Impeachment for Cheney??

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Dennis Kucinich will be introducing impeachment articles for Cheney. Originally there were calls for Bush's impeachment but if he were to be removed from office then Cheney would be President. Going this route it might be possible that W will be next Looks like this is going to get interesting

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/politics/politico/thecrypt/main2718095.shtml

[Bulldogcakes]

Dennis Kucinich

ehh sorry buddy, but I stopped reading right there.

[Snacks]

ehh sorry buddy, but I stopped reading right there.

Why b/c he is not a republican or b/c you know he is doing the right thing but you dont want to see your man get what he deserves?

[FUNKMAN]

it seems whether Republican or Democrat these high up politicians are 'above the law' in almost all cases when they mesh possible illegal activities into their political decisions

it's fucking futile

[Bob Impact]

Why b/c he is not a republican or b/c you know he is doing the right thing but you dont want to see your man get what he deserves?

Doing the right thing in 2007 as opposed to 2006? This is posturing. Plain and simple. Nice to know that we're now overtly abusing the impeachment process, as opposed to the covert abuse of the Clinton impeachment.

[Midkiff]

Cheney sucks.

[Bulldogcakes]

Why b/c he is not a republican or b/c you know he is doing the right thing but you dont want to see your man get what he deserves?

No, because he's among the furthest to the left in the Democratic party. A self described "Wellstone Democrat". Thats why he keeps running for president, even though he has no shot. Because the Democratic party is too far to the Right (read that middle) for him. He was also named one of the worst mayors in history by a prominent historian. So I dont take him all that seriously, and neither do most people in Washington.

BTW-One day you're going to reread what you just posted, and realize you just sounded like a 6 year old.

[cougarjake13]

Doing the right thing in 2007 as opposed to 2006? This is posturing. Plain and simple. Nice to know that we're now overtly abusing the impeachment process, as opposed to the covert abuse of the Clinton impeachment.

lets say for arguments sake they put the impeachment process into motion tommorrow

how long before he'd be actually impeached if it was approved ???

[AgnosticJihad]

Kind of pointless to include a link to the article, considering it said even less then the original post. Disappointing. I would like to know what Kucinich is attempting to impeach Cheney for.
Cougarjake13 makes a good point. Assuming the impeachment is approved, it won't likely begin until Cheney is out of office, and thus it is not impeachment anymore, and thus nothing will happen, because politicians/bureaucrats are rarely if ever charged with crimes once out of office/job.

[burrben]

kucinich '08

[BLZBUBBA]

What are the margins (vote-wise) they have to meet to go forward with this? If it's not a simple majority forget about it. The Republicans march in lock-step for the most part. If it's two-thirds deal there's no way this goes anywhere. And any Republican that might consider it will voice the obvious...A distraction from the WAR ON TERROR. So late in the game. On and on. I honestly think they may have trouble getting enough Dems in on this one.

[AgnosticJihad]

What are the margins (vote-wise) they have to meet to go forward with this? If it's not a simple majority forget about it. The Republicans march in lock-step for the most part. If it's two-thirds deal there's no way this goes anywhere. And any Republican that might consider it will voice the obvious...A distraction from the WAR ON TERROR. So late in the game. On and on. I honestly think they may have trouble getting enough Dems in on this one.

Only a simple majority is required.

[DarkHippie]

I don't like this trend that has been going on since clinton of congress threatening each year to impeach the president. All it does is slow down congress and draw away from the magnitude of an impeachment. Unless you are sure that you can get an impeachment, all you are doing is grandstanding for the constitutents.

On the side, although I agree with a lot of what kucinich stands for, I would would rather have a blind epileptic platypus running the country than him. Look up what he did when he was mayor of cleveland.

[Snacks]

No, because he's among the furthest to the left in the Democratic party. A self described "Wellstone Democrat". Thats why he keeps running for president, even though he has no shot. Because the Democratic party is too far to the Right (read that middle) for him. He was also named one of the worst mayors in history by a prominent historian. So I dont take him all that seriously, and neither do most people in Washington.

BTW-One day you're going to reread what you just posted, and realize you just sounded like a 6 year old.

never happen. I'm so tired of the "right" being so wrong and telling everyone about morals and how to live our lives. They do as they want to do and its all about money but condem liberals for everything they do and all the freedoms thet want for all Americans.

Some day you will see that you shouldnt blindly follow a leader that has fucked this country. The dems made the same mistake after 9/11 allowing him to do as he pleased. Americans should demand an impeachment of Cheney and Bush.

What is more impeachable (?) what Clinton did (lying aabout getting a blow job when it was no ones business) or What this administration has done (lying to go to war were many Americans have been killed and everything else he has done againts our constituiton)?

I would say what Bush and the good ol boys have done.

[Bob Impact]

never happen. I'm so tired of the "right" being so wrong and telling everyone about morals and how to live our lives. They do as they want to do and its all about money but condem liberals for everything they do and all the freedoms thet want for all Americans.

