as one of the options. But! He openly came out and said he had the presidential authority. All of bush's blind followers will stick with him even if he ate a baby. Regardless of the investigations if showing that he actually did break the law, they would still think it would be okay.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Yeah I was thinking that as one of the options. But! He openly came out and said he had the presidential authority. All of bush's blind followers will stick with him even if he ate a baby. Regardless of the investigations if showing that he actually did break the law, they would still think it would be okay.[/QUOTE]

Sure, there are some people like this on both ends of the political spectrum, unfortunately. And with Republicans controlling the Congress, it would be extraordinary for him to be impeached if there were any doubt.
 
[quote name='SilverPaw750']No. I think it's terrible, and must be stopped, but impeaching him wouldn't help our country much.[/QUOTE]
You think that having a criminal leading our country is beneficial?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']You think that having a criminal leading our country is beneficial?[/QUOTE]
Nope, but I don't think that suddenly shoving Dick Cheny into the president's seat would be very beneficial either.
 
I honestly think he should be impeached just as an example to future Presidential hopefulls, the ones who (if Bush isnt impeached) will think its ok to do what he has done so far.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Do you believe Bush should be impeached for seemingly breaking the law with spying on americans without warrants?[/QUOTE]

The NSA has done this forever? How is this such a revelation?
 
They'd have to go after Clinton and Carter, they found documents authorizing just whats happening now. Guess its too late for those two, plus we are in a state of war; that does give Bush a lot more room for this kind of stuff.
 
[quote name='onapartyrock']They'd have to go after Clinton and Carter, they found documents authorizing just whats happening now.[/QUOTE]


No, whoever told you that is lying to you.
 
[quote name='Starwishi']I do belive that Bush should be impeached, but not for that reason. He's done worst.[/QUOTE]

I think you mean "worse." And by all means, enlighten us as to the impeachable offenses you think he's committed.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you mean "worse." And by all means, enlighten us as to the impeachable offenses you think he's committed.[/QUOTE]

Well....

He lied about the start of the war

He insist on keeping our troops in Iraq even though they are dying in significant numbers. (over 2000)

He's good friends with Osama's family which I thought was over

Theres spiculation that the desruction of the Trade Center might be part of a government conspiracy( i live 30 minutes from the trade center by the way)

Cocaine possession

Deserter from when he served in the Air Nation Guard
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Who cares if hes friends with osamas family. One of his female relatives recently posed in Maxim (or a similar mag). Being related to him means nothing.[/QUOTE]

Are you kiddin me?! He's the ENEMY. They're not suppose to be friends going on golf trips! What does the female relative posing in a mag. have to do with anything?
 
[quote name='Starwishi']Are you kiddin me?! He's the ENEMY. They're not suppose to be friends going on golf trips! What does the female relative posing in a mag. have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]

So we shouldn't have anything to do with his family cause they're the enemy, yet his family members have nothing to do with anything? :whistle2:s

Also, previous cocaine use has nothing to do with his current ability to govern (just like clintons previous marijuana use had nothing to do with his ability). 2,000 deaths in a war is not much historically. And speculation that the WTC attack was part of a government conspiracy is ridiculous at best.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So we shouldn't have anything to do with his family cause they're the enemy, yet his family members have nothing to do with anything? :whistle2:s[/QUOTE]

You dont know that for sure. It doesn't make sense to be they're friend.
 
Thats the same logic that goes into "all muslims are possible terrorists" line of thinking. When there is reason to be suspicious thats one thing, but the vast majority of relatives have no connection at all.
 
[quote name='Starwishi']You dont know that for sure. It doesn't make sense to be they're friend.[/QUOTE]

Good to know that you're informed on the issues (and grammar). Osama's family does not associate with Osama in any way and has not for many years now. If you're using this line of logic does that mean that every family of every serial killer should be shunned from our society?
 
Bush should be put under oathe and asked about what he knew about the veracity of the WMD intel and when he knew it.

He would no doubt perjur himself, leading to impeachment. If it turns out he did break the law concerning wiretaps (and it seems he has) he should also be impeached.
 
