• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Bush be Impeached?

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
(Sorry if this one has been done before.)

Can a case be made to bring Impeachment Papers to the House and a trial to the Senate, regarding the War on Terror, specifically the Iraq phase of the War?

If Bush has knowingly lied, why has there not been a serious effort in Congress to impeach him, thus opening the doors to try him as a war criminal?

DISCUSS AND DEBATE!
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course not. It was the CIA that provided Bush with the information.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
Of course not. It was the CIA that provided Bush with the information.
...and German Intel, British Intel, Pakistani Intel, French Intel...etc...

Amazing how many were wrong but won't admit their own mistakes though they charge Bush with not admitting his.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's some more info (do what you will with it):
Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States, has launched a campaign:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial
executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents
elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the
United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
Bush, Blair deny memo assertion of 'fixed' intelligence
AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of Democrats and peace advocacy groups that is pressing for a House of Representatives inquiry into whether the contents of the memo are grounds for impeachment. ''If these minutes are accurate, Bush lied to the American people and to Congress

John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush
John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times. The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
Here's some more info (do what you will with it):
Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States, has launched a campaign:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


Bush, Blair deny memo assertion of 'fixed' intelligence


John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush
lol, what a credible website you used. All of that is untrue lies. There is no basis for impeachment. Arthur is right. The CIA, not Bush, was at fault for causing the war. It is not the President's job to check the validity of the CIA claims, that is the job of the CIA. Do you seriously think that Bush should be impeached? That is a joke. He committed no serious crimes against the U.S. people, he was only doing what he thought was in their best interest. Impeachment is a serious thing to bring up. You don't just bring impeachment up against a president just because you don't like him. You don't just twist what he did and his political views to suit your interests. Why was he democratically elected? Because the "silent majority" doesn't go out and proclaiming their views to the whole world and complaining about everything Bush does "just because".
 
Last edited:

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So all those intelligence agencies around the world also were "full of ****"?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Do I want him out of office...trick question...because then Cheney would take over and I really don't like neo-cons...but I want Bush impeached. Now. Does that mean that there are grounds for it, likely not, because it was proven that it was the CIA who misrepresented and not he...
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
more or less. Regardless, if you honestly thought that was the reason for the war, you were either too naive, forcing yourself to believe something that was obviously a lie, or dumb as a rock, and I personally believe that none of those are positive traits in a president.
I personally agreed with the war, despite the fact that there wasn't a single second that I believed the president about a single thing he said. When issues come up, you have to decide base on your own justifications, not those of politicians, because politicians, ALL of them, just about never tell the truth, especially about their justifications on why they do anything.
So yeah, once again, don't play dumb.
There was more than one reason for the war. Nuclear weapons was the only reason I supported going into Iraq. The President got the same information the whole American public got. And from that information, the American public wanted to go to war. Like it or not, the CIA is the one who made the major screw up. Again...the President does not know how to do an intelligence job because it isn't his job to do! Where do you get the reasoning that the President is in charge of the CIA? They are completely seperate. It is the job of the head CIA chief, not Bush, to see that info is valid. And do you know what Bush is doing to correct the problem that primarily started this war? He is reforming the intelligence agencies.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hornburger said:
There was more than one reason for the war. Nuclear weapons was the only reason I supported going into Iraq. The President got the same information the whole American public got. And from that information, the American public wanted to go to war. Like it or not, the CIA is the one who made the major screw up. Again...the President does not know how to do an intelligence job because it isn't his job to do! Where do you get the reasoning that the President is in charge of the CIA? They are completely seperate. It is the job of the head CIA chief, not Bush, to see that info is valid. And do you know what Bush is doing to correct the problem that primarily started this war? He is reforming the intelligence agencies.
I agree the head of the CIA holds the major portion of blame. So much blame Bush gave him a medal. But he doesn't hold all the blame. I think when the ship hits an ice berg the captain owns some of the blame no matter who was on watch at the time. Just because some guy told him "it's a slam dunk" full speed ahead doesn't mean he's not responsible at least to some degree.