Some day you will see that you shouldnt blindly follow a leader that has fucked this country. The dems made the same mistake after 9/11 allowing him to do as he pleased. Americans should demand an impeachment of Cheney and Bush.

What is more impeachable (?) what Clinton did (lying aabout getting a blow job when it was no ones business) or What this administration has done (lying to go to war were many Americans have been killed and everything else he has done againts our constituiton)?

I would say what Bush and the good ol boys have done.

This isn't defending Bush, because I know liberals like to focus on that, so focus on the right thing, and never make this mistake again, and correct it if you see anyone else make it.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not lying on television or to his wife or for getting a blowjob.

...

Thank you.

[Snacks]

This isn't defending Bush, because I know liberals like to focus on that, so focus on the right thing, and never make this mistake again, and correct it if you see anyone else make it.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not lying on television or to his wife or for getting a blowjob.

...

Thank you.

He should never had to testify in the first place. It was a witch hunt. When all that happened most Americans agreed lying under oath about a blow job was no big deal b/c it had nothing to do with anything we needed to know. I would bet if you were married and you didnt want your wife to find out about you cheating you would lie. What he did was wrong, but it never should have gotten that far, but the right had a hard on for Clinton.

Once again what is worse everything Bush has done or Clinton lying under oath about a blow job???

[pennington]

So these people want to impeach Cheney, nominate and confirm a new Vice-President, impeach Bush, make the new Vice-President the President, then nominate and confirm yet another new Vice-President.

All in 18 months - During a presidential nomination and election cycle - While the Democrats control the Senate by a 50/49 margin (not counting a Senator with major brain damage who is never going to vote again) - While the single swing vote over who controls the Senate is Joe Lieberman, who the national Democrats gang-raped.

Is this really how we want to spend our time?

[Yerdaddy]

Won't work. Does this look like a man who has ever had a blowjob? http://www.martinirepublic.com/wp-content/images/cheney.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

Doing the right thing in 2007 as opposed to 2006? This is posturing. Plain and simple. Nice to know that we're now overtly abusing the impeachment process, as opposed to the covert abuse of the Clinton impeachment.

Last year Kucinich would have been up for re-election. This year he's not. Despite all the early fundraising and campaigning going on, this is in fact NOT an election year.

[Stankfoot]

This isn't defending Bush, because I know liberals like to focus on that, so focus on the right thing, and never make this mistake again, and correct it if you see anyone else make it.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not lying on television or to his wife or for getting a blowjob.

...

Thank you.

Yeah! - just like Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales!!!

[Yerdaddy]

He should never had to testify in the first place. It was a witch hunt. When all that happened most Americans agreed lying under oath about a blow job was no big deal b/c it had nothing to do with anything we needed to know. I would bet if you were married and you didnt want your wife to find out about you cheating you would lie. What he did was wrong, but it never should have gotten that far, but the right had a hard on for Clinton.

Once again what is worse everything Bush has done or Clinton lying under oath about a blow job???

I'll second this post and add: How did that Paula Jones trial, in which Clinton was subpoenaed, turn out? A hint: the judge unceremoniously threw it out. It was a well-financed, orchestrated witch-hunt with the goal of destroying Clinton in the court of public opinion or casting a drag-net in which Clinton would fuck up and give the Republicans the rope to hang him with. It never should have got to that point. Perjury never should have qualified as "high crimes and misdemeaners". Robert Fiske never should have been replaced by Starr as "independent" council. And Ann Coulter should have never been allowed to become a woman just to fuck Bill Clinton and then become a raging cunt just because he likes fat chicks.

But I think we should postpone the rehashing of the Clinton impeachment until another Democrat gets in the White House and Republicans start the whole process all over again.

I should also say that I was screaming "Impeach Cheney" about a week ago when I read two articles on the same day: one that said a new report was being released that clarified there was zero evidence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda before the war, and the other that Cheney was on The Rush Limbaugh Show reasserting that there was in fact cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I don't know. If you can't impeach Cheney you simply can't impeach any Republican ever.

[A.J.]

The only thing Kucinich should be introducing is a more convincing toupee.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0112-01.jpg

[Bob Impact]

This isn't defending Bush, because I know liberals like to focus on that, so focus on the right thing, and never make this mistake again, and correct it if you see anyone else make it.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not lying on television or to his wife or for getting a blowjob.
...

Thank you.


Yeah! - just like Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales!!![/SIZE]

Perfect.

[smeagol]

Ya but,

Saddam is dead and Cheney is alive!

As for Clinton he's gotta be thinkin: "she shoulda swallowed and I coulda LIED UNDER OATH and gotten away with it."

The hard dick in the oval office stands alone. Bush or no Bush - CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH.

Throw Bush and Cheney out and then you've got...Nancy Pelosi in charge- fuckin YIKES!

lol

[chrisk67]

Lets face it, if Bush is impeached that leaves the citizens of the free world to be led by someone that we as citizens never see......

We all just need to ride out the Bush presidency and move on for 08.

As for Clinton, he was lucky.....Monica deep thoated him and swallowed him and Hilary still stood by her man. If he wasn't the president, she would have said F U.

