RightConservative
New member
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Pacridge said:Bush would have had to commit a crime to impeached. Not going to happen.
No, the Republicans attempted to impeach Clinton because he lied about his affair in a Civil Suit, therefore commiting perjury, which is a crime.GarzaUK said:I'm confused then. Didn't Republicans try and inpeach Clinton for having an affair and lying to the American public. Is it a crime for a President to do such things?
But to listen to them say it, having more than 15 votes over them doesn't a majority make.RightConservative said:On the “To Do” List for Democrats: Impeach Bush
By: Vincent Fiore
RightConservative.com 06-12-05
Having lost badly in this new century’s elections, Democrats are now sounding the alarm for impeachment proceedings against President Bush. If the word “impeachment” were not so serious in its intent, one is tempted to laugh out loud, and I will assume that many did.
All of the above should be recalled for gross incompetence, slander, and probably six or seven other reasons I just can't think of yet.But this is today’s Democratic Party, where its DNC chairman Howard Dean says that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D, NV), calls a sitting president a “loser,” and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), equated America as a modern-day war machine when she said “America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.”
I for one am not surprised at anything these sore losers do.So should anyone truly be surprised to hear the “I” word finally make the rounds? The mainstream media have so far held off on any serious coverage, but that may change quickly if the blogosphere has anything to say about it.
Too bad for them that the American majority disagree, heh heh.The usual muckrakers of the left are in high gear. Websites like the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and liberal iconoclast Michael Moore’s website are all salivating over the prospect of doing the one thing that seemingly propels their existence: finally defeating Bush.
Of course, if Kerry actually had a platform to stand on he may have actually been a threat, he can't blame republicans forever for actually coming up with solutions, and Nader is so far gone, he probably thinks Bush cost him the election even though he didn't even have enough support to get on the ballot in all 50 states.To date, the most serious thrust regarding the impeachment of Bush have come from last year’s presidential losers, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Reform/Green party activist Ralph Nader, who returned from the college talk circuit long enough to post an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled: “The ‘I’ Word.”
Like I said, Nader = :cuckoo:In the article, Nader says that “Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ‘fixing’ the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. U.S. intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes--evidence was thin and needed fixing.”
Thanks for the post.
Actually, not exactly. All we had to do was use the fact that Saddam violated 12 years worth of U.N. sanctions to go to war. Such violations as inhibiting weapons inspectors, violating the no-fly zone, as well as multiple cease-fire breaks, and suspected human rights violations against his own citizens. And if the Downing Street memo was missed by our media, it probably is faulty, those guys would use anything to attack president Bush. To tell you the truth, this war was more than legal and the end result will hopefully be a good one.GarzaUK said:LaMidRighter, it has been proven by the Downing Street Memo (something that the US liberal media has strangely missed) that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq in summer 2002 and thst regime change was the goal, however WMD's were the only way to make the war legal, thats why the Bush Admin focused on it. So in that sense Bush did lie to the public on the reasons for war. He should have said, "We don't like Saddam, we going to misplace him." :roll:
GarzaUK said:I'm confused then. Didn't Republicans try and inpeach Clinton for having an affair and lying to the American public. Is it a crime for a President to do such things?
LaMidRighter said:Actually, not exactly. All we had to do was use the fact that Saddam violated 12 years worth of U.N. sanctions to go to war. Such violations as inhibiting weapons inspectors, violating the no-fly zone, as well as multiple cease-fire breaks, and suspected human rights violations against his own citizens. And if the Downing Street memo was missed by our media, it probably is faulty, those guys would use anything to attack president Bush. To tell you the truth, this war was more than legal and the end result will hopefully be a good one.
p.s.- don't forget about that little thing concerning harboring and collaborating with terrorists. (there is a paper trail.)
flip2 said:Somebody tell that to 26 Champs. He seems not to understand that. Except for the Bush statement. Yeah, ummm, Go Spurs?
I don't really know enough about it, so I can't intelligently critique the validity of it.GarzaUK said:The Downing Street Memo is not faulty, since it was confirmed to be authentic by the British Government and Tony Blair himself.
There are currently Al-Quaida terrorists residing in Iraq, we have med records pertaining to terrorist groups as well as concessions to said groups as I currently understand, harboring our enemies is just cause for war.No substanial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists.
Israel would be crushed if we didn't back them, I have reservations about our union, as far as the rest go, no argument.If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.
I think that will remain to be seen, world opinion typically changes on a dime though, so I'm not terribly worried about it.Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.
GarzaUK said:The Downing Street Memo is not faulty, since it was confirmed to be authentic by the British Government and Tony Blair himself.
No substanial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists.
If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.
Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.
LaMidRighter said:There are currently Al-Quaida terrorists residing in Iraq, we have med records pertaining to terrorist groups as well as concessions to said groups as I currently understand, harboring our enemies is just cause for war.
Key word there is "currently." As Garza correctly points out "No substantial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists."
The alleged impeachable acts of President George W. Bush include:
1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;
2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;
3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;
4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;
5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use;
6. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force;
7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;
8. Authorizing, ordering and condoning violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights;
9. Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain his war ends;
10. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals.
President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.
Pacridge said:That wasn't the only thing I said however, there were from my understanding houses given to terrorists during Saddams reign as well as medical treatment and if I am not mistaken terrorist cells were allowed to conduct training throughout the last couple of decades under Hussein's watch. Still, the U.N. has been threatening military action now for years and we were among the only nations who let the chips fly.LaMidRighter said:Key word there is "currently." As Garza correctly points out "No substantial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists."
Do they plan on taking the entire US Government down with Bush? I recall something called Votes. More tripe thrown out by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. I don't know how many times the facts have to told to get the left to stop spreading their lies over and over and over. It gets sickening after a while. The lefts hero Kerry, is leading the pack on this one. If Bush is tried for war crimes, Kerry should be next on the list. Sore losers is you ask me.President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.
Squawker said:Do they plan on taking the entire US Government down with Bush? I recall something called Votes. More tripe thrown out by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. I don't know how many times the facts have to told to get the left to stop spreading their lies over and over and over. It gets sickening after a while. The lefts hero Kerry, is leading the pack on this one. If Bush is tried for war crimes, Kerry should be next on the list. Sore losers is you ask me.
I think McCain is a horrible choice based on his voting lately, he just doesn't fit, he's too socialist to be a Republican and too Conservative to be a Democrat.1SGRet said:Hey, what's this Kerry stuff? He's done. Kaput. Stick a fork in him. Time to start thinking about Hillary, and on the other side, McCain. Rove, work your magic...
GarzaUK said:If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.
Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.
ludahai said:None of the resolutions against those countries carried an authorization for the use of force that U.N. Security Council resolution 678 did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?