As to should he be impeached? On what charge? For impeachment he'd have to be guilty of some crime (least the way I understand it, as always I could be wrong) and I fail to see how he's guilty of a crime.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Pacridge said:
As to should he be impeached? On what charge? For impeachment he'd have to be guilty of some crime (least the way I understand it, as always I could be wrong) and I fail to see how he's guilty of a crime.
So nice to read from someone who isn't a republican.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
...and German Intel, British Intel, Pakistani Intel, French Intel...etc...

Amazing how many were wrong but won't admit their own mistakes though they charge Bush with not admitting his.
Actually, British Intelligence didn't get it wrong. Phoney Blair altered what they had said for his own purposes.

American Intelligence - a contradiction in terms? :smile:
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
If you seriously believe all of that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
What, you believe that the President is in charge of the CIA?

I bet there was a massive conspiracy, like always.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
So, the consensus is that President Bush should not be impeached. Negligence was due mainly in part to the intellegence gathering agencies.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
flip2 said:
So, the consensus is that President Bush should not be impeached. Negligence was due mainly in part to the intellegence gathering agencies.
Rubbish. Bush and Blair both lied through their teeth.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
I have access to about a thousandth, if that, of the information that he has access to, and I knew he was full of sh*t about the weapons of mass destruction.
***David Kay said the trace residue of mustard gas found in an artillery shell earlier this month was likely a relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-90s.

***Hans Blix said his team found 16 warheads that were tagged as 'used for containing Sarin,' but were empty.

*** Saddam's government had disclosed binary Sarin testing & production after the 1995 defection of Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law. But Saddam's government never declared that any Sarin or Sarin-filled shells still remained.

***A dozen chemical shells were also found by UN inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 90s but somehow were not destroyed.

***Iraq acknowledged making 3,859 tons of Sarin, Tabun, mustard and other chemical weapons. Iraq began producing Sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

***The mustard gas shell may be one of 550 projectiles Saddam failed to account for when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas.

***Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.

Now can you seriously say they didn't find anything?

NOTE: these are excerpts from many articles I read when doing research for a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. All I did at the time was use a simple Yahoo search. This was obviously a while ago so I don't even recall how I searched this info. Probably WMDs or mustard gas, or artillery shell or some combination. Plus the articles would have also been from a variety of sources. Most likely NY Times, Washington Post, maybe even AP, Reuters, etc.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
No, I understand that Bush is not the head of the CIA, what I doubt is that he had all of the same info that we got. I also doubt that he is honestly committed to reforming the CIA, and other intelligence agencies. If he was so damn upset, and felt so damn betrayed by this misleading intelligence, why did the head of the CIA get a medal, and why did John Bolton get rewarded by being recommended as the ambassador to the UN? Oh yeah, to reform the UN.
So you can sit back in magic fantasy land where the CIA made honest mistakes, and it wasn't Bush's fault at all, but keep in mind that I'm stuck here in the real world where we have quite obviously manipulated intelligence and a president who doesn't take accountability for anything other than his few mild successes (very few, mind you), showing the maturity of a 7 year old.
So no, he does not deserve to be impeached, but seriously, stop playing dumb. We're not politicians here.
I am not saying that Bush is without blame in the whole thing-just not as much as people give him. You don't have sufficient evidence to say that he had more info, or that he manipulated the CIA, or that he is not reforming the intelligence agencies of America. You don't assume what he did-you have to use evidence first. It's not guilty until proven innocent. Your "real world" is full of conspiracies and evidence that quite simply is not there.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Hornburger said:
You don't assume what he did-you have to use evidence first. It's not guilty until proven innocent. Your "real world" is full of conspiracies and evidence that quite simply is not there.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it any better.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
galenrox said:
True, I don't have evidence, and I don't think he should be impeached. I'm just saying that in my opinion it seems really naiive to think that Bush had nothing to do with all the screwed up intelligence. But maybe I'm just paranoid. I just don't trust politicians, especially ones with so many little "coincindences" as George W. Bush. But yeah, maybe it's just me.
The captain of the vessel is responsible for it's course.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President Bush inherited the vessel. Terrorism grew and organized throughout the 90's, because we forgave and did nothing about it until 9/11. How obtuse to blame the one man that finally stood up to it instead of the man that kept American civillians in the dark to it's existence.
 