Now that Hilary is running, Bill gets lucky again. Bill will get some fucking post that has him travel the world on peace keeping missions and will continue to smoke his stogies and get his skin flute played.:ohmy: He is no fucking idiot.

Can you trust a man that you hardly see AT ALL to lead this nation even for a day? Your choice.

[MadMatt]

I hope you guys realize that Impeachment DOES NOT EQUAL removal from office.

Impeachment is just the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house (H of R); Impeachment is followed by a trial before the upper house (Senate).

Therefore, there can be Impeachment without removal from office. If the official is not found guilty by the Senate, then no removal. Or they can be found guilty but the sentence is something less than removal from office (usually that means censure).

[Yerdaddy]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush)



Fuck it. Let's do it.

[PhilDeez]

[QUOTE=Yerdaddy;1285382]I'll second this post and add: How did that Paula Jones trial, in which Clinton was subpoenaed, turn out? A hint: the judge unceremoniously threw it out. It was a well-financed, orchestrated witch-hunt with the goal of destroying Clinton in the court of public opinion or casting a drag-net in which Clinton would fuck up and give the Republicans the rope to hang him with. It never should have got to that point. Perjury never should have qualified as "high crimes and misdemeaners". Robert Fiske never should have been replaced by Starr as "independent" council. And Ann Coulter should have never been allowed to become a woman just to fuck Bill Clinton and then become a raging cunt just because he likes fat chicks.

Your reply is dated, but since you gave life to an old thread I was compelled to reply.
Your reply and the post to which you replied, are possibly the most asinine posts I have ever read, regardless of political ideology. To qualify perjury by what the individual was not telling the truth about would discredit our entire legal system. It is obvious where you stand on this, but to bend the rules because your guy was stupid enough not to put the blow job screw up to bed behind closed doors rather than to lie to the public and to a court of law...come on. Purjury does not have to qualify as a high crime or misdemeaner, just something that the majority of the House deems as an offense.
BTW impeached or not, we are stuck with Bush and Cheney - no way the process can move to and through a conviction before Jan 2009. Would not get the vote needed to convict regardless, so this is really a mute point.

[Yerdaddy]

Your reply is dated, but since you gave life to an old thread I was compelled to reply.
Your reply and the post to which you replied, are possibly the most asinine posts I have ever read, regardless of political ideology.

Are they?

To qualify perjury by what the individual was not telling the truth about would discredit our entire legal system.

Make sense of this sentence and try again. It's a mess.

It is obvious where you stand on this, but to bend the rules because your guy was stupid enough not to put the blow job screw up to bed behind closed doors rather than to lie to the public and to a court of law...come on. Purjury does not have to qualify as a high crime or misdemeaner, just something that the majority of the House deems as an offense. BTW impeached or not, we are stuck with Bush and Cheney - no way the process can move to and through a conviction before Jan 2009. Would not get the vote needed to convict regardless, so this is really a mute point.

What does the Constitution say a President can be impeached for? "High crimes and misdemeaners". What does that term mean under the law? It's undefined. Most legal and presidential scholars, (and a majority of the public at the time), clearly did not agree that perjury in a case unrelated to fulfilling the office of the Presidency rose to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeaners" and that the actions of the Republican Congress lowered the bar for the impeachment of a President to the level where it can be a purely political act by the opposition. (Bush and his rubber stamp Congress have done their best to raise the bar back up to where there's nothing a President can do to be impeached, but we'll see if that lasts through the next Democratic presidency.)

So what did we learn here? That perjury is NOT explicitly an impeachable offense - only when one party is willing to through the best interest of the country into the shitter and politicize the historical process of impeachment.

You're welcome.

[scottinnj]

Why b/c he is not a republican or b/c you know he is doing the right thing but you dont want to see your man get what he deserves?


Neither, it's because Kucinich is a KOOK!

[scottinnj]

I would like to know what Kucinich is attempting to impeach Cheney for.



He's using the tactic that Cheney was the evil mastermind who set up all the "lies" that got us into the Iraq war as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the Constitution.

Hell, Cheney will just laugh at the papers. He's already said he's not a member of the Administration, he is the President of the Senate.

Cheney is a KOOK too.

[PhilDeez]

So what did we learn here? That perjury is NOT explicitly an impeachable offense - only when one party is willing to through the best interest of the country into the shitter and politicize the historical process of impeachment.

You're welcome.[/QUOTE]

My entire point was/is perjury is easily defined, it is black and white. We know Slick Willie lied under oath. A majority of congress deemed it an impeachable offense.
So guess what, regardless of your own political beliefs or the opinions of the poitical scholars you reference, perjury was an impeachable offense in this case - get over it.
If Bush and/or Cheney is impeached, I am sure the merits of the impeachment will be debated as well.

[JimBeam]

Firstly I'm not sure that 50% of Americans poll holds much weight.
It was 500 people who either answered their phone or filled out a survey on a holiday break.
I'm not sure that's the most rounded subset of the population on which we should base a " national " opinion.
Why not just call on Christmas morning or at 12:01 AM on January 1st.

