Why isn't BUSH impeached?

Originally posted by 1QWIK6
BushCartoon.gif


I would hope the president had solid hard facts... but now....
P.S. follow link... and re-think
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/pp012103.htm
Click to expand...

Man I got as far as #4 and #7 before I realized that was a bunch of wasted space. Im getting slow or open minded.

That article would have you believe we shouldnt have went after Al Qaeda even though we did it the "American way" by being REACTIVE.

Just how many specific resolutions would there have to be? Wow! That dumb statement made the rest of that list irrelevant to me... I almost didnt even read past that.

Skimming thru I also learn that war is never a good thing if the US is involved. In fact, we are an Imperial nation! lol. It gets better...

It cites the Brits and their opinion that Blair is too supportive of the US... funny, the previous administration could do no wrong.

Who cares what the French thinK? That article actually has the nerve to mention that what the French think should be one of the reasons for "no war". Further, he states in this article: "My personal favorite opposition comes from the novelist John Le Carré." Wow, a French sounding Brit. If you dont know what the French have been up to re Iraq look it up, I dont have space here.

Even better...

Our unemployment was supposed to be up ( as much as 7.5%) and a new recession "likely".

" Those who oppose Bush's war plans have also had their patriotism questioned." Now THAT is a good reason for no war. bwahahahahaa Anything to make a list right? That method could give 101 reasons to wake up in the morning.

The article is outdated. Like by about a year.... those poor poor Arab Americans.

And I leave the dumbest statement for last... just like anyone that says "Bush lied" or "impeach Bush" and means it, gets no respect from me, this doesnt either: Unilateral. If you read it, you found that word and just skipped over it.

S
 
They can be wrong if they want to

Remember - back in the 1930's and even during WWII, there were many people who opposed the war in Europe and Japan, just like those now that oppose the war in Iraq. They cited all sorts of reasons why America shouldn't enter the war or after involved in it, why we should pull out.

There were even citizens who opposed war for independence! :eek:

Just like today.

There were cartoon after cartoon, editorial after editorial, and just as much ignorance 65 years ago as today.

However, those that fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Once more, the point was made that the ONLY reason people like those here who oppose the war in Iraq are able to speak out is that there were people like Roosevelt, Truman, and Bush who said, "Enough is enough". And yet, not ONE of the dissenters can honestly answer that fact.

Just imagine the configuration of the world today if we hadn't entered the war, even after Pearl Harbor. How long do you think it would have been following Pearl Harbor before the Nazis and the Japanese would have been on our shoreline had we said, "Nah, they're over there in those far away lands and we're over here. Let the Brits, the Poles, the Chinese, the Phillipinos and all the rest deal with their own problems. We're not supposed to be the world's policeman. Our government deceived us! Only 3000 or so died in Pearl Harbor - why should we go to war and lose hundreds of thousands?"?

A warrior does not ALWAYS wait to be attacked to join his enemy. It is the dead warrior who waited in the face of overwhelming proof that to wait will have an enormous and deadly price.

It is obvious that there are people here who: A) Like to argue their position in the face of overwhelming proof they are wrong; B) Do not truly understand the complexities of a Global Society; C) Do not understand the responsibilities this nation has to the world regarding freedom and democracy; and D) Like to wave the flag of isolationalism in spite of finite proof that this nation is succeptible to terrorism.

These same people will not be convinced how dead wrong they are until they or someone they care about pays the ultimate price for terrorism or their isolationalistic view.

They sing the same song that has no melody or rhyme, only to stir up dissension and argument, just like the liberal leftist media here and abroad. That's ok, it's America and that is allowed here.

But they won't answer what would they do if they were the Iraqi's who have been liberated from Sadam's brutal grip OR how they would spew their foolish rhetoric if they lived in Sadam's Iraq or North Korea or China.

Because they know the answer. They would be dead or in prison.
To oppose the war in the face of all the facts only prove how easily deceived some people are.

I will not debate anyone here about the correctness of the war in Iraq. I do not need to - the results speak for themselves. Those who choose to argue with facts only prove themselves to be deluded and ignorant.

