The impending impeachment attempt on GWB

C

coffman

CAGiversary!
Today will be the beginnings of an inquiry into the Downing Street memos. These memos are proof that Bush had no intention of averting a war with Iraq and that intelligence was twisted and made up in order to justify going to war. I believe the case will eventually be made that Bush has committed acts which justify impeachment. Republicans are refusing to particpate in the hearing (of course) and tried to keep the democrats from holding the meeting in the capital, but the democrats managed to get a small room to hold the hearing. Since the Republicans control congress, there is no way Bush will actually be impeached, but I think there could be some surprises in store for the Republicans in next year's elections due to this issue.
 
With a hardcore republican supreme court and a majority republican congress George W. Bush couldn't even be impeached if he blew up an orphanage and slit the surviving childrens throats, then drove over 100 puppies.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']With a hardcore republican supreme court and a majority republican congress George W. Bush couldn't even be impeached if he blew up an orphanage and slit the surviving childrens throats, then drove over 100 puppies.[/QUOTE]

^ Very sad, but true. If nothing else, I hope these hearings turn up the heat on Bush and Blair politically and further reinforce that they cannot be trusted.
 
The Downing Street Memos are internet drivel.

The only link I have ever been given to them (IIRC by MBE) proves absolutely NOTHING.

Anyone who believes in them actually care to post them? Or are you afraid that actually posting them will prove what a joke they are?

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']The Downing Street Memos are internet drivel.

The only link I have ever been given to them (IIRC by MBE) proves absolutely NOTHING.

Anyone who believes in them actually care to post them? Or are you afraid that actually posting them will prove what a joke they are?

CTL[/QUOTE]

Do your own search then. We're not the only ones talking about them. You're welcome to think they're fake but they're a news story now (finally).
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Do your own search then. We're not the only ones talking about them. You're welcome to think they're fake but they're a news story now (finally).[/QUOTE]

Yet again, one more person who will cite to them as definitive "proof" and yet fail to provide a copy of them.

How petty you are.

And how easily you have failed for another case of hyperbole and an internet hoax.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Yet again, one more person who will cite to them as definitive "proof" and yet fail to provide a copy of them.

How petty you are.

And how easily you have failed for another case of hyperbole and an internet hoax.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Again, you're a tard. I'm not one more person, I was one of the original people who provided you a link that you decided was fake. That's fine but now that the MSM has picked up the story, I'm sure you can find a plethora of links about the DSM. If you can't, I'm sorry that Google is above your pay level.

We'll see just how much hyperbole and hoax this is. You just keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']The Downing Street Memos are internet drivel.

The only link I have ever been given to them (IIRC by MBE) proves absolutely NOTHING.

Anyone who believes in them actually care to post them? Or are you afraid that actually posting them will prove what a joke they are?

CTL[/QUOTE]

So you admit to being too lazy to read anything but what is posted here, yet you feel confident to be one of the few people critiquing its authenticity?

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Is there something less than completely clear in that paragraph?

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So you admit to being too lazy to read anything but what is posted here, yet you feel confident to be one of the few people critiquing its authenticity?

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Is there something less than completely clear in that paragraph?

myke.[/QUOTE]

So Bush determined war was inevitble? And?

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Nice unsupported conclusion.

I noticed you didn't cite the part of the Memo where it states that Iraq did have a WMD program. I wonder how that was being "fixed".

I also enjoy how that Memo neatly ties up every single problem that has faced Iraq since the invasion. Way too neat, way too tidy.

I am sure you all creamed when you heard about this document.

CTL
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Even NBC has just verified the memos, and that station is usually the last to jump on anything since they all lack balls over there:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731[/QUOTE]

Yes they verified they have seven new memos. Congratuations.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']So Bush determined war was inevitble? And?

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Nice unsupported conclusion.

I noticed you didn't cite the part of the Memo where it states that Iraq did have a WMD program. I wonder how that was being "fixed".

I also enjoy how that Memo neatly ties up every single problem that has faced Iraq since the invasion. Way too neat, way too tidy.

I am sure you all creamed when you heard about this document.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Considering the countries cited with larger WMD capabilities than Iraq, according to the memo, why in the world would that refute the claim of facts being fixed?

myke.
...why I respond to you at times is fuckin' beyond me.
 