** Actually I went back and reread the article and the headline isn't even correct. The poll found that 46% were against an impeachemnt and 45% were in favor. I'm not a mathemetician but I believe you would infer from this survey that more of US does not favor the impeachment. I guess in this writers world the majority opinion is not what matters most. **

As far as Bush lying to Congress about going to war I'm sure he was doing it based on iformation that was provided to him which may or may not turn out to be factually incorrect/inaccurate.

This belief that there's a giant conspiracy between the Bushes and Cheney to make oil money is insane. Regadless of what you may think abour Bush it would take a really evil person to waste thousands of lives to make money. If you think about it and its moral issue you'd have to agree that it doesnt make sense. People shouldn't let their ouright disgust for a person lead them into believing fairy tales and Tom Clacny-esque plots.

Also the members of Congress that voted to go to war can't sit back and say " Wow I was duped. I totally believed what you told me. ". In the end they voted to go to war because they didn't want their voters thinking they were " pussies ". And it is that plain and simple.

I, a voting Republican who didn't believe we should've gone to war, knew it sounded wierd when Powell was showing satellite pictures of supposed weapons of mass destruction that never appeared.

My thought was " Wait we had the technology to take the pics of the " weapons " when they were standing still but then that elusive intelligence machine that was the Iraqi military manged to hide them on us ?? " It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense.

As far as the Clinton impeachment let's not forget a few things. This belief that the sex, let alone the lying about it, wasn't our business is completely incorrect. As the president he works for the American public and he was dicking around, literally, on our time. He then had the balls to lie to everybody thinking that we were all so ignorant that we couldn't tell the difference, or cared about the difference, between his semantics. The other thing that's missed here is he would've easily been found guilty of sexual harassment if he was working in the private sector. He in a position of authority, let alone the biggest position of authority in the country, had no business having a realtionship w/ somebody that worked for him. Take the politics out of it and that's exactly what you have.

Now clearly this issue wouldn't be remotely as heinous as the supposed " war for oil " plot but let's not pretent that what happened " wasn't our business ".

[high fly]

SIDE NOTE: I heard Lynn Cheney interviewed and she said the Cheney family does not pronounce their last name the way most folks do.

I shit you not, she said the way they pronounce it is "Cheeney."
Rhymes with "weenie."

[high fly]

As far as Bush lying to Congress about going to war I'm sure he was doing it based on iformation that was provided to him which may or may not turn out to be factually incorrect/inaccurate.



Then you haven't been paying attention.
In the fall of 2002, President Bush told the American people "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Two days previously he had received a CIA report which said not only were they not connected, but that they were ideological enemies.

When President Bush made the "16 words" uranium allegation in his January 2003 State of the Union speech, the allegation had already been investigated by the CIA and the State Department intelligence outfit and determined to be bogus. The allegation had been removed from previous speeches on the insstence of the CIA and in the days previous to this speech, the CIA had contacted a number of administration officials such as National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, her deputy Stephen Hadley and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson to tell them it was bogus.

Parts of the 2002 NIE on Iraq were released to the public, but the parts that were kept classified were the parts that contradicted White House allegations that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists, for example.

Another area you need to catch up on is the operation by Douglas Feith and others at the Office of Special Plans to present discredited reports in CIA files as finished, analyzed intelligence.

A good book on the subject is Pretext for War by James Bamford. Get the Anchor paperback edition because it has an updated afterword that is very informative.


The Bush administration engaged in the classic error of beginning with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it, and in the process discarding anything contrary. This exercise in intellectual dishonest has cost us over 3,500 lives, ruined the lives of tens of thousands of others who were maimed, suffered the loss of eyesight, limbs and/or internal organs, shattered our alliance, erased international sympathy after 9/11, flushed over $500 billion in national treasure and put a big old nasty chancre on our country's credibility.


Saddam Hussein was more honest with the American people about his WMD than Bush was.

[sailor]

To qualify perjury by what the individual was not telling the truth about would discredit our entire legal system.

Make sense of this sentence and try again. It's a mess.

whether you agree with his point or not this sentence is fairly straight-forward. he's using qualify in the sense of "To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions." in other words, you can't limit perjury (The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath) based on what the lie is about. there is no such qualification. a lie is a lie is a lie.

if you want to disagree with his point, that's fair, but the sentence holds water.

[Bulldogcakes]

Fuck it. Let's do it.

I know that poll got alot of play, but have you ever heard of that polling group before? Neither have I.

I'll bet that some of the big polling places (ABC/CNN/Zogby/Washington Post etc) will do a similar poll to see how their results compare. BUT THEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL COVER IT UP IF IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR COMMUNIST AGENDA (hahahahahahaha just threw part that in to piss you off a little). Seriously, we'll likely get the results on tomorrow's Sunday morning shows and then we'll see if this is for real or not.

