• 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?

slim

Member
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Rochester, Kent UK
Yes. The repeal of the 22nd ammendment is a warning of what could be if we are not careful. The people should have more power than a government.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They haven't found WMD's,yet.

The fact that our troops have discovered underground bunkers packed with conventional weapons shows how Saddam was preparing for our invasion.

It's a big desert out there, draw your own conclusions.

To answer the question, No Bush shouldn't be impeached.There's no reason to even bring it up.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
They haven't found WMD's,yet.
Hard to find something when you've given up looking.

Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs
The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
Why waste valuble manpower and money chasing out through the desert,
Well, because we wouldn't want those imaginary WMDs to fall into the enemies' hands I'd assume.
GottaHurt said:
to appease the naysayers?
The naysayers? You mean like the administration?
GottaHurt said:
Right now, we're focused on what's important.
Like an exit strategy that should have been made before invasion.
GottaHurt said:
Time will tell though.
Yeah. Time told the Downing Street memoes, you're right.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
Well, because we wouldn't want those imaginary WMDs to fall into the enemies' hands I'd assume.

Well if they're imaginary, (according to you) then they can't fall into enemy hands.So, what's your point?

shuamort said:
The naysayers? You mean like the administration?
No, that would be anyone who acknowledges that the WMD's don't exist.

shuamort said:
Like an exit strategy that should have been made before invasion.
There is an exit strategy, we'll leave when the mission is accomplished.

shuamort said:
Yeah. Time told the Downing Street memoes, you're right.
You're certainly entitled to believe what you read.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
Well if they're imaginary, (according to you) then they can't fall into enemy hands.So, what's your point?
My point is, that you're believing that they're real. Funny that that should be an impasse to logic.

GottaHurt said:
No, that would be anyone who acknowledges that the WMD's don't exist.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail." - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
Seems pretty nay to me.

GottaHurt said:
There is an exit strategy, we'll leave when the mission is accomplished.
That's like someone saying "I'll stop hitting you when you grow up".
GottaHurt said:
You're certainly entitled to believe what you read.
OK, so what are you believing?
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
My point is, that you're believing that they're real. Funny that that should be an impasse to logic.
And you're believing that they're not.That is why I stated in a previous post, that "Time will tell".

shuamort said:
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction."
Sounds like an accurate statement to me.

shuamort said:
"Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say"
Sounds like another accurate statement.

shuamort said:
..but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."
And yet another accurate statement.

Again, what's your point?

shuamort said:
That's like someone saying "I'll stop hitting you when you grow up".
No, it sounds like we'll pull out of Iraq when the job is complete.

shuamort said:
OK, so what are you believing?
Exactly what I said in my earlier post. We haven't found WMD's,yet.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
Again, what's your point?
That if there were proof that there were WMDs to begin with, the administration would still be looking for them. Instead, they gave up. No sane administration would allow WMDs to sit out there unguarded when there is so much instability in the country. Wouldn't you agree?

GottaHurt said:
No, it sounds like we'll pull out of Iraq when the job is complete.
And what decides that? How does one get to a complete job? Those two points are the crux of an exit strategy.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
That if there were proof that there were WMDs to begin with, the administration would still be looking for them.
I said in a previous post, why spend the money and the manpower digging up the desert to prove a point? Focus on what is important, getting Iraq in a position to manage and defend their own country.


shuamort said:
And what decides that? How does one get to a complete job? Those two points are the crux of an exit strategy.
No, you're failing to realize that there is no need to announce a date to withdraw our troops.It serves no purpose.
The other thing you're not taking into consideration, is Bush doesn't have to sweat out the "polls".
He's in his last term, so there's no pressure for him to answer any demands in regard to an "exit strategy". He's got three more years left, before he has to make a decision, either pull out, or hand the ball off.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
I said in a previous post, why spend the money and the manpower digging up the desert to prove a point? Focus on what is important, getting Iraq in a position to manage and defend their own country.
Let's say there are Al Qaeda terrorists hanging out in Iraq. Hard to imagine I know, since most of them came from Saudi Arabia, but bear with me here. Now, let's say that Bush was correct when he stated that Iraq did have WMDs and were also capable of developing more. Enjoying those leaps of logic and fact, let's say Al Qaeda find these WMDs and use them. Wouldn't that be a shame?

GottaHurt said:
No, you're failing to realize that there is no need to announce a date to withdraw our troops.It serves no purpose.
There are many reasons. One would be cost control and budgetary. A second would be to assure the muslims that a country they consider to be heretical would be getting out of the land. Then there's also the fact that Bush has previously announced an exit strategy.