CTL, I have a two-part question for you:

Does it matter to you if Dubya made up his mind to invade Iraq no matter what even while he was telling the world that he was still open to diplomacy? And if that does matter to you, is there any possible evidence you could see that would prove that to you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Considering the countries cited with larger WMD capabilities than Iraq, according to the memo, why in the world would that refute the claim of facts being fixed?[/quote]

Two reasons. 1. Facts are being fixed.

Ok, well for three years I have had to endure Bush lied. In the very memo you people cite as proof he was going to go to war one way or another, the British conceed Iraq had WMD (THE AMOUNT OF WMDs IS IRRELEVANT).

If the premise for war was WMD and the memo cited Iraq as having them - what was being fixed?

[quote name='mykevermin']myke.
...why I respond to you at times is fuckin' beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Because pound per pound I am the best. And while you will never acknowledge it, you and the other people in this forum know it.

[quote name='MBE']CTL, I have a two-part question for you:

Does it matter to you if Dubya made up his mind to invade Iraq no matter what even while he was telling the world that he was still open to diplomacy? And if that does matter to you, is there any possible evidence you could see that would prove that to you?[/quote]

I think this. If Iraq had legitimately opened its facilities and allowed inspections and we had invaded, yes. However, in the run up to the war the only time there ever was any traction to the inspections was right after the US dropped 150K soldiers in Kuwait. After 911 I had no more patience for that kind of crap.

I think the evidence would have been actual legitimate inspections. But the time for that came and went.

Look, the civil war was originally a states right issue which only late in the game became about slavery. I view the shift in justification on Iraq from WMDs to liberty/freedom in the Middle East as the same kind of argument.

Only those rabid anti-war people on the left are still fighting about wether we should have gone to war and the reasons for it.

People: history and events have left you in dust. The only reason they are still arguing about those issues is to damage the Bush administration.

Sorry, guys - you lost.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Two reasons. 1. Facts are being fixed.

Ok, well for three years I have had to endure Bush lied. In the very memo you people cite as proof he was going to go to war one way or another, the British conceed Iraq had WMD (THE AMOUNT OF WMDs IS IRRELEVANT).

If the premise for war was WMD and the memo cited Iraq as having them - what was being fixed?[/quote]

Consider the quote you're using:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
Click to expand...

They claim that there "were different strategies" for dealing with Lybia and Iran (and they were very right on one, and very wrong on another).

The point is that, after going into afghanistan, Bush was fixated on Iraq (and many would argue far sooner than that). If there were other countries with WMD, why focus on one and one alone?

myke.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I wonder who has a bigger head, chunk or CTL?[/QUOTE]

Truly? Neither. If you have to consistently tell people of your greatness, chances are it's highly suspect to begin with.

His constant intellectual self-fellatio reminds me of an old joke about conspiracy theories.

9-year old: Why elephants wear red nail polish?
Father: I don't know; why?
9-year old: So they can hide in strawberry patches!
Father: But elephants don't hide in strawberry patches!
9-year old: So the nail polish works?

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Truly? Neither. If you have to consistently tell people of your greatness, chances are it's highly suspect to begin with.

His constant intellectual self-fellatio reminds me of an old joke about conspiracy theories.

9-year old: Why elephants wear red nail polish?
Father: I don't know; why?
9-year old: So they can hide in strawberry patches!
Father: But elephants don't hide in strawberry patches!
9-year old: So the nail polish works?

myke.[/QUOTE]

Big head means they think they're great and important, nothing to do with intelligence.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Consider the quote you're using:


They claim that there "were different strategies" for dealing with Lybia and Iran (and they were very right on one, and very wrong on another).

The point is that, after going into afghanistan, Bush was fixated on Iraq (and many would argue far sooner than that). If there were other countries with WMD, why focus on one and one alone?

myke.[/QUOTE]

Why Iraq? Because it was winnable and would make an impact.

Invade Libya? What do you have on schedule for this afternoon - because we could do that in about 4 hours. No one in the Arab would would take that seriously.

Iran would be a brutal mess.

Iraq offered the opportunity to take a substantial Arab country down and as Paul Krugman of the NYT stated, show the Arab world we were willing to fight and die and take a stand compared to endless retreats since 1979 against militant Islam.