I wouldn't read too much into one poll from a group nobody's ever heard of. Not yet, at least. Methodology is everything in polling, and they can be easily skewed if the pollsters are either biased or incompetent. I suspect in this case its both, but I'll wait for more data before passing any judgement.

[Midkiff]

I pray to Ron that son of a bitch gets impeached, or at least dies a horrible death and burns in hell forever.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I pray to Ron that son of a bitch gets impeached, or at least dies a horrible death and burns in hell forever.


Sounds like something Fred Phelps would say

[Snacks]

Firstly I'm not sure that 50% of Americans poll holds much weight.
It was 500 people who either answered their phone or filled out a survey on a holiday break.
I'm not sure that's the most rounded subset of the population on which we should base a " national " opinion.
Why not just call on Christmas morning or at 12:01 AM on January 1st.

** Actually I went back and reread the article and the headline isn't even correct. The poll found that 46% were against an impeachemnt and 45% were in favor. I'm not a mathemetician but I believe you would infer from this survey that more of US does not favor the impeachment. I guess in this writers world the majority opinion is not what matters most. **

As far as Bush lying to Congress about going to war I'm sure he was doing it based on iformation that was provided to him which may or may not turn out to be factually incorrect/inaccurate.

This belief that there's a giant conspiracy between the Bushes and Cheney to make oil money is insane. Regadless of what you may think abour Bush it would take a really evil person to waste thousands of lives to make money. If you think about it and its moral issue you'd have to agree that it doesnt make sense. People shouldn't let their ouright disgust for a person lead them into believing fairy tales and Tom Clacny-esque plots.




Also the members of Congress that voted to go to war can't sit back and say " Wow I was duped. I totally believed what you told me. ". In the end they voted to go to war because they didn't want their voters thinking they were " pussies ". And it is that plain and simple.

I, a voting Republican who didn't believe we should've gone to war, knew it sounded wierd when Powell was showing satellite pictures of supposed weapons of mass destruction that never appeared.

My thought was " Wait we had the technology to take the pics of the " weapons " when they were standing still but then that elusive intelligence machine that was the Iraqi military manged to hide them on us ?? " It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense.

As far as the Clinton impeachment let's not forget a few things. This belief that the sex, let alone the lying about it, wasn't our business is completely incorrect. As the president he works for the American public and he was dicking around, literally, on our time. He then had the balls to lie to everybody thinking that we were all so ignorant that we couldn't tell the difference, or cared about the difference, between his semantics. The other thing that's missed here is he would've easily been found guilty of sexual harassment if he was working in the private sector. He in a position of authority, let alone the biggest position of authority in the country, had no business having a realtionship w/ somebody that worked for him. Take the politics out of it and that's exactly what you have.

Now clearly this issue wouldn't be remotely as heinous as the supposed " war for oil " plot but let's not pretent that what happened " wasn't our business ".



First I believe Cheney i an evil man and Bush is a puppet and does as hes told by his father and all of his father "boys".

And most people dont think we went there just for oil. A lot of people think that was one thing. They have always wanted to kill Sadam. He was a friend who knows a lot about the Bush's and after we didnt need him no more he bacame our enemy. Bush, Cheney and the rest his boy. When we turned our back on him and his country he becamse our enemy. So we went to Iraq to get rid of someone Bush couldnt kill and to finish Desert Storm. We also went there not thinking it would turn out like this. Bush thinking it would be an easy win also knew it would be a way for many of his friends, businesses to make money. Thinking it would be easy, they never planned on many Americans being killed and if you remember Bush though they would bow at our feet thanking us. He was wrong.


Also the members of Congress that voted to go to war can't sit back and say " Wow I was duped. I totally believed what you told me. ". In the end they voted to go to war because they didn't want their voters thinking they were " pussies ". And it is that plain and simple.

I, a voting Republican who didn't believe we should've gone to war, knew it sounded wierd when Powell was showing satellite pictures of supposed weapons of mass destruction that never appeared.

My thought was " Wait we had the technology to take the pics of the " weapons " when they were standing still but then that elusive intelligence machine that was the Iraqi military manged to hide them on us ?? " It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense.


Are you fucking nuts? we had no business asking him questions about his personal or sex life. Monica never even tried to get him on sexual harrasment so that theory is gone and if your talking about his pre-president claims against him they have nothing to do with this case or what your talking about. Talking about lieing and wasting our time while being president, what do you think Bush has done? He lied to go to war, he has wasted our time by going to Iraq and not finishing the original job (Bin Laden) and Iraq at the time had nothing to do with terror. It does now, as all reports have showed Iraq has now become a terror camp and written its because we are in Iraq that this has happened. Even your Faux news has stated these types of reports. His actions have led to thousands of American deaths. He has pissed all over the constitution are our rights. He recently told congress he wouldnt allow anyone to answer to Subpoenas. This man doesnt care about anything and the only people who really tlike him are people who hate dems b/c dems actually want equality and the far right dont want that. The religious b/c bush say Christ and prays. And businesses because he gives them so many tax cuts they dont even pay taxes.