Remember - "Never argue with a fool, it will be hard to tell who is who".

So the WMD's haven't been found yet - that was NOT the only reason we went to war. Even if we never find the first WMD, the war was justified. Our only mistake was waiting as long as we did and not doing this when GWB Sr was in office!
 
If you have to ask why he isn't impeached already (as you suggest he should have been), then you already have your answer.

If you can't figure out the reason "why" he hasn't been impeached, much less even had the possible topic bandied about within our legislative branches, then you are very out of tune with the workings of our government, the beliefs of our populace, and show true lack of understanding of the foundational principals of Democracy and World Leadership.


Amen Raven.


Does it bother anyone else that the one who started this thread only responds to comments that don't have anything to do with impeachment, even in the face of dorect questions.
 
Bother...no, not me. It's just telling of how selective they are about topics and/or issues.

I predict (and I'm not joking) that GWB will defeat Kerry in a LANDSLIDE. Yup, landslide. It's not even going to be a tight race.
 
I don't agree with everything Bush has done. There are times when he acts a certain way (deliberately) that causes him to be taken in a completely different manner than he perhaps intended. He may not be a particle physicist, but he is *sublimely* clever. One thing he excels at is building personal networks of people that can work as a team.

Kerry has done nothing more than give reasons for people to say *no* to Bush, rather than *yes* to Kerry.

If that continues, Kerry will get his a$$ handed to him in General election. That majority of this country is not composed of idiots (although the minority seem to get more than their fair share of press).

Of all the Democrats, I'd have to say Edwards was the most level headed one. Kerry however.. Where do I start... That guy is a bigger liar then Clinton, huge womanizer, more duplitious, and just a bad politician. I hold Teddy Kennedy in higher regard than Kerry (Kennedy, for all his BS, is predictable... Kerry, will join whatever side of an issue that suits him at that moment, frequently waffling back and forth).

Some of these o_O are just mad cause Bush had the *stones* to follow up and do what he said he'd do. Clinton was busy getting his stones buffed in the Oval Office and Kerry was busy trying to put together a focus group to see whether or not he had any....
 
Originally posted by The Pro


Some of these o_O are just mad cause Bush had the *stones* to follow up and do what he said he'd do. Clinton was busy getting his stones buffed in the Oval Office and Kerry was busy trying to put together a focus group to see whether or not he had any....
Click to expand...

I want that as a bumper sticker!
 
Originally posted by 1QWIK6
....but please dont just BLINDLY follow someone that cannot back up a CLEARLY STATED CLAIM (IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD).
Click to expand...

Kindly find a quote from a reputable news souce that said Iraq posed an imminent threat via WMD. That is left-wing, liberal spin. Don't care if you don't want to hear those words or not - that's all it is. Probably came directly from Ted Kennedy.

A bit over a year ago, the Administration said that they believed (along with the vast majority of the rest of the world) that Iraq had WMD, and could easily be a source of WMD for terrorists to use against their enemies - certainly not excluding us.

Futher, GWB was acting on the best intelligence he had. It is fairly obvious now that some of that intel was WRONG. Unfortunately, few things in life or definate, and the shadowy world of intel is one of those (in spades). So, if you're the president of the USA, you have a choice: You take the best information you have and either

a) Do nothing
b) Take actoin

History can one day tell of if he took the correct action - it can never tell us what might have happened had he not acted.

The current situation in Iraq pretty much sucks. It's going to be hell for a while, and it certainly might get worse before it gets better. I have friends over there RIGHT NOW (I'm an active duty, 20 year veteran of the USN), and believe me, it pains me to read about the casualties - likely more than you'll ever know. But I feel it is an ugly necessity.

Finally, I highly recommend that you vote for Ralph Nader, or move to France. You'll fit right in with the appeasers. May I ask if you support Osama Bin Laden? How about Hamas? Do you believe the Isreali's should be kicked out of Isreal? Do you think Saddam Hussien wasn't as bad as we made him out to be?