Iraq was selected because it had the potential to succeed and Hussein viewed himself as a leader that could stand up to the US. Many Arabs agreed with that assessment, whehter or not based in fact doesn't matter.

CTL

PS - I would love for all those who buy into this "memo" who say Bush lied on the WMDs to acknowledge they were wrong.

You can't have it both ways.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Truly? Neither. If you have to consistently tell people of your greatness, chances are it's highly suspect to begin with.

His constant intellectual self-fellatio reminds me of an old joke about conspiracy theories.

9-year old: Why elephants wear red nail polish?
Father: I don't know; why?
9-year old: So they can hide in strawberry patches!
Father: But elephants don't hide in strawberry patches!
9-year old: So the nail polish works?

myke.[/QUOTE]

When you have a college degree we will talk again.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Why Iraq? Because it was winnable and would make an impact.

Invade Libya? What do you have on schedule for this afternoon - because we could do that in about 4 hours. No one in the Arab would would take that seriously.

Iran would be a brutal mess.

Iraq offered the opportunity to take a substantial Arab country down and as Paul Krugman of the NYT stated, show the Arab world we were willing to fight and die and take a stand compared to endless retreats since 1979 against militant Islam.

Iraq was selected because it had the potential to succeed and Hussein viewed himself as a leader that could stand up to the US. Many Arabs agreed with that assessment, whehter or not based in fact doesn't matter.

CTL

PS - I would love for all those who buy into this "memo" who say Bush lied on the WMDs to acknowledge they were wrong.

You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE]

Clearly you don't read, or you would have noticed that I pointed out where the memo states "different strategies existed" for both Lybia and Iran. How fucking knee-jerk are you that you can't even get to the middle of a fucking eight sentence forum post without blathering out some kind of ill-informed reaction?

Bush, Cheney et al. did their best to indicate that, if we did not invade Iraq immediately, the "smoking gun would take the form of a mushroom cloud." They claimed that Iraq had the capability to strike within the United States, yet this memo seems to minimize Iraq's WMD "capability" (and what about the word "capability"? It seems remarkably different from, oh, I don't know, "presence").

Do you really think that the intelligence showed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a country later proven to have little to no capacity for making WMD was capable of killing thousands, if not more, within the United States? Do you believe this intelligence to not be fixed, and to have been accurately gleaned from reliable sources?

Making a mountain out of a molehill is, in fact, lying. Sorry that, in your attempts to protect the administration's integrity (as well as cover your ass for all the times you've futilely asserted your genius), you failed to realize that eggageration is fucking lying.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Clearly you don't read, or you would have noticed that I pointed out where the memo states "different strategies existed" for both Lybia and Iran. How fucking knee-jerk are you that you can't even get to the middle of a fucking eight sentence forum post without blathering out some kind of ill-informed reaction?[/quote]

I don't see your point.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Bush, Cheney et al. did their best to indicate that, if we did not invade Iraq immediately, the "smoking gun would take the form of a mushroom cloud." They claimed that Iraq had the capability to strike within the United States, yet this memo seems to minimize Iraq's WMD "capability" (and what about the word "capability"? It seems remarkably different from, oh, I don't know, "presence"). [/quote]

Minimize it or state that it was less than some other countries?

Beyond which the anti-war people's point wasn't that Iraq had a lesser capacity than other countries it was that Iraq had NO such weapons.

[quote name='mykevermin']Do you really think that the intelligence showed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a country later proven to have little to no capacity for making WMD was capable of killing thousands, if not more, within the United States? Do you believe this intelligence to not be fixed, and to have been accurately gleaned from reliable sources? [/quote]

I think that 4 years after 9/11 someone who doesn't like GWB would like to pick apart mistakes that were made, by people didn't think we could wait to find out if we were wrong.

[quote name='mykevermin'] Making a mountain out of a molehill is, in fact, lying. Sorry that, in your attempts to protect the administration's integrity (as well as cover your ass for all the times you've futilely asserted your genius), you failed to realize that eggageration is fucking lying.[/quote]

That I had a nickle for every time someone said Iraq had no WMDs.

Not a few.

Not less than Libya.

Not less than Iran.

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

But the "memo" you want to hang GWB with says they believed Iraq did have WMDs.

And you people can't admit you were wrong. The inconsistency of positions is glaring.