How anyone can defend Bush is beyond me. Yet the hate for Clinton continues over a blow job.


Then you haven't been paying attention.
In the fall of 2002, President Bush told the American people "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Two days previously he had received a CIA report which said not only were they not connected, but that they were ideological enemies.
When President Bush made the "16 words" uranium allegation in his January 2003 State of the Union speech, the allegation had already been investigated by the CIA and the State Department intelligence outfit and determined to be bogus. The allegation had been removed from previous speeches on the insstence of the CIA and in the days previous to this speech, the CIA had contacted a number of administration officials such as National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, her deputy Stephen Hadley and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson to tell them it was bogus.

Parts of the 2002 NIE on Iraq were released to the public, but the parts that were kept classified were the parts that contradicted White House allegations that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists, for example.

Another area you need to catch up on is the operation by Douglas Feith and others at the Office of Special Plans to present discredited reports in CIA files as finished, analyzed intelligence.

A good book on the subject is Pretext for War by James Bamford. Get the Anchor paperback edition because it has an updated afterword that is very informative.


The Bush administration engaged in the classic error of beginning with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it, and in the process discarding anything contrary. This exercise in intellectual dishonest has cost us over 3,500 lives, ruined the lives of tens of thousands of others who were maimed, suffered the loss of eyesight, limbs and/or internal organs, shattered our alliance, erased international sympathy after 9/11, flushed over $500 billion in national treasure and put a big old nasty chancre on our country's credibility.


Saddam Hussein was more honest with the American people about his WMD than Bush was.


They will find a reason to say that he didnt lie and yada yada yada. Bush is the worst puppet president ever.

[PhilDeez]

whether you agree with his point or not this sentence is fairly straight-forward. he's using qualify in the sense of "To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions." in other words, you can't limit perjury (The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath) based on what the lie is about. there is no such qualification. a lie is a lie is a lie.

if you want to disagree with his point, that's fair, but the sentence holds water.

Thanks Sailor!

[Bob Impact]

He's using the tactic that Cheney was the evil mastermind who set up all the "lies" that got us into the Iraq war as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the Constitution.

Hell, Cheney will just laugh at the papers. He's already said he's not a member of the Administration, he is the President of the Senate.

Cheney is a KOOK too.

Didn't congress vote for the war? It seems to me if Haliburton and Cheney were really this tied up in oil money somebody would be able to get that information and use it against him. I can't disagree more with the people who think this is all a giant conspiracy, remember, these are the people who can't run a fucking war in Iraq, let alone plan and execute large scale covert plans. That being said, if he should be impeached it should be for the fact that he's a ghoul and that this is the worst administration in the history of the United States.

[sailor]

Thanks Sailor!

you're welcome. again, not saying i agree or disagree.

[high fly]

I'd like to see the allegedly "liberal" press, mainstream or otherwise, ask "Whatta" Dick B. Cheney why he told the American people on March 16, 2003 that we were certain that Saddam Hussein had "reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Absent of that, perhaps some of the right-wingers on the board can explain.


The fact of the matter is that "Whatta" Dick B. Cheney and others in the administration blatantly lied to the American people and now we are stuck in a war that is losing us allies and strengthening the enemy.
They were not given bad intelligence as much as they lied about what they had and further made stuff up and made assertions (like the "reconstituted nuclear weapons" BFL) that were unsupported by the intelligence they were presented.

When one breaks down their allegations before the war and looks at the individual claims supporting the rush to war, it becomes clear the extent they went to to lie.
The aluminum tubes, the uranium purchase from the "N-country," the al Qaeda/Iraq connection, the mobile WMD labs, the reconstituted nuke program, the UAVs which were going to spray us with anthrax and small pox and on down the line. Each one was either based on ridiculously shaky information or was rebutted by other information they spiked.

[Stankfoot]

President Bush - September 26, 2002 (link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html))

"The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."

I like the way he uses the British government in these quotes - his own intelligence sources were saying no so he found somebody else .....

[furie]

i didn't think a VP could be removed from office... but now that i sit here and think about it, i guess they could. A President, or Senator can be so i guess it makes sense.


this'll never fly though

[Yerdaddy]

whether you agree with his point or not this sentence is fairly straight-forward. he's using qualify in the sense of "To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions." in other words, you can't limit perjury (The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath) based on what the lie is about. there is no such qualification. a lie is a lie is a lie.

if you want to disagree with his point, that's fair, but the sentence holds water.

I know what perjury and qualify mean. Thank you though. I did come up with the same meaning you did, but I had to read the fucking thing four of five times only to end up with a sentence that had nothing to do with my point. But if you're (he's) going to get smarmy and say my post was the most assinine ever, don't expect me to sort through your fucked up vague gibberish and figure out which of my points you're missing.

[Yerdaddy]

So what did we learn here? That perjury is NOT explicitly an impeachable offense - only when one party is willing to through the best interest of the country into the shitter and politicize the historical process of impeachment.

You're welcome.