[quote name='smalien1']I changed my mind after voting 'yes' if he's impeached then we will have the Dick, who would be worse[/QUOTE]


I've never been one to turn down Bush when Dick is the alternative.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I've never been one to turn down Bush when Dick is the alternative.[/QUOTE]


Oh oh oh I've got one:

Dick instead of Bush? Now that's something to wrap your head around.
 
I somehow don't see one getting impeached without the other (but who knows how dirty Cheney is; he's unarguably the smarter of the two). With that in mind, there's no need for any quasi-sexual witty repartee.

Instead, it's this: President Hastert?
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] With that in mind, there's no need for any quasi-sexual witty repartee.

[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:( But its fun.
 
[quote name='Starwishi']Well....

He lied about the start of the war

He insist on keeping our troops in Iraq even though they are dying in significant numbers. (over 2000)

He's good friends with Osama's family which I thought was over

Theres spiculation that the desruction of the Trade Center might be part of a government conspiracy( i live 30 minutes from the trade center by the way)

Cocaine possession

Deserter from when he served in the Air Nation Guard[/QUOTE]

Give them enough rope...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Give them enough rope...[/QUOTE]

Wow, lets just rely on talking points when we can't counter arguments.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Wow, lets just rely on talking points when we can't counter arguments.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? I was referring to someone discrediting themselves with ridiculous arguments such as "it's all a big conspiracy."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What are you talking about? I was referring to someone discrediting themselves with ridiculous arguments such as "it's all a big conspiracy."[/QUOTE]

What about the rest. Then why didn't you put out a counter argument instead of just calling it rediculous. The conspiracy part may be somewhat rediculous but the rest shouldn't be denied when they have do have some merit to them.
 
It boils down to two reasons why Dubya should be thrown out of office:

1) Fixing the intelligence to support an illegal Iraqi invasion
2) Discarding the 4th Ammendment to consolidate power within the Executive Branch, thereby discarding 225+ years of precedence.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the government is lieing about 9/11.[/QUOTE]

All which could actually be true :)
 
We haven't heard a peep out of the UFO community in awhile. And whatever happened to Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle? That was the rage in the late 80s / early 90s. I think they deserve some attention again. :cry:
 
Yes Quack, everyone in the bible was white. Thats why there be so many colored folk der now. :roll:

[quote name='Quackzilla']Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the government is lieing about 9/11.[/QUOTE]
 
Jesus was not white.

Do you people not watch TV.

I would say he is hispanic looking from the specials I have seen.
 
The more serious questions Conspiracy Theorists should be what allowed 9/11 to happen. Given that the intel was out there, there are three primary possiblites really.

1.) Lost in the bureaucracy. Most accepted theory. The intel and abitlity to act on intel Pre 9/11 simply got all hosed up in red tape.

2.) The intel was deemed unlikely. One of those things that the heads of the intelligence community sat around and said "Yeah, like they'll pull this one off!" Keep in mind we weren't thinking heavily about an act of terroism at the time, we were more focused on Florida and the economy.

3.) Someone decided to simply step back and let it happen. (God do I hope not) There were many in the halls of power that knew what a threat Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists and Natons posed to us. They had been screaming for years that something needed to be done, yet nobody really paid much attention to them. Ecen after the orginal bombing of the trade center not too much on a grand scale was done to stop them either Offensively or defensivley. So when a credible threat crossed their desk's, they chose to let it happen to at the very least test our response to see if we could stop an attack. That would then raise the level of awareness not only in the halls of congress but in the hearst and minds of Americans.

These are the top three instances that I can really consider for the sheer failure of the intel community to prevent 9/11. The people who say the WTC was bombed by Bush and assoc. are a little misguided. It's one thing to have a heavy skepticism of the government, it's another to see little black helicopters everywhere.
 
He lied about the start of the war

He insist on keeping our troops in Iraq even though they are dying in significant numbers. (over 2000)

He's good friends with Osama's family which I thought was over

Theres spiculation that the desruction of the Trade Center might be part of a government conspiracy( i live 30 minutes from the trade center by the way)

Cocaine possession

Deserter from when he served in the Air Nation Guard
Click to expand...
He didn't lie, and nobody can prove he did. Acting on bad intelligence is not a LIE. Check the dictionary if you need to be reminded on what a lie really is.