CTL
 
Of course Iraq had WMD's at one time (we gave them to him after all), but weapon inspections found nothing. We still haven't found anything. Where are they? The memos are a smoking gun that the Bush administration didn't care about evidence, they just wanted to get rid of Saddam. This memo cost Blair's labor party dearly at the polls. Hopefully, the same will happen to the Republican party.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
 
[quote name='coffman']Of course Iraq had WMD's at one time (we gave them to him after all), but weapon inspections found nothing. We still haven't found anything. Where are they? The memos are a smoking gun that the Bush administration didn't care about evidence, they just wanted to get rid of Saddam. This memo cost Blair's labor party dearly at the polls. Hopefully, the same will happen to the Republican party.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html[/QUOTE]

Because the evidence supported it.

How inconvient.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I don't see your point.[/QUOTE]

Mind-boggling, that. :roll:

Regarding the intelligence, we all know Iraq *had* WMD. I even (and I sincerely doubt you'll believe this) gave W the benefit of the doubt about Iraq. Although I thought it was naive, arrogant, and foolish to go in there (because it distracted from the real war on terror), I held my breath for quite some time about my skepticism about the presence of WMD. I didn't want Iraqis or Americans to have died for nothing.

This memo's revelations show that going into Iraq was simply never considered an option, and moves such as going to the UN shortly after this memo was taken was mere superficial diplomacy. Bush had no interest or belief in anything *but* going to war. That, to me, is inexcusable narcissism of the worst kind. Perhaps he had WMD; but this does not change that Bush made the worst kinds of eggageration to falsely emphasize that Iraq was (1) complicit in 9/11 and (2) could and would attack America on its soil, and thus it was necessary to go to war with them.

myke.
 
It would really be bad for Jeb Bush if George Bush is impeached, cause that completely ruins his chance for the presidency. George Bush Senior wants his Jeb to run for the presidency so bad too. Unless they have dick cheney (who is likly to go down with George Bush) resign first, have George appoint Jeb as vice president, and then resign himself. After all, they woundn't want Donald Rumsfeld to be the president would they? (Rumsfled might be incompetent but still probably a lot better than George Bush)
 
[quote name='mingglf']It would really be bad for Jeb Bush if George Bush is impeached, cause that completely ruins his chance for the presidency. George Bush Senior wants his Jeb to run for the presidency so bad too. Unless they have dick cheney (who is likly to go down with George Bush) resign first, have George appoint Jeb as vice president, and then resign himself. After all, they woundn't want Donald Rumsfeld to be the president would they? (Rumsfled might be incompetent but still probably a lot better than George Bush)[/QUOTE]

I really wouldn't worry about that, George Bush has done enough to ruin the family name that impeachment won't be nessasary.

I doubt anything will come of these memos but it's nice to see it looked into, it's always nicer to hold public hearing to allow bitching rather than to stop it out completely with the large boot of the patriot act.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I really wouldn't worry about that, George Bush has done enough to ruin the family name that impeachment won't be nessasary.[/QUOTE]

Added to all this Shaivo nonsense, one would be inclined to think that Jeb has already blown his chance at the Presidency, however as P.T. Barnum observed:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Click to expand...

and don't forget the Karl Rove corollary:

As people do better; they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']Added to all this Shaivo nonsense, one would be inclined to think that Jeb has already blown his chance at the Presidency, however as P.T. Barnum observed:


and don't forget the Karl Rove corollary:

[/QUOTE]

I doubt the Shaivo debacle will really have any long term effect and if it does all he needs to do is spout out a few lines on how important it is to make a living will and all will be forgiven. I'd say his biggest hurtle really is 8 years of his brother has been far to long.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Anyone who think the president could or should be impeached is living in LA-LA land.[/QUOTE]

I think he's more worthy of impeachment than clinton was, but no one with a brain thinks he will be impeached.
 
The only online place I'm seeing this drivel mentioned is, anybody? Anybody?

Democraticunderground.com

That says it all. Hell, not even Drudge is giving the DSM hearings a link. They're relegated to C-Span 3, anyone have C-Span 3?

Didn't think so.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That says it all. Hell, not even Drudge is giving the DSM hearings a link. They're relegated to C-Span 3, anyone have C-Span 3?

