News President Bush

President Bush

With his top advisor Carl Rove and vice President Dick Cheney and his advisor Scooter Libbey all looking at inditements I think that bush should be impeached. There is no excuse to out one of our own CIA agents still on duty just to eliminate enemys that this president has. If you dont know the agents husband discovered that iraq was not trying to sell any weapons to africa like president bush was telling the public and was one of the top reasons why we went to war. So being mad at this there was a person who let the rat out of the cage. I just cant see where this behavior is acceptable. President Clinton got impeached because he leaked on a dress now were saying its ok to leak national security secrets out.. ITS BULLCRAP.

*waits for a die hard republican to reply*

there is not backing out iam just waiting for some republican to come out and defend his actions

no they didnt but at least he had hearings.. its crazy to think that what he did was an impeachable offense.. perjury yes sorta.. you dont think what president bush is doing right now isnt an offense?

Clinton was the bigger man and owned up to his actions eventually. The fact that he eventually told the truth got him in trouble, because the republican retards consider that "flip-flopping."

Bush lies to you and when it's proven that he was lying, he still doesn't budge on his position. That's the only reason why he hasn't lost credibility with republicans.

I think Bush is a joke of a president.

but don't blame me, I voted for the green M&M.

That's the same idea I had. With all of the crazy conservatives worried over abortion and gay rights and killing the jihading terrists in the name of the 2nd amendment, I doubt if we'll see Bush impeached.

Since when does a president refuse to ever admit wrong doing? Lying to the American public about going to war, thus leading to the deaths of countless individuals is a far more heinous crime than lying about an affair.

Bush dosen't care, he's a lame duck.. quack!

Lying by accident because you were given wrong intelligence, which several agencies have admitted to, and lying to cover your own ass are two entirely different things.

Say the teacher tells you the homework is page 59, and your sick friend asks you what the homework is and you tell him page 59, then come in the next day to turn it in and the teacher says "No, it was page 167", thats alot different than just straight lying to your friend and giving him the wrong homework on purpose, wouldnt you agree? Both warrant an apology, but one in far worse than the other.

Yes he should admit that no Nuclear Weapons were found, and that there were none, I would agree. But no WMDs? Come on. My cousin in Army Intelligence volunteered to goto Afghanistan in December, so he was at Ft. Meade training like 2 weeks ago, so I got to spend some time with him while he was here, one of his good friends had just gotten back from Iraq, and told him several people had been shipped to a hospital in germany because a roadside bomb laced with sarin gas had gone off, and they were shipped there to get treated. They found massive amounts of sarin gas buried in the desert, I consider those to be WMDs, a WMD is anything that could cause mass destruction, i.e. killing many people at once, nuclear weapons arent the only thing that fall into that category.

I understand that you don;t agree and that is fine, it's your right. But things like this :

aren't. Because I disagree with you, I'm automatically a "republican retard"? The fact that Clinton told the truth got him in trouble, because he did something wrong, not because he flip-flopped. I actually always thought, and still do, that the man's personal business was just that, his personal business, until he lied under oath in front of the entire nation.

In response to the original topic though, impeach him for what? You said it yourself, he didn't do it, Karl Rove did.

The constitution, article 2, section 4 , says, and I quote, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

He has to commit an impeachable offense first, people complain that Bush infringes on people's rights with things like the Patriot Act, and doesn't uphold the constitution, yet here you are saying that we should impeach him, when by law, the constitution says we can't, not yet anyway. You don't think that is being hypocritical?

Damn - that is a good post.

You act as if it's a fact that Bush didn't know he was getting faulty intelligence. That's a very naive idea and I don't know why you would think that. When you look at the grand scheme of the connections between business and the republican party you'll realize that the Bush rode 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion as a way to finish what George H. starterd in Iraq. A little company called Halliburton is making a killing off of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They problem is, there was little or NO competition for the contracts they won. Bush and Dick Cheney created a war so they could get paid off of rebuilding the country and taking control of Iraqi oil.

