Why isn't BUSH impeached?
- Thread starter 1QWIK6
- Start date
Even generals didnt want this war:
As late as mid-January 2003, Powell was still telling foreign colleagues that "I have a war to stop," as he put it to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell gave the clear impression that he hoped to enlist Straw – who also was skeptical about going to war – and other foreign leaders in his effort to dissuade President Bush from attacking Iraq.
"What is truly dramatic about the long run-up to the war is that you had Powell and Straw – the top diplomats in each government – working together trying to undermine the clear determination of their bosses to go to war," a senior official with direct knowledge of the U.S.-U.K. conversations in early 2003 said some months ago. The full story, if and when historians can get it, will be worth telling..
As late as mid-January 2003, Powell was still telling foreign colleagues that "I have a war to stop," as he put it to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell gave the clear impression that he hoped to enlist Straw – who also was skeptical about going to war – and other foreign leaders in his effort to dissuade President Bush from attacking Iraq.
"What is truly dramatic about the long run-up to the war is that you had Powell and Straw – the top diplomats in each government – working together trying to undermine the clear determination of their bosses to go to war," a senior official with direct knowledge of the U.S.-U.K. conversations in early 2003 said some months ago. The full story, if and when historians can get it, will be worth telling..
TurboJunky
Fire the Federal Gov't
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
I've pointed to definitions, examples and explanations of a LIE and how your assertion GWB lied is dead wrong. But, for whatever reason you ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're right, I'm not an attorney but have court room experience. Your level of proof of a LIE is so far down the scale your case would be thrown out in minutes. I contend most Americans don't believe the President lied either, which puts you in the minority.
TurboJunky
Fire the Federal Gov't
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
According to your logic, anytime someone is wrong using the best available information they lied. This would include:
- the weatherman
- your stock broker
- your mechanic
- your home appraiser
- economists
- air line pilots
- judges
- doctors
....just to name a few.
If anyone gets it wrong using the best available information, with the best of intentions they're an automatic LIAR.
The pilot gives a departure time of 8:15pm and arrival time of 11:30pm. You arrive at 11:55pm and you scream and yell at the pilot because HE LIED TO YOU!
Your stock broker advises to buy xxx stock because it's the best price. The next day the stock drops lower.....HE'S A LIAR!!
Your doctor says you have 6 months to live, you live 9 months instead
....YOUR DOCTOR LIED TO YOU and should lose his medical license....HE'S A LIAR!! Define a LIE...
"If I were to put a branch in the water. The water would make the branch appear as though it was bent. But of course, in reality, it's not".
Society, media, politicians and of course attorneys twist and bend the truth to suit their needs.
What we now call spin is nothing more than a new name for LYING.
Or as Plato said, "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant".
"If I were to put a branch in the water. The water would make the branch appear as though it was bent. But of course, in reality, it's not".
Society, media, politicians and of course attorneys twist and bend the truth to suit their needs.
What we now call spin is nothing more than a new name for LYING.
Or as Plato said, "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant".
1Quik....it is quite obvious that you are a liberal, Democrat, whatever. I'm conservative (though not a Republican), so it goes without saying that we wont' agree on manyt things. That said...
Thanks. And I hope when you grow up that you're not quite so cynical.
I appreciate your attempt at stereotyping those that disagree with you. However, I certainly do not have "A.D.D." (don't even believe in it), but I will agree that Ted Kennedy spins quite a left-wing agenda. You do not? Ok.Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Sigh... ANOTHER A.D.D. person.. "Left-wing,liberal-spin,Ted Kennedy"...
Actually, I asked for the link. What I didn't ask for was one quote from a newspaper. Let's go one further.....go read the text of his Jan 2003 State of the Union address and (again) show me where he said that Iraq was an imminent threat. Do that, and I'll shut up about it.
Hmmm....was that taken from an editorial? Do you know what an editorial is? Regardless, that statement contridicts your first quote. Let me know if you need me to explain how this is so.
See line above about "editorial" and then go look up the word "opinion". We all have em, and we all know what they smell like. We also know that opinion is not fact.
LOL. Young whippersnapper, I did not state that the "vast majority" of the world supported the war. I stated that the "vast majority" of the world had concluded that Iraq possed WMD. Even France. Even Germany. And - OMG - even Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and all the left-wingers that bent over backwards to oppose something that they thought they could win political points from. Imagine that.