Didn't think so.[/QUOTE]

... I do (then again, most of it is happening only a few miles away...)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The only online place I'm seeing this drivel mentioned is, anybody? Anybody?

Democraticunderground.com

That says it all. Hell, not even Drudge is giving the DSM hearings a link. They're relegated to C-Span 3, anyone have C-Span 3?

Didn't think so.[/QUOTE]

So you're outraged about the tremendous lack of media coverage, too? Right? ;)

myke.
...where's our liberal media now?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So you're outraged about the tremendous lack of media coverage, too? Right? ;)

myke.
...where's our liberal media now?[/QUOTE]

Seems most of them learned their lesson with Rathergate.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Seems most of them learned their lesson with Rathergate.[/QUOTE]

Oh, so they're gone now? I'll keep that in mind next time someone comes braying into the VS. forum with some kind of irrefutable evidence that the media hates right wingers.

The very first question proposed by Conyers' report seeking an investigation involves the simple matter of the legitimacy of the documents. Given that Bush and Blair have (briefly) been asked about them, and yet neither has attempted to argue that they are phony documents, you'd think that someone (such as yourself) might not try to make such a poor argument. If the documents are fake or suspect, wouldn't pointing that out be the best way to stop the trickle of newsstories about it?

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The only online place I'm seeing this drivel mentioned is, anybody? Anybody?

Democraticunderground.com

That says it all. Hell, not even Drudge is giving the DSM hearings a link. They're relegated to C-Span 3, anyone have C-Span 3?

Didn't think so.[/QUOTE]

The American media has not reported much on this, but it has been extensively reported by the media in England. Check out the link in my previous post.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Anyone who think the president could or should be impeached is living in LA-LA land.[/QUOTE]

So a stained dress is reason for impeachment when Clinton was in office, but lying to the American people about the reasons why we should invade Iraq is not an impeachable action? Is there a list so that we can know what is or isn't impeachable?
 
[quote name='coffman']So a stained dress is reason for impeachment when Clinton was in office, but lying to the American people about the reasons why we should invade Iraq is not an impeachable action? Is there a list so that we can know what is or isn't impeachable?[/QUOTE]

Anything a Democrat does = Impeachable
Anything a Republican does = Unimpeachable
 
[quote name='coffman']So a stained dress is reason for impeachment when Clinton was in office, but lying to the American people about the reasons why we should invade Iraq is not an impeachable action? Is there a list so that we can know what is or isn't impeachable?[/QUOTE]

Get a clue, seriously, perjury and obstruction of justice were the reasons for Clinton's impeachment. Of course you want to say it was a blow job. Makes it easier to ignore the truth.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get a clue, seriously, perjury and obstruction of justice were the reasons for Clinton's impeachment. Of course you want to say it was a blow job. Makes it easier to ignore the truth.[/QUOTE]

Clinton's lie didn't lead directly to 1,720 American soldiers dying. Sometimes I forget how much Republicans support the troops.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get a clue, seriously, perjury and obstruction of justice were the reasons for Clinton's impeachment. Of course you want to say it was a blow job. Makes it easier to ignore the truth.[/QUOTE]

Clinton didn't commit perjury. To commit perjury the lie has to be relevant to the case. Monica wasn't relevant to Jones' case, so no perjury.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Keep spliitng that hair Zarathos history books still won't agree with you.[/QUOTE]

It's not splitting hairs, that is the definition of perjury.
 
Ah no, lying under oath is the definition of perjury. It doesn't matter if the testimony is directly, indirectly or even tertiary to the case. If you're asked, under oath, how old you are and you lie that's perjury. Doesn't matter in what context you're asked or what the relevance is to the case at hand.

Like I said, spin it all you want. The history books won't back your opinion up.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ah no, lying under oath is the definition of perjury. It doesn't matter if the testimony is directly, indirectly or even tertiary to the case. If you're asked, under oath, how old you are and you lie that's perjury. Doesn't matter in what context you're asked or what the relevance is to the case at hand.

Like I said, spin it all you want. The history books won't back your opinion up.[/QUOTE]


Ah no, you are wrong.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

The history books will show that Whitewater was a witch hunt against Clinton.
 
per·ju·ry P Pronunciation Key (pûrj-r)
n. pl. per·ju·ries
Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
The breach of an oath or promise.

You want to point out where I'm wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top