• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
 
Of course not. It was the CIA that provided Bush with the information.
 
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.
 
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:
So all those intelligence agencies around the world also were "full of ****"?
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
So, the consensus is that President Bush should not be impeached. Negligence was due mainly in part to the intellegence gathering agencies.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

The captain of the vessel is responsible for it's course.
 
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:

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:
 
[
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.
 
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:
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:
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:
[ 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.


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.
 
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:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…