You live in Michigan. Hmmm. May I ask what your ethnic origin is? I'll tell you that I am a white male, grew up mostly in Texas. Family tree goes back to Western Europe.

Good day.

PS....Raven....thanks for the insight. You have the ability to communicate the written word better than most anybody I have seen. Quite a gift.
 
These posts are really getting funny... The Rep rhetoric is so predictable! "Bush is our man and he has big stones"..
Actually he has advisors with big stones, bush himself doesnt have the knowledge or the intelligence to make a realistic decision.
Yep, he did this country good by invading a 3rd rate county whos military was destroyed by his daddy. Yep, takes BIG stones to do that. Yep, Iraq was a "real threat" to the free world...what a joke!
Now if bushbaby really had big stones, he would have gone after North Korea. Now those terrorists have nukes and the ability to deliver them. So what does bushbaby do with them? He negotiates? Hmmmmmmmmm, interesting. A country who is a real threat with WMD'S and a history of torturing and killing his own people and we negotiate with them.
What about those libyans, they had WMD'S and a history of human rights violations and have KILLED american citizens, so what do we do? WE negotiate.
What about those syrians? Assad has a history of slaughtering his own people, supporting terrorists and WMD'S, hmmmmmm I wonder what we are going to do with him or any other middle eastern country.
Bushbaby has big stones, so lets see what the fool does this time.

"This war is purely political with hidden agenda's"
 
Kindly find a quote from a reputable news souce that said Iraq posed an imminent threat via WMD. That is left-wing, liberal spin. Don't care if you don't want to hear those words or not - that's all it is. Probably came directly from Ted Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Sigh... ANOTHER A.D.D. person.. "Left-wing,liberal-spin,Ted Kennedy"... :rolleyes:

UH... oh..

Los Angeles Times January 29, 2003
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat
The above front-page headline in the L.A. Times is the earliest media report that I can find which claims that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat.

San Francisco Chronicle February 6, 2003

For all the damning evidence of Hussein's tyranny and evil ambitions -- neither of which has been in doubt since the Persian Gulf War -- Powell did not show that Iraq amounted to an imminent threat to the United States.
Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times March 4, 2003
The second lie was that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction represent an imminent threat to U.S. security.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times June 3, 2003
The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than the Iran-contra affair. Indeed, the idea that Americans were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.




A bit over a year ago, the Administration said that they believed (along with the vast majority of the rest of the world) that Iraq had WMD, and could easily be a source of WMD for terrorists to use against their enemies - certainly not excluding us.
Click to expand...

The "vast majority" of the rest of the world? Please do an EXCEL spread sheet and show me those nations who supported the war vs. nations that DIDN'T support the war... Or at least find someone who can do it for you.

BTW:... North Korea isn't a MAJOR threat vs IRAQ?! :rolleyes:


Futher, GWB was acting on the best intelligence he had. It is fairly obvious now that some of that intel was WRONG.
Click to expand...

Really? :rolleyes: or wast it G.W.Bush told D!ck to FIND A LINK TO AL qaeda?


Finally, I highly recommend that you vote for Ralph Nader, or move to France. You'll fit right in with the appeasers. May I ask if you support Osama Bin Laden? How about Hamas? Do you believe the Isreali's should be kicked out of Isreal? Do you think Saddam Hussien wasn't as bad as we made him out to be?

You live in Michigan. Hmmm. May I ask what your ethnic origin is? I'll tell you that I am a white male, grew up mostly in Texas. Family tree goes back to Western Europe.
Click to expand...

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.. :p
 
WE4STER writes

These posts are really getting funny... The Rep rhetoric is so predictable! "Bush is our man and he has big stones"..
Click to expand...

SOOOoo true... Bush is right up there with Catholics saying the POPE IS INFALLIABLE :LOL:

Actually he has advisors with big stones, bush himself doesnt have the knowledge or the intelligence to make a realistic decision.
Click to expand...