From Sept 72003
President Bush National Address said:
Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.

Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.

Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.

Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America.

I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We're helping to train civil defense forces to keep order, and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders, and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country, and we are accelerating the training of more.

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.

Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.
Let's see.
First point is done as well as we're going to do it.
Second point was nixed with Haliburton bogarting all of the rebuilding funds.
Third point is done too.



GottaHurt said:
The other thing you're not taking into consideration, is Bush doesn't have to sweat out the "polls".
He's in his last term, so there's no pressure for him to answer any demands in regard to an "exit strategy". He's got three more years left, before he has to make a decision, either pull out, or hand the ball off.
If that's what you expect in a leader.... I guess I have nothing to say but "wow".
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GottaHurt said:
He's in his last term, so there's no pressure for him to answer any demands in regard to an "exit strategy".
One more point I forgot. Bush would then be a liar if he didn't have one.

Bush said:
BUSH: I don't think so. I think, I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops.

(SNIP)

But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
 

ENS

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
They should impeach him AFTER his trial at the Haag for war crimes and crimes against humanity. If he isn't sentenced to an appropriate Life in prison or death by firing squad THEN impeach him if you like.

For those who get the truth by searching for it instead of talk radio's propaganda and lies heres a link to a ton of ammunition for those who try to excuse DUH-BYA's stupidity and blunders on the CIA.
http://www.truthuncovered.com/

To my Democratic friends I want to tell you NEVER concede a fight to limp wrist-ed Republicans. They might not ALL be Gay but you never know. Lately many of the Republican politicians who have shouted loudest for anti gay laws have been found to be flaming Rump Riders. Talk about your hypocrisy !
:lol:
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
Alright, I agree that I don't see any reason to impeach Bush, but for God sakes, don't pretend like he was decieved! I have access to about a thousandth, if that, of the information that he has access to, and I knew he was full of ***** about the weapons of mass destruction.
What I was saying was about holding him to the same standard, which means you've got to let a lot of things go. Every president in the history of this country, and I'd assume every other country, ever, has lied quite consistantly, and sure it can't be proven neccisarily, but don't play dumb, even if you like him, you still know he lies to you constantly.
He's not a victim here, and if he is, then he's too dumb to be president.


And you dont think that LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND CONGRESS for a war is impeachable? **** YOU. That is perhaps one of the MOST IMPEACHABLE THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
So all those intelligence agencies around the world also were "full of ****"?


No Bush had them Lie. He used our jobs and our money for incentive.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
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...


That is bullshit if you watched cspan instead of the news youd find out that people who did not back Bush up in the intelligence communities where outed, fired, or otherwise dealt with. People like Plame in the CIA and her husband tried.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.


Excuse me It was BUSH AND CHANEY CO. who wanted to go to war. Not CIA or FBI.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
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.


Id like that info verry much so. I dont disbeleive you but I would love to be armed with that info.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
BEAUTIFUL Ohio, BEAUTIFUL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The question isn't should he it's can he. And the answer is no. Republicans dominate the court system the house and the senate. He would have to screew up REALLY bad in order for an impeachment to take place.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
guns_God_glory said:
The question isn't should he it's can he. And the answer is no. Republicans dominate the court system the house and the senate. He would have to screew up REALLY bad in order for an impeachment to take place.
That's an excellent point. :applaud
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
guns_God_glory said:
The question isn't should he it's can he. And the answer is no. Republicans dominate the court system the house and the senate. He would have to screew up REALLY bad in order for an impeachment to take place.
yep. I bet he could strangle babies on tv and they still wouldn't touch him and no one in the media would dare call them out on it.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
scottyz said:
yep. I bet he could strangle babies on tv and they still wouldn't touch him and no one in the media would dare call them out on it.

Depends....Is the baby a liberal?
 
G

gdalton

Just to show that the republicans are not the only ones who believed Saddam was a threat here is a little snip it from a Clinton speach.
The following is a quote from President Clinton made in an address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and pentagon staff in 1998. He was explaining how the “terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals” were a genuine threat to America and he goes on to say “There is no clearer example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.” Clinton went on to say “Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.”

There is no evidence that Bush did anything that would be considered an impeachable offense. I don't like Bush because I believe his intelligence is sub par but I respect his position as president and will not use my personal views to throw around the impeachment word. The people of America put him in office and you can yell and scream all you want but that fact is not going to change.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, and what a silly question.:roll:
 
Top Bottom