My entire point was/is perjury is easily defined, it is black and white. We know Slick Willie lied under oath. A majority of congress deemed it an impeachable offense.
So guess what, regardless of your own political beliefs or the opinions of the poitical scholars you reference, perjury was an impeachable offense in this case - get over it.
If Bush and/or Cheney is impeached, I am sure the merits of the impeachment will be debated as well.[/QUOTE]

you know what? You're just going to keep missing my fucking points until Paris Hilton passes the BAR exam. My point has been the same in every post you've addressed and I'm sick of making it. So let me do it one last time for the ditto heads and then you can go climb in Limbaugh's tub and let him piss all over you.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

"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."

Does it say "perjury" anywhere in there? No. Thus my statement "That perjury is NOT explicitly an impeachable offense". The Republican controlled Congress defined purjury as "high crimes and misdemeaners", a definition that had never been applied to a crime or action not related to the carrying out of the office of the President before. Thus they lowered the bar for impeachment.

Clinton purjured himself in a politically-motivated sexual harrassment trial that was financed by rich conservatives who were allowed to go on fishing expeditions for any dirt on Clinton's sex life. They found out he was banging an intern and exposed it. He denied it because he was fucked either way. He was stupid and committed a crime despite the fact that the case was thrown out before going to trial.

Yes, Congress deemed this crime to be "high crimes and misdemeaners". The Congress had the power to define a parking ticket as "high crimes and misdemeaners" but they'd be dicks for doing it. My point all along was that it was pure partisan politics that made them define that crime as "high crimes and misdemeaners". In doing so they made it that much more likely that the will of a voting electorate can be overturned by an opposition-controlled Congress for purely political reasons. That isn't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind but they had to leave a broad definition for impeachment for flexibility in dealing with unknown posible events. Republicans exploited it.

Your points had nothing to do with mine. So if you're going to attack me for my points address them.

[Yerdaddy]

I know that poll got alot of play, but have you ever heard of that polling group before? Neither have I.

I'll bet that some of the big polling places (ABC/CNN/Zogby/Washington Post etc) will do a similar poll to see how their results compare. BUT THEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL COVER IT UP IF IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR COMMUNIST AGENDA (hahahahahahaha just threw part that in to piss you off a little). Seriously, we'll likely get the results on tomorrow's Sunday morning shows and then we'll see if this is for real or not.

I wouldn't read too much into one poll from a group nobody's ever heard of. Not yet, at least. Methodology is everything in polling, and they can be easily skewed if the pollsters are either biased or incompetent. I suspect in this case its both, but I'll wait for more data before passing any judgement.

The article never said a majority of people supported it - it said nearly half. That is accurate, and it is news because it is unusually high support for impeachment of a sitting president.

Don't make more out of my post than I stated. It was a poll. I'm not content like the rest of the people who voted for Bush and now say we're stuck with him no matter what he's done to the country or is likely to do in the next year and a half and I'd like to see the President impeached. I think lack of (proportional) accountability is a bad thing to tolerate from government. But maybe I'm more of a traditional conservative than those who call themselves traditional conservatives. (Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.)

[Bob Impact]

The article never said a majority of people supported it - it said nearly half. That is accurate, and it is news because it is unusually high support for impeachment of a sitting president.

Don't make more out of my post than I stated. It was a poll. I'm not content like the rest of the people who voted for Bush and now say we're stuck with him no matter what he's done to the country or is likely to do in the next year and a half and I'd like to see the President impeached. I think lack of (proportional) accountability is a bad thing to tolerate from government. But maybe I'm more of a traditional conservative than those who call themselves traditional conservatives. (Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:

[PhilDeez]

Your points had nothing to do with mine. So if you're going to attack me for my points address them.

My reply to your post was merely to point out you can not qualify perjury, it is what it is. By you saying in essense, "he only lied about this..." does not discount what he did. I also pointed out, that when/if Bush faces the same fate it will be equally debated.

You are quite testy, all I said was it is assinine to discount perjury. I dont' think I recommended you take a shot in the face from ole Slick Willie, or Clevland Steamer from Hillary. However, thanks for the thought, I just might take that piss shower from Rush, I would prefer it over continuing to read your horse crap.

[Yerdaddy]

Backpedal accepted.

[sailor]

I know what perjury and qualify mean. Thank you though. I did come up with the same meaning you did, but I had to read the fucking thing four of five times only to end up with a sentence that had nothing to do with my point. But if you're (he's) going to get smarmy and say my post was the most assinine ever, don't expect me to sort through your fucked up vague gibberish and figure out which of my points you're missing.

wasn't gettin' smarmy, just 'splainin'. you said the sentence was a mess and i was pointing out it weren't.

http://citrite.org/files/casestudy/pix/thats_all_folks.jpg

[PhilDeez]

Backpedal accepted.

What? No backpedal, just clarification.
Regarless, I have enjoyed the banter, I normally just lurk on the boards.

[J.Clints]

Impeachment for Cheney??I would rather see him get shot in the face on a hunting trip.

[Bulldogcakes]

The article never said a majority of people supported it - it said nearly half. That is accurate, and it is news because it is unusually high support for impeachment of a sitting president.