North Korea is most certainly a serious problem, and I would certainly consider it a major threat. You're welcome to argue that we should have cracked that (much, much tougher) nut first, but I disagree. Regardless, it can't all be done at once.BTW:... North Korea isn't a MAJOR threat vs IRAQ?!
Your welcome to your opinion, and if you wish to stick your head in the sand (appropriate, I think), that's ok with me.Really?
Sorry, you lost me there. I've lived all over this country and even in other countries. You completely and totally missed the point of my question. Perhaps I should be more direct? Ok. Are you of Middle East decent? I have no beef with you if you are or are not, I'm just curious.YEEEEEEEEHAW... Now.. in the southern most slang.. I need you to say "That's the way I grew up- That's the way I'm gonna b"
I know southern people tend to be the MOST educated too..
Thanks. And I hope when you grow up that you're not quite so cynical.
TurboJunky
Fire the Federal Gov't
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
Red Regal T
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
Maybe you just have your parties screwed up. The Democrats, who have no issues, are the ones that must make it up as they go along.........evidenced by these two here, who don't get it.
For example, last year I seem to remember the former Republican majority leader in the Senate, Trent Lott, had the audacity to salute Strom Thurmond for being a great Senator for many years at a fairwell event for Thurmond...........even during the times of civil rights abuses while Strom Thurmond was seeking the presidential nomination as a dixiecrat. For Trent Lott's forgetfulness, in "offending" black America, the Republicans, yes, the Republicans threw him out of his job for his insensitivity. Now you take the Democrats, Christopher Dodd praises the former Klansman Senator from West Virginia, and you don't hear a peep about it. This is a typical Democrat double standard and proves the Democrats have no integrity.
Oh, and the guy who was actually in Nam? Glad you mentioned him. He came home and got in bed with Jane Fonda, calling his comrades in arms, WAR CRIMINALS. That's a pretty small mistake.
He's your hero? SHAME! Flag waving vs isolationalism
First, the topic was "Why isn't Bush impeached?", right? So why all the negative rhetoric about Republican vs Democrat, brought up by the Democratic supporters (*Independent?*)?
Really, there is FAR more to lose by being isolationalistic than as a flag waver.
It's obvious that there a very few posters here who feel the war in Iraq is/was wrong, only because they understood that the initiation of that war was ONLY due (or at least primarily)to the perceived threat of the use of WMD's by Sadam.
Wrong on their part but that's ok. It's still the USA and we can disagree.
However, it is very obvious that those opposing the war did not listen to any of Bush's speeches or read any other articles than those that try to drum up useless and infactual ('lies' is such a harsh word) reports, most based on supposition and/or conjecture. Bush was very clear from day one that while the concern for WMD's was high on his priority list, bigger yet was the need to free the Iraqi people from Sadam's grasp and bring stability to the region.
THAT was his and his cabinet's biggest priority - eliminate the threat by Hussein to attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or even Israel, all allies to the US. Hussein had already done so and it was foolish to wait and see if he would do it again - there is no doubt that he would have.
But I'm not trying to convince anyone of the truth - it is there for the believing.
I firmly believe that those who are posting here with immature actions and posts are only doing so to stir things up. That's too bad and just makes them look bad in the process.
And I'm still waiting for any one of them (the opposition) to explain how they would have made these same statements in Hussein's Iraq or North Korea.
Oh - one other thing. I am SURE that if North Korea were to take the same actions that SH's regime did (invade and threaten our allies, continue war mongering actions, etc) it would only be a matter of time for them too.
Currently, North Korea is semi stable and that is why we're not engaged there. If the threat was real that existed in Iraq, the situation would be different. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
First, the topic was "Why isn't Bush impeached?", right? So why all the negative rhetoric about Republican vs Democrat, brought up by the Democratic supporters (*Independent?*)?
Really, there is FAR more to lose by being isolationalistic than as a flag waver.
It's obvious that there a very few posters here who feel the war in Iraq is/was wrong, only because they understood that the initiation of that war was ONLY due (or at least primarily)to the perceived threat of the use of WMD's by Sadam.
Wrong on their part but that's ok. It's still the USA and we can disagree.
However, it is very obvious that those opposing the war did not listen to any of Bush's speeches or read any other articles than those that try to drum up useless and infactual ('lies' is such a harsh word) reports, most based on supposition and/or conjecture. Bush was very clear from day one that while the concern for WMD's was high on his priority list, bigger yet was the need to free the Iraqi people from Sadam's grasp and bring stability to the region.