There are numerous accounts of how CIA intelligence given to the President didn't suggest there were WMDs in Iraq at all. I believe it was a state of the union address where Bush and Colin Powell showed an aerial photo of a warehouse in Iraq, allegedly outside of which were barrels of an unknown toxin. This information turned out to be false and the CIA revealed that they never told the president there were toxins in the given photo or anywhere else Iraq. That's just one example of how Bush took information about what was going on in Iraq, twisted it and fabricated a story about why the US should invade a foreign country.

In any case, if the President did invade Iraq based on false information, why has he continued what would now be an unneeded campaign? Why has he not given a date for sending our troops home? Why does he not adequately prepare troops for battle this needless war? Parents of 18 year old kids are having to buy bulletproof vests and mail them to their sons and daughters in Iraq, because the Army doesn't have the money to protect their troops.

...meanwhile, Bush won another election by distracting the American public with tax cuts and the gay marriage issue.

That seems to be what most of the American public acts like when it comes to political issues...

i really dont like to get involved in political issues, but...

ob1murry: you are telling me that IF Brazil for example was thought to have WMD, US should invade cause there is a chance that they might use them for US?

i agree with 94. i was reading at cnn the list of US soldiers that died in Iraq. SAD SAD..all these young 18-25 year old KIDS, and i repeat that they were KIDS, got killed to make some MOTHER FUCKERS think they are the shit, by claiming that the US is in Iraq to help them establish a democracy.

That is BULLSHIT. You wanna help a country? Go to a third world county where SLAVERY exists today, and save THAT nation.

but wait...that nation doesn't have any oil...

Thinking a president would knowingly put a nation in danger is ludicrous, and I don't know why you would think that. But no I don't believe he knew it. Why? Because it was just all over the press that Clinton said he too would have eventually invaded Iraq based on Intelligence reports he had recieved while in office. He also recieved a memo almost identical to the one Bush recieved about 9/11. But he didn't read it, Dick Morris has been on record several times as saying Clinton didn't read it. I don't mean that in a sense that 9/11 was his fault, I mean it in a sense that intelligence for these things had been coming in for years, some was true, obviously some wasn't, can you distiguish the two, because I can't, as I'm sure the president couldn't.

Let me start off by pointing out that most of the nation feels that Iraq should have been finished off the first time, so even if it was about finishing it off, good, alot of people would say that is good. You have to understand that the majority of the country still supports the war in Iraq, just not the way it is currently headed, or being handled.

But really the republican party is tied to Halliburton? Are you aware that many Oil Companies have boards that are more liberal that republicans.

Even the left's favorite is caught in it.

No comeptition? Are you Insane? Why do you think they were never the front-runners for the proposed pipeline that Micahel Moore talked about so much? Most contracts have gone to small Oil Companies. And even so, if they was NO competition, how is that the president's fault? Because no other companies went after it, or weren't selected, it is the president's fault? Thats the most ignorant thing I ever heard. I guess it is George Bush's fault that Microsoft's only really strong competitor for Opearting Systems is Apple?

When you have to have a large conspiracy theory to support your point, it's probably not a very good point. But you act like they are the only people who do it. Why do you think Al Gore pushed so hard for medical incentives, care, etc., in 2000, because he was backed by about twice the amount of pharmaceutical companies as George Bush was by Oil companies. When you can prove without a doubt to me that the war was for oil I will side with you, in the same way I am sure if we found Nuclear Weapons in Iraq you would side with me.

If the war is for oil, please explain to me why reserves in Alaska were opened, by all means we should be swimming in Iraqi oil by now.

Since when did the CIA become the only intelligence agency in the world? Most of the inlligence came from foreign governments. I never said anything about the CIA.

Ok? What part of faulty intelligence from foreign governments is not understood here, the CIA aren't the only people who supply intelligence.

Based on what your saying here, I have a question I would love to have you answer. If your saying the president just made things up to goto war, what would he have done if 9/11 did not occur?

You also said earlier you believe the president knew he was getting faulty intelligence for these things. If you ebelieve he knew it was all faulty, then why does the left make such a big deal out of the fact that he suppossedly didn't read the 9/11 memo? I mean according to you, he already knew the intelligence was faulty.