Don't make more out of my post than I stated. It was a poll. I'm not content like the rest of the people who voted for Bush and now say we're stuck with him no matter what he's done to the country or is likely to do in the next year and a half and I'd like to see the President impeached. I think lack of (proportional) accountability is a bad thing to tolerate from government. But maybe I'm more of a traditional conservative than those who call themselves traditional conservatives. (Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.)

I never questioned its accuracy, I questioned its reliability due to the unknown nature of the source. And yes, of course its newsworthy.

As far as accountability goes, there is plenty. His low approval numbers means he cant get anything done in Congress (ex. Immigration). His administration is widely viewed as a failure, and the Democrats are poised to make further gains in 08 as a result of his record. But all of these allegations were known in 04, we had an election and he still won. Thats the ultimate form of accountability in a Democracy.

Also folks on the Left have to decide what Bush is, an incompetent or an evil genius. On the one hand you argue that he's clueless in how to run an administration, then charge that he managed to dupe the Congress, The Senate, Great Britain and most of the rest of the world. All of whom agreed with him on the prewar intelligence. It assumes all the other players were babes in the woods, with no ability to cross check the data or give it some critical analysis. I'm with you on the clueless part, but I cant logically then state he is some Machiavellian genius. But then again, I don't hate the guy.

[A.J.]

Also folks on the Left have to decide what Bush is, an incompetent or an evil genius. On the one hand you argue that he's clueless in how to run an administration, then charge that he managed to dupe the Congress, The Senate, Great Britain and most of the rest of the world. All of whom agreed with him on the prewar intelligence. It assumes all the other players were babes in the woods, with no ability to cross check the data or give it some critical analysis. I'm with you on the clueless part, but I cant logically then state he is some Machiavellian genius.

That's why I didn't know until this very day that it was Barzini all along.

[Crispy123]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Corleonesons.jpg

I think we have a duality; evil WASP and puppet genius.

[DolaMight]

Impeachment talk is sucha waste of time. It's akin to tellin the lunchlady that someone pushed you off the swings. Shit happened, don't let it happen again, they won. If anyone should be impeached it's the voters. All the bad shit happened in the first 4 years and he got reelected. Done, just eat it.

McCAIN IN 08 N#$$a!

[Yerdaddy]

I never questioned its accuracy, I questioned its reliability due to the unknown nature of the source. And yes, of course its newsworthy.

As far as accountability goes, there is plenty. His low approval numbers means he cant get anything done in Congress (ex. Immigration). His administration is widely viewed as a failure, and the Democrats are poised to make further gains in 08 as a result of his record. But all of these allegations were known in 04, we had an election and he still won. Thats the ultimate form of accountability in a Democracy.

That's what I said earlier (maybe in another thread) - no accountability for this government. Which does tell me alot about the constantly stated ethic that Republicans don't like government. They don't like Democrats, but they love any Republican government. Love it like a blowjob and a beer during the Superbowl.

Or, the accountability is people won't like him. But what kind of accountability is that? If that were considered accoutability for crimes then I'm a mass murderer.

And I'm with Muscle on this: If I had a choice I'd impeach the electorate.

[/quote]Also folks on the Left have to decide what Bush is, an incompetent or an evil genius. On the one hand you argue that he's clueless in how to run an administration, then charge that he managed to dupe the Congress, The Senate, Great Britain and most of the rest of the world. All of whom agreed with him on the prewar intelligence. It assumes all the other players were babes in the woods, with no ability to cross check the data or give it some critical analysis. I'm with you on the clueless part, but I cant logically then state he is some Machiavellian genius. But then again, I don't hate the guy.[/QUOTE]

It's perfectly clear: Bush is incompetant; Rove and Cheney are evil geniuses.

And saying the Congress and the rest of the world were simpy duped and the rest of the world agreed with his prewar intelligence is the grossest of oversimplifications. As the ruling party in two branches of government they outmaneuvered the Democrats into voting for the resolution that authorized both war and weapons inspections or risk being labeled cowards by an electorate in the midst of a campaigh of misinformation. As for the rest of the world agreeing with the intelligence, the rest of the world did not agree with us. They didn't predict we'd find nothing in the way of WMD, but the 9-11 Commission Report and two Senate investigations are full of accounts of European intelligence agencies quietly telling us we were full of shit on all our major claims. And finally, the UK went along with us becuase Blair decided to preserve his economic and strategic relationship with us, which is the same reason he's kept the UK largely out of the EU. He made a decision to protect the economic interests of his people.

But since when is figuring out someone's personality defects a prerequisite for holding them accountable?

The fact is, Republicans aren't into accountability for their own, Democrats aren't unified enough or ruthless enough to hold Republican governments accountable for anything, and the public is full of evil incompetants. And I'm still looking for a way not to care anymore.

[Midkiff]

Oh, how I hate Cheney and his lapdog Bush. Words can't express the depth of my hatred for them.

[FUNKMAN]

Fucking Ohio!!!!!