THAT was his and his cabinet's biggest priority - eliminate the threat by Hussein to attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or even Israel, all allies to the US. Hussein had already done so and it was foolish to wait and see if he would do it again - there is no doubt that he would have.
But I'm not trying to convince anyone of the truth - it is there for the believing.
I firmly believe that those who are posting here with immature actions and posts are only doing so to stir things up.
That's too bad and just makes them look bad in the process.And I'm still waiting for any one of them (the opposition) to explain how they would have made these same statements in Hussein's Iraq or North Korea.
Oh - one other thing. I am SURE that if North Korea were to take the same actions that SH's regime did (invade and threaten our allies, continue war mongering actions, etc) it would only be a matter of time for them too.
Currently, North Korea is semi stable and that is why we're not engaged there. If the threat was real that existed in Iraq, the situation would be different. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
Finally... Ive been waiting for this one.
1QWIK6 its really nice that you told us that you arent a lawyer, but I think its safe to say that we all had that pretty much figured out. I think that we also know that the same holds true for your buddy We4ster and thats not the only thing I question about him.
That said, I do have a legal education, and I can guarantee you that you wont find a "good reason" clause anywhere in the President's going to war hand book or the Constitution WHICH I KNOW YOU HAVENT READ!!! I know I dont have to say this either but since we're keeping this at about playground level, what "seems good to you" isnt a binding legal standard, let alone a rational one.
You keep pissing on about staying on topic. Well here it is. Show me the legal reason... LEGAL reason which shows that Bush should be impeached.
onefastjackass
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
OK lets me answer this like a repub would and then like a democrat and see if red t can see the difference.Originally posted by Red Regal T
Oh, and the guy who was actually in Nam? Glad you mentioned him. He came home and got in bed with Jane Fonda, calling his comrades in arms, WAR CRIMINALS. That's a pretty small mistake.
If he was a repub and I was a repub then the answer would go like this.He didn't do or say anything wrong.Because anything he did or said was in the interest in stopping the war so anything he did or said should not be held against him Because the ends justifyed the means.
Now let me do It as a democrat sticking up for a dem.He was wrong for saying that sort of thing but at least he formed his opinions based upon actually being on the front lines and not hiding back in the states.And someone who was hiding behind his fathers influence and not having actually served in the conflict should not be using it against him especially since it happened over 20 years ago.
Now lets try the bush wmd and compare it to the clinton thing.
The bush supporters.Well GB never told us he had weapons of mass distruction(Lie).Well even if he did The guy still needed taken out of power(justification).Saddam had Something to do with 9/11(LIE)
Now clinton supporters.Yes clinton lied and he shouldn't have done what he did but impeaching him and trying to get him thrown out of office on those grounds is just a witch hunt.
Now let me ask you all which one of these two groups is more willing to admit that the people they support has done something wrong.
One group is willing to admit that the people they support did something wrong they just disagree on the proper way of dealing with it.The other is not.See if you can pick out which one??
Uh... Which Clinton lie are you refering to? Im not even going to bother with his woman troubles.
Instead, how bout that same "lie" he used BEFORE Bush took office? Wait, I got it, you can only lie if a Republican.
You want differences? Here is one...
When both presidents use the same reasoning to attack Iraq based on information given to them... the "Repubs" here find no fault in that.
The "Dems" found no fault either, in fact they were very vocal about it, Kerry included... lots of folks made these comments BEFORE Bush took office. Of course this is only while a Dem is president... now its a "lie". Wow.
Instead, how bout that same "lie" he used BEFORE Bush took office? Wait, I got it, you can only lie if a Republican.
You want differences? Here is one...
When both presidents use the same reasoning to attack Iraq based on information given to them... the "Repubs" here find no fault in that.
The "Dems" found no fault either, in fact they were very vocal about it, Kerry included... lots of folks made these comments BEFORE Bush took office. Of course this is only while a Dem is president... now its a "lie". Wow.
LOL. Ok - color me blind, shipmate. BTW....wasn't it you that said this about a year ago?
"As a Canadian, I can tell all you brother Americans that GWB's plans for attacking Iraq are well founded, but he must be patient, Give the inspectors another month or 2, to satisfy the Germans, French and Russians. There will obviously be no attacks / weasel moves while they <inspectors> are in Iraq. Saddam will screw it up, but going in alone now is a BIG mistake. I was in favor of an all out assault, and still am, but timing is wrong, IMO."