Keeping troops in a war zone? That's unforgivable and illegal! :roll:

The Bin Laden family has been disassociated with Osama for decades, and there is no reason to suspect anything anymore.

Do I even have to tell you how much bullshit the WTC conspiracies are?

And deserters go to Jail, Bush did not desert, stop making shit up.
 
2.) The intel was deemed unlikely. One of those things that the heads of the intelligence community sat around and said "Yeah, like they'll pull this one off!" Keep in mind we weren't thinking heavily about an act of terroism at the time, we were more focused on Florida and the economy.
Click to expand...

Thats half true. Unfortunately the half that was was no longer in power.

January 99: Clinton proposes anti terrorism plan and asks congress for money http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/22/clinton.terrorism/

Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." .......

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together. ........

In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."
Click to expand...


http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

An interview clinton gave to the new york times in 99:

But if the issue is, is it a near certainty that at some time in the future there will be some group, probably a terrorist group, that attempts to bring to bear either the use or the threat of a chemical or biological operation, I would say that is highly likely to happen sometime in the next few years, and therefore, I would say the appropriate response is not worry or panic, but taking this issue very seriously, expecting all elected officials with any responsibility in this area to know everything they can, and to do everything we can both to erect all possible defenses and then to try to make sure we are doing everything we can to stop this.....



Q: As you may be aware, Secretary Cohen and people at the Pentagon are talking about trying to create a new position of commander-in-chief for the continental United States because of the terror threat. And it's moving through the system and at some point it's going to come to you, probably sometime this summer. Are you inclined to create that kind of position for the military?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me say, I think that we need to have an organized response, if you will, to what you might call "homeland defense" on CBW, and cyber or computer terrorism issues. And now we've established a national coordinator on these issues in the White House.
Click to expand...

From another NYT article (linked from another site)

That search proved frustrating. Officials said the C.I.A. did have some spies within Afghanistan. On at least three occasions between 1998 and 2000, the C.I.A. told the White House it had learned where Mr. bin Laden was and where he might soon be.

Each time, Mr. Clinton approved the strike. Each time, George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, called the president to say that the information was not reliable enough to be used in an attack, a former senior Clinton administration official said....
In October 2000, the administration took another shot at killing Mr. bin Laden. When Mr. Berger called the president to tell him the effort had failed, he recalled, Mr. Clinton cursed. "Just keep trying," he said.
Click to expand...

http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/nyt.htm

Yup, no one was thinking about terrorism.

The clinton administration had begun turning its attention towards terrorism in the final 2 years of his presidency. Bush's administration is the one that went back to mostly ignoring it.

Though, again, bin ladens family has nothing to do with this. In fact I am glad bush did what he did and had them flown out of new york. They safety was in jeopardy simply by being related to osama, despite having nothing to do with him.
 
By no means was I stating that President Clinton didn't have it on his mind, I was refering more to the American populace that had not held Congress feet to the fire on the issue. At that point America was still trying to cruise around enjoying the good economy and their Double Mocha Latte's. We didn't really pay too much of mind to the growing threat in the middle east as it seemed a distant problem.

Obviously that came back to bite us in the ass.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']What about the rest. Then why didn't you put out a counter argument instead of just calling it rediculous. The conspiracy part may be somewhat rediculous but the rest shouldn't be denied when they have do have some merit to them.[/QUOTE]

Why should I waste time debating with someone who has, through their own words, shown themselves to be unreasonable and unwilling to accept facts?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Yes Quack, everyone in the bible was white. Thats why there be so many colored folk der now. :roll:[/QUOTE]
I was quoting Huey, from the Boondocks...
 
[quote name='David85']Jesus was not white.

Do you people not watch TV.

I would say he is hispanic looking from the specials I have seen.[/QUOTE]

lol, are people serious about this? Jesus was jewish and was part of a group of people called semites which are in Israel and Palestine. He probably looked very similar to most Israelies/Palestinians that exist today.
 
[quote name='David85']I would say he is hispanic looking from the specials I have seen.[/QUOTE]
I would say he probably looked more like an arab than a mexican, because of that little thing where HE WAS AN ARAB, but that's just a minor detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top