True.. if some people here would put down the flag wavin for a minute and do some research, it was D!CK who wanted the war more than GWB :eek:


Yep, he did this country good by invading a 3rd rate county whos military was destroyed by his daddy. Yep, takes BIG stones to do that. Yep, Iraq was a "real threat" to the free world...what a joke!
Now if bushbaby really had big stones, he would have gone after North Korea. Now those terrorists have nukes and the ability to deliver them. So what does bushbaby do with them? He negotiates? Hmmmmmmmmm, interesting. A country who is a real threat with WMD'S and a history of torturing and killing his own people and we negotiate with them.
What about those libyans, they had WMD'S and a history of human rights violations and have KILLED american citizens, so what do we do? WE negotiate.
What about those syrians? Assad has a history of slaughtering his own people, supporting terrorists and WMD'S, hmmmmmm I wonder what we are going to do with him or any other middle eastern country.
Bushbaby has big stones, so lets see what the fool does this time.

"This war is purely political with hidden agenda's
Click to expand...

SOOOOO TRUE! N.Korea is WAYYYY MORE major threat than IRAQ is/was. But it's easier to steamroll a weak 3rd world army than to have the BALLS to take on REAL issues.. (i.e. N. Korea) Bush probably thought he would roll in, take out Saddam, change history and be a Hero... sorry George, it doesn't work like that.:rolleyes:
 
When are you people ever gonna learn that no self respecting republican is ever going to admit that one of the people they support ever misled or lied.

They have always and will always justify and twist things so the person they are supporting has done no wrong.

It has been that way since the beginning.

Anytime one of there guys messes up or lies then he still did the correct thing.
Or it was the correct thing to do for some other reason

And anytime a democrat messes up then they are gonna make a big deal out of it no matter how small the issue is.

Heck they are even trying to discredit someone who was actually in Nam instead of back home campagning.
Because the piece of shrapnel he had in him was too small.


You are never going to convince them! So you might as well just drop it!!
 
When are you people ever gonna learn that no self respecting republican is ever going to admit that one of the people they support ever misled or lied.

They have always and will always justify and twist things so the person they are supporting has done no wrong.

It has been that way since the beginning.

Anytime one of there guys messes up or lies then he still did the correct thing.
Or it was the correct thing to do for some other reason
Click to expand...


True,true...
 
at least the republicans will support each other !!!!!!!!!! what is the dem party besides a bunch of lying twisting horray for me and the hell with you big government socialis group
 
"at least the republicans will support each other !!!!!!!!!! what is the dem party besides a bunch of lying twisting horray for me and the hell with you big government socialis group"

Load of hooey,
Both parties are playing right down the line, look the congressional voting.....rhetoric...rhetoric....rhetoric..


"Its good to be an independent"
 
Originally posted by 1QWIK6
Sad too many people wave the flag insted of looking deeper at real issues.
Click to expand...
Look deeper...well said. In fact, I spotted a squadron of black heli's hovering over a field the other day. I think they had something to do with hiding Iraq's WMD.

"Looking Deeper" = "Looking for conspiracies" :rolleyes:

Anyone else seen some black helos lately? Maybe with Haliburton advertisements like a race car?? ;)

I love conspiracies...:p

1QWIK6,

Have you figured out the Congressional standard for impeachment yet? What it means? It's process? What's needed for a conviction? This'll be good
 
TT/A1233 likes to beat a dead horse!

"Have you figured out the Congressional standard for impeachment yet? What it means? It's process? What's needed for a conviction?"

This isnt about definitions, its about opinions...You learned how to read a dictionary?..................WOW!

"Both Senate and House are Rep controlled, therefore no impeachment"............................Get a life or and opinion of your own....................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
California Cruisin'
Replies
0
Views
359
corsair231
C
GNVYUS 1
Garrett G30-770 Turbo vs TA49, 1990s vs 2020s, GN Mustang DYNO Results Inside!!
2 3
Replies
43
Views
9K
GNVYUS 1
GNVYUS 1
SteveZ82
My First GN
Replies
16
Views
1K
SteveZ82
SteveZ82
T
  • Locked
My 8 month HORROR story. What would you do?
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
21K
Sydwyndr
S
seedling
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Replies
4
Views
1K
seedling
seedling
Top