Last edited:

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GySgt said:
President Bush inherited the vessel. Terrorism grew and organized throughout the 90's, because we forgave and did nothing about it until 9/11. How obtuse to blame the one man that finally stood up to it instead of the man that kept American civillians in the dark to it's existence.
Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president in history, unfortunately, he was fought at every turn by the Republicans.

Bush did nothing for 9 months, despite multiple warnings, until the events of 9/11 forced him to wake up.

Bush should be impeached for lying to the American public, but it will never happen with a republican controlled congress.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
galenrox said:
True, I don't have evidence, and I don't think he should be impeached. I'm just saying that in my opinion it seems really naiive to think that Bush had nothing to do with all the screwed up intelligence.
But one thing forgotten in all of this is that the CIA intelligence reports came from the same bunch from Clinton's term, there wasn't any time for intelligence reform to take place before 9/11 and a decision had to be made immediately.
But maybe I'm just paranoid.
:yes:
I just don't trust politicians, especially ones with so many little "coincindences" as George W. Bush. But yeah, maybe it's just me.
I don't trust politicians either, but, under the legal system we have they MUST be given the benefit of the doubt.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
[
QUOTE=Hoot]Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any president in history, unfortunately, he was fought at every turn by the Republicans.
Actually, no, he didn't, the only president that did less than Clinton to combat terrorism was Jimmy Carter. The World Trade Center was bombed in ninety three, a preliminary investigation was started and dropped, then there was the "blackhawk down" mission in which one of my friends was deployed to, 40 Rangers were killed in that mission with no retaliation, also, there was Yemen(no retaliation), and the congo abuses, and the big one, refusing Osama after his capture.

Bush did nothing for 9 months, despite multiple warnings, until the events of 9/11 forced him to wake up.
Maybe, the jury is out on how effective action could've been and how concise the warnings were.

Bush should be impeached for lying to the American public, but it will never happen with a republican controlled congress.
It will never happen because of a lie, because mistatements aren't illegal unlike the Monica Lewinsky outright lie. Purposeful mistruths are different from inherited bad information.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
LaMidRighter said:
The World Trade Center was bombed in ninety three, a preliminary investigation was started and dropped,
You must have been out of the country then because the people who did the bombing were arrested, tried and convicted! How did someone as smart as you miss this, it kind of shreds your theory, now doesn't it? Since you wrote that there was only "a preliminary investigation" I find it necessary to set the record straight. Typical of Clinton bashers you twist the truth or just plain make it up. Can't stand the truth? Well here it is:
On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of one of the suspected bombing conspirators Mohammad Salameh and exactly one year later four terrorists were convicted for their roles in the bombing.

The capture of Salameh led authorities to Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime in December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS in May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and now lives as a free man in Saudi Arabia.

In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot), and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers - no one was ever convicted for the actual bombing. Another man named Eyad Ismail was tried alongside Yousef for the bombing. Another conspirator in the plot was Nidal Ayyad.

Six militant Islamist conspirators were convicted of the crime in 1997 and 1998 and given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
LaMidRighter said:
Maybe, the jury is out on how effective action could've been and how concise the warnings were.
Me thinks you need to keep up with the facts? You remember Richard Clarke? You know, the national security czar who worked under every President since Reagan? Here's what you forgot:
(CBS) The White House was warned just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 that al Qaeda posed a serious threat to the United States and the entire Islamic world, and that a review of U.S. policy toward the terrorist organization was "urgently" needed.

That according to a newly released memo from former top counterterrorism official Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice, then Mr. Bush's national security adviser.


A copy of the memo was posted Thursday on the Web site of the National Security Archive. The memo was mentioned by Clarke as part of his controversial testimony at last year's Sept. 11 hearings on Capitol Hill but had not been released by the government until now.

In the memo, dated Jan. 25, 2001, Clarke requests an immediate meeting of top-level national security officials to discuss the al Qaeda threat. That meeting did not place until Sept. 4, 2001, just one week before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Critics of the Bush administration, including Clarke himself, have charged that the White House ignored warnings about the impending danger of al Qaeda prior to Sept. 11.

Clarke writes that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the U.S. and our interests" of the al Qaeda network.