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=495323#post495323
Footnote: That was mid-February, it was "another month or two" before the attack began.
Hmmm...Change that tune? Pissed because the timing was wrong? Decided you didn't like somebody? Found damning evidence that GW really did this just for Daddy? Perhaps just for his oil buddies? Care to share that damning evidence?
Aren't you glad Canada wasn't on the security council a year ago?
Yes, I was 100% fooled by GDB and his posse of republican's WMD smokecreen. Colin Powells BS sat pix, the whole ball of wax. Now its time to lick your wounds go pull out. It was funny, a US marine was on the radio from Iraq, and was saying that the more visible the foot soldiers are to the locals, the more they are hated..go figure.
Hind site is indeed 20/20, but I wonder if the US would have kept there weapons instead of arming the P|ss out of the Taliban in the conflict with the USSR?
Back @ ya Bobby.
Hind site is indeed 20/20, but I wonder if the US would have kept there weapons instead of arming the P|ss out of the Taliban in the conflict with the USSR?
Back @ ya Bobby.
I'll repeat as needed... the WMD info preceeds Bush. It is ignorant or dishonest to claim its a Republican anything.
1998:
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
At which point we bombed the snot out of Iraq. Apparently this was without:
Multiple and additional UN resolutions.
UN approval or official support - what coalition?
Any complaints like what we read here - liar?
Concern for Oil... its only about oil with Bush? Duh...
Any concern over what the French would think.
The difference is obvious in this thread. According to some, you can only be a liar if a Republican.
Im leaving out the smaller skirmishes, but Im only making a point here.
S
Powell was against the war from day one. But as a good soldier does, he backed his commanding officer, as he should.
You keep trying to make this a Rep vs Dem debate, both sides are throwing rhetoric back and forth and its absurd. I'm speaking from my experience and my personal beliefs.....not a rep...not a dem. I disassociated myself from these parties for this exact behavior. What Americans should be thinking is "Whats good for America not whats good for the party".
The Bush administration has bent the truth to push their agenda. Previous administrations have done the same to push their agendas. My personal opinion is that it was a huge mistake to attack Iraq. We attacked Iraq because we were lead to "believe" that they were a threat to the U.S. I havent seen or heard ONE legitimate reason that made them a threat.
"They were a threat to their neighbors"? Saddam's army was destroyed in Desert Storm..Who was he going to attack? Iran would have kicked his butt, he wouldnt have dared to attack Kuwait again. Its all political hype to give substance to the invasion. "He had WMD's? 20 years ago he did. Show me a major middle eastern country that isnt developing WMD'S.
Show me a middle eastern country that isnt run by a dictator!
The present administration mislead the american people and to me "misleading=lying.
"We destroyed the Taliban" better look again at afghanistan, they're so-called governing administration is on the verge of total
melt-down. The Taliban are back and the War Lords are growing the largest poppy fields in the world. We didnt finish the job there because Bushbaby had a personal vendetta against Iraq.
This is an election year so hang on to your hats, its going to be one hellava ride....
You keep trying to make this a Rep vs Dem debate, both sides are throwing rhetoric back and forth and its absurd. I'm speaking from my experience and my personal beliefs.....not a rep...not a dem. I disassociated myself from these parties for this exact behavior. What Americans should be thinking is "Whats good for America not whats good for the party".
The Bush administration has bent the truth to push their agenda. Previous administrations have done the same to push their agendas. My personal opinion is that it was a huge mistake to attack Iraq. We attacked Iraq because we were lead to "believe" that they were a threat to the U.S. I havent seen or heard ONE legitimate reason that made them a threat.
"They were a threat to their neighbors"? Saddam's army was destroyed in Desert Storm..Who was he going to attack? Iran would have kicked his butt, he wouldnt have dared to attack Kuwait again. Its all political hype to give substance to the invasion. "He had WMD's? 20 years ago he did. Show me a major middle eastern country that isnt developing WMD'S.
Show me a middle eastern country that isnt run by a dictator!
The present administration mislead the american people and to me "misleading=lying.
"We destroyed the Taliban" better look again at afghanistan, they're so-called governing administration is on the verge of total
melt-down. The Taliban are back and the War Lords are growing the largest poppy fields in the world. We didnt finish the job there because Bushbaby had a personal vendetta against Iraq.
This is an election year so hang on to your hats, its going to be one hellava ride....
Red Regal T
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
Ya know? This is REALLY STUPID.
Similar threads