Yup, he twisted and fabricated, Unknown Toxins. It's not like he said, we found Uranium. It isn't possible that foreign intellinge said, "We believe this warehouse is a weapons plant, because of BLAH BLAH BLAH, these barrels on the outside would be consistent with barrels used to store toxins created either for weapons, or as waste in the plant."?

Because if we just left Iraq after we tore it apart, you would be sitting here when the country fell apart and revolts started popping up all over the place, complaining about how we left them high and dry, we started something, and it is our responsiblity and duty to finish it, right or wrong.

A date has not been given because a war isn't like a term paper, you can't go, "Oh on December 31, we will be all done, and come home." Un-expected things occur, installing a new government and bring things under control takes time. Can you give me an exact date when everything in Iraq will be stable, and exactly as you predict it, no, you can't, neither can anyone else. An exit stategy, I would agree is needed in a war, something like "When this, this, this, this, and this, are ready we will leave." But "We will leave in 147 days" is just ridiculous.

Yes, because the president is soley responsible for this. Your pinning blame that the entire goverment deserves on a single man. But I don't disagree with you, they do need better protection.

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the other half of America who agrees with him, soley because the disagree with you.

So if US develops some sort of bad realtions with Brazil, Then invade?

who said for me to join? since you are such a fan of Bush why don't YOU join? you seem to support his views, why not fight for them?...yea thought so.

ok, if US is such a "helpful" country why not help the other countries as well? why devoted all their time at Iraq? Do you think that after US "has brought peace" to Iraq, it will move on to free other countries from its dictators?

Did I say that I agreed with the invasion of Iraq because of WMD's? You drew your own conclusion on that. I said I believe that sarin gas is a WMD. But the fact is that I have my own reasons for supporting the war, and you don;t know what they are, so assuming you do is awfully asinine.

Well gee, I could have sworn the Army was voluntary. No one forced them to join. 18-25 is a child? 18 is old to have an abortion without parental notification, 18 is old enough to vote on who you want to run the country, but 18 isn't old enough to make the decision to join the military, again voluntarily?

The US does more humanitarian missions that any other nation, and has actually been asked to stop by some, because they feel that the help will make the people lazy. Just because it doesn't get news coverage doesn't necessarily mean it isn't happening.

P.S. - Dude, just try and calm down a little bit, try and keep it civil, I don't think anyone has a problem talking about it, but when people start swearing and getting upset, things are going to go south.

this topic should get interesting

Did i say anywhere that you agree with the invasion of Iraq based on WMD? you drew your own conclusion there. Still no answer on Brazil!

So an 18 year old has lived a full life? never got a chance to experience anything!

what? when? where? how? who?

sorry...

Is korea next? they are a threat though..would you support invade Korea?

and i am not responding anymore till the author of this thread replies...

No, but you insinuated that the reason I support the war is because of WMD's. You asked if I would support an Invasion of Brazil because I was afraid they might use them on us. I took that as implying I supported the war in Iraq because I was afraid they would use WMDs, which isn't why. The answer is maybe. It is kind of like e said, if they had WMD's and that was the whole story, no I woudl not support an invasion. However if they constantly voiced their hatred for Americans, Cheered when Innocent Americans were killed, had used those weapons on other countries previously, and just all around hated us and threatened to kill us over and over, then yes, I would support an invasion.

No. However they are techinically an adult, who made a decision, no one forced them to join. It was their choice. I just find it funny that an 18 year old is old enough in people's mind to get an abortion, and not have their parent's notified, they are old enough to vote, etc., but they aren't old enough to make their own decision about the military. I'm having a really tough time wording what I am trying to say on this topic, so I might have to come back to it later.

??? The US is on constant humitarian missions. You know that. I believe it was Egypt who asked us to curtail the aid, because they felt that by giving the citizens "free handouts" they would expect it all the time and get lazy.

it's cool.

YES, almost everyone agrees to that, look at all the people who bitch about we invaded Iraq instead of Korea, alot of people support an invasion of Korea.

By that I was referring to exactly what I said I was referring to, the American public. It really doesn't matter how many news briefings or conferences you attend if you can't think for yourself.