He calls al Qaeda an "active, organized major force that is using a distorted view of Islam to achieve two goals: to drive the U.S. out of the Muslim world… [and] to replace moderate, modern Western regime in Muslim countries with theocracies modeled along the lines of the Taliban."

Clarke concludes, "We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/terror/main673524.shtml

Instead of writing drivel about Monica's oral sex skills that hurt absolutely no one, maybe it's time to recognize that Bush made some very deadly mistakes leading up to 9-11? Oh, but I forgot! Bush supporters will NEVER admit that Bush did anything wrong in the war against terrorism, he's the terrorism messiah!

Is Bush to blame for 9-11? Absolutely not! OBL and his scummies are to blame. Could Bush have prevented it? It sure seems that he had the tools to prevent it but made some big mistakes that allowed OBL to do his damage.

Very, very bad! You were so fast to blame Clinton for all this terrorism, but you're way too brainwashed (again I have to use this term) to accept that Bush blew 9-11, that he should have paid much closer attention to OBL.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
[
QUOTE=26 X World Champs]You must have been out of the country then because the people who did the bombing were arrested, tried and convicted! How did someone as smart as you miss this, it kind of shreds your theory, now doesn't it? Since you wrote that there was only "a preliminary investigation" I find it necessary to set the record straight. Typical of Clinton bashers you twist the truth or just plain make it up. Can't stand the truth? Well here it is:
They got the guys who DID the bombing, but left Al-Quida alone about it, conspiracy is a crime too. But, liberals like to ignore that fact.


Instead of writing drivel about Monica's oral sex skills that hurt absolutely no one, maybe it's time to recognize that Bush made some very deadly mistakes leading up to 9-11? Oh, but I forgot! Bush supporters will NEVER admit that Bush did anything wrong in the war against terrorism, he's the terrorism messiah!
First of all Monica was part of an investigation over sexual harrassment, which is pretty serious, also Clinton lied on national television saying he did not have sex with her, that is perjory, which is a felony. Did you forget that part of it?

Is Bush to blame for 9-11? Absolutely not! OBL and his scummies are to blame. Could Bush have prevented it? It sure seems that he had the tools to prevent it but made some big mistakes that allowed OBL to do his damage.
First of all, in that report you were so happy to quote, I may have missed this but I didn't see an exact location for the assault, which leads one to believe that it would have been pretty hard to take action.

Very, very bad! You were so fast to blame Clinton for all this terrorism, but you're way too brainwashed (again I have to use this term) to accept that Bush blew 9-11, that he should have paid much closer attention to OBL.
I am quick to blame Clinton because he let OBL go, another fact liberals ignore, in fact, you have done nothing to debate any of the other examples I have provided and have gone straight to a personal attack on me by calling me brainwashed, sounds to me like you need be joining me for a kool-aid party.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President Clinton did absolutely nothing against terrorism. He was completely impotent. He was too busy appeasing the American public rather than leading them. We tucked our tails and ran in Somalia. We tucked our tails and did nothing after the U.S.S. Cole. We tucked our tails and did nothing after the American Embassy bombings. We tucked our tails and did nothing when the Air Force barracks in Saudi got bombed. Al-Queda learned that if they attack us they can count on the American bleeding hearts and cowards to cry towards the White House and the American President would act in the best interest of his approval rating not his people. Sadly, the best weapon terrorist have against us is our own citizens.

American was under attack throughout the 90's. We were not allowed to retaliate once. This gave the terrorist a license to do what ever they wanted without fear of having to pay for it. This is what led up to 9/11. Unfortunately, most American civillians didn't know how good terrorism was organized until 9/11 happened. That's when it started to matter to them. You think Clinton didn't know about Al-Queda? As long as no one in America cared he didn't either. Unfortunately, President Bush atfer only 8 months of office, had to face the reprocussions and defend any personal blame. It took a lot longer to plan such a complex attack than just 8 months. This was being planned well before that. Any man that took the helm from Clinton would have had to deal with 9/11. The military and government intelligence knew all along that Al-Quida and other groups were organizing and being funded from all over the Middle East and American organizations. Unless you are military and served through the 90's...you really don't know what you are talking about with regards to President Clinton's handling of the militant fundamentalist perversion of Islam. Take it from me.....he did nothing.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom