Should George W. Bush be Impeached?

[Darth Andrew]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Also, voting for Bush and hardline Republicans only because it is popular among the leaders of a religious cult assumes that religious ideas don't exist among the Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc. Contrary to what fundamentalist cults would have their followers believe, Democrats/Liberals are just about as religious. Many are Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

Except the problem with the more religious Denocrats is that if they are more liberal and not moderate, then it is most likely that their religious views are too. For example, they are pushing for same-sex marriages, which many voters don't want not only based on their religious views, but because nature never intended it, so they vote for those against gay marriages, who which are usually Republicans.

Finally, if one were to vote based on the christian flavor of religion, then Bush certainly wouldn't be the choice. He's about as un-christian as they come. Jesus was about healing the sick, giving to the poor and impoverished, helping the less fortunate, and spreading the word of peace.

Actually, Bush is helping the poor. This chart (towards the bottom of the page) shows that the rich pay a higher tax rate than lower-income Americans. So basically the tax cuts help everybody, and not just the rich.

(look at the sad state of health care and the impending doom of Social Security if privatized. By the way, privatization of SS is a sure-fire way to continue to take from the poor and give to the wealthy, since the Government becomes the single biggest investor in private corporations... conflict of interest anyone?).

Y'know, I don't understand why people hate the idea of OPTIONAL Social Security privitization so much. After all, it's only OPTIONAL.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

For example, they are pushing for same-sex marriages, which many voters don't want not only based on their religious views, but because nature never intended it (...)

Nature doesn't have a combined mind, as it's just a combination of all the plants, animals, and other things out there. So one could say nature never intended humans to marry those of the opposite gender either.

 

However, I'd also say that the fact that 450+ animals and counting are proven to have homosexual tendencies proves that nature intended for there to be homosexuality.

 

And as a side note: Did "nature ever intend for you" to sit at a computer typing words onto the Internet? Nope.

 

And as another side note, did nature intend for Africans to live in cold Europe? Nope. Should we keep them from doing it? Nope.

 

Humans defy nature all the time. But that you suspect something defies nature doesn't prove it wrong. In my eyes, Bush is doing nothing but spreading surpremacism and acting on it, keeping a minority group oppressed.

 

More on gay animals: Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Amazon "dot" com). You can "look inside this book" to see a map of where homosexual animals live, and browse the animal index of animals proven to exhibit homosexual behaviour.

 

(...) so they vote for those against gay marriages, who which are usually Republicans.

And therein lies the problem. With only two candidates and two parties, people are forced to vote for a candidate they don't want just so that the case they burn mainly for will be pressed further.

 

There are several people who dislike 90% of Bush's politics but vote for him solely because he's against abortion. There are people who hate Bush and thus vote Kerry, because he's "not Bush". Having 4-8 parites, in my opinion, would decrease the need to make compromises constantly when voting as there'd be more combinations of agendas out there.

 

_____________

PS: For someone who's new to the senate (and so outnumbered) you're doing a good job, Andrew.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

Actually, Bush is helping the poor. This chart (towards the bottom of the page) shows that the rich pay a higher tax rate than lower-income Americans. So basically the tax cuts help everybody, and not just the rich.

 

We are in a deficiet, Is that the time to be giving tax breaks? if you want to help the economy, put people to work. make sure people have decent wages. raising minimum wage will get people more money than tax breacks. than people are able to buy more, so companies will get more money too. people will be paying more taxes on the things they buy and the higher income too, so the government will get more money too.

 

EDIT: trouble is the companies want to take advantage of their workers and pay low wages and they think they are saving money that way. when people earn a bare substadance level, people cant buy things. when people cant buy, they cant support companies, companies start laying off, then people are out of work, then less people buying, less money for comanies, cycle continues. This happened before. It was called the great depression. economy collapses.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Exactly. Income generates tax. Even if you aren't interested in economy, Rome: Total War will teach it to you ( ). But creating jobs is not something Bush has been doing:

 

Do you see how earlier steps towards unemployment has been ruined by Bush's administration? Earlier efforts brought it from 8% to 4%, then Bush spent one single term in office and it skyrocketed back to 6,5%. OK, so it's on its way back down, but it was before Bush took office, too. All I'm saying is that by the time the bush leaves the White House, it'd better be back down at 4% or less.

 

More on the tax cut: National Priorities Project

 

Optional social security:

Yes, I'm against optional social security. The reason is that everyone should contribute to those who don't have enough, not just those who need social security. Unless I'm too mistaken, you stop receiving social security once you stop contributing, right? But how does that hurt the upper class? They don't need social security, and probably does not care less about not receiving any of it. So what incentive do they have to contribute? And if the wealthy do not contribute, how's social security going to survive?

 

If I were Bush, I'd not waste the people's money on invading Iraq, but rather spend the tax money on things that benefit the famous "We, the People", also known as John Doe.

 

And another waste of money - National Priorities Project.

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by Darth Andrew

Actually, Bush is helping the poor. This chart (towards the bottom of the page) shows that the rich pay a higher tax rate than lower-income Americans. So basically the tax cuts help everybody, and not just the rich.

 

The problem with that is while we save 20 dollars from tax cuts, the rich save 2000.

 

Logic?

[Spider AL]

Skinwalker:

When George W. Bush became President in 2000, he promised prosperity, peace, and humility. Instead, his "leadership" has resulted in record federal deficits, he started an unnecessary war, and made us (America) the most hated nation in the world.

Correct. America under Clinton was more respected around the world than it is now, for very sound reasons. Clinton and his cabinet committed fewer war crimes, respected the rest of the world community more, followed policy based on reason and not dogma nor neo-fascist falsehood-based ideology... And Clinton could form a coherent sentence, let's not forget that. Oh, and he and his party had a massively positive effect on the American economy.

 

America under the neoconservatives and their puppet Bush is almost universally despised around the world for the following reasons (among others): It's totalitarian, fascist, warmongering, self-interested, unconcerned with the fates of the other nations that make up the global community, elitist,... But worst of all, Bush's appointment has made clear one thing that wasn't clear under Clinton... the majority of Americans are just as deeply flawed as people as Bush himself is. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been so easily brainwashed into voting for him DESPITE his government's AWFUL handling of the US economy and world affairs... and the fact that Bush is a gin-addled dropout with a rich daddy.

 

I think that's why America has become so hated around the world since Bush came to power; not only is Bush a puppet of fascists, he's also a mirror in which the worst qualities of the American people are starkly reflected, revealing them to the rest of the world in all their awful hideousness.

 

I'd love to see Bush impeached, it would be justice. I'd love to see him and his puppeteers brought up before international war crimes tribunals too... but let's face it, neither of those things is going to happen.

 

Darth Andrew:

Except the problem with the more religious Denocrats is that if they are more liberal and not moderate, then it is most likely that their religious views are too. For example, they are pushing for same-sex marriages, which many voters don't want not only based on their religious views, but because nature never intended it, so they vote for those against gay marriages, who which are usually Republicans.

Nature? Nature never intended you to be using the computer you're using either. I guess that makes the computer evil.

 

Come off it. There are many reasons to oppose same-sex marriage... but it's clear that you know none of them. Your enslavement to the dogma of your religion is apparent for all to see.

 

Know this: If you were TRULY observing the principles of your religion, your mind would be open and you would use reason, intelligence and compassion to make your choices. As it is, you're currently only using dogmatic judaism. I don't consider you a real christian.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'd love to see Bush impeached (...) but let's face it, neither of those things is going to happen.

Is there a source somewhere saying how distant/close (depending on your view) we are to getting him impeached?

 

Like, "so many votes down, so many to go!"? Not to mention a comparison with other Presidents? It would be sincerely interesting.

 

Definition of treason, if you're interested:

The US Constitution; Article 3, Section. 3.

 

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Spider AL]

Well I think it's a wash, to be honest.

 

A: He's too beloved by Americans. No, he really is. The majority of Americans voted for him. I can't see public pressure being intense enough to lead to his impeachment, especially since...

 

B: His handlers are too powerful. He's a puppet of the neocons and the financial elite. They pull the strings, full stop. Do you still believe the people run America? Heh. The people do what the TV and their preacher-man tell them to do. They're puppets just as surely as Bush.

 

Being allowed to put a paper in a ballot box is meaningless if your decision has already been made by others and forced upon you. Physical freedom is worth very little without mental freedom.

[Darth Andrew]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Skinwalker:

Correct. America under Clinton was more respected around the world than it is now, for very sound reasons. Clinton and his cabinet committed fewer war crimes, respected the rest of the world community more, followed policy based on reason and not dogma nor neo-fascist falsehood-based ideology... And Clinton could form a coherent sentence, let's not forget that. Oh, and he and his party had a massively positive effect on the American economy.

Yes, and he also had an affair; isn't that a good role model? And as for the economy, usually every decade has a recession, and the Clinton administration was between the two. Now of course the current Congress (Republican-controlled) has done huge spending, which doesn't help the economy at all one bit, but usually whichever party has control of Congress usually spends tons of pork. And for Clinton being respected around the world, that's because when we were attacked multiple times, he did pretty much nothing so not to disrupt tensions around the globe. When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, he responded:

"Just this morning I spoke with FBI Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who was involved and why this happened. Americans should know we'll do everything in our power to keep them safe in their streets, their offices and their homes. Feeling safe is an essential part of being secure. And that's important to all of us."

Found here. Now to me that sounds he will solve it like as if someone was bullying someone, and the bullyier will be put in timeout. Now even though the conspiritors were arrested and sentenced, shouldn't he have taken more action? Maybe examine if any countries were involved? And when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton also did nothing.

...Clarke later recommended, after the attack on the USS Cole, that President Clinton "bomb all of the Taliban and al-Qaeda infrastructure." Of course, that didn't happen--until Bill Clinton was out of office. Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explained to the commission that "to bomb at random or use military force would have made our lives more difficult inside the Islamic world." Of course, the decision not to bomb made quite an impact inside our own world--not to mention a hole in the Manhattan skyline.

Found here. So obviously the Clinton administration did nothing so thay wouldn't look bad in the Mideast.

Know this: If you were TRULY observing the principles of your religion, your mind would be open and you would use reason, intelligence and compassion to make your choices. As it is, you're currently only using dogmatic judaism. I don't consider you a real christian.

Spider AL, not only do I take that as an insult, but I also think that is an insult to the Jewish religion. I do hope you take that back.

PS: For someone who's new to the senate (and so outnumbered) you're doing a good job, Andrew.

Thank you.

[Mike Windu]

So... Bush is a better role model because he hasn't had an affair?

 

Let me go tell my kids to start unnecessary wars in Iraq...

 

Now even though the conspiritors were arrested and sentenced, shouldn't he have taken more action?

 

No, Justice was done and that's all that's to be said. We're not out for vengeance.

 

And for Clinton being respected around the world, that's because when we were attacked multiple times, he did pretty much nothing so not to disrupt tensions around the globe.

 

And this is bad... how?

 

Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explained to the commission that "to bomb at random or use military force would have made our lives more difficult inside the Islamic world."

 

Oddly reminiscent of a current war in the Middle East, isn't it?

[Joe©]

Okay let?s start with a few definitions. Hm?

 

Fascist ? A political philosophy, movement, or regime, that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Webster?s Dictionary

 

Totalitarian ? Of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader of hierarchy.

AUTHORITARIAN, DICTOTORIAL; Of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and the strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation esp. by coercive measures (as censorship or terrorism)

Webster?s Dictionary

 

Autocratic ? A monarch of other person ruling with unlimited authority.

Webster?s Dictionary

 

Levy - To impose of collect by legal authority, to enlist of conscript for military service, to carry on (war)

Webster?s Dictionary

 

Okay I will Just start with the basics of the ?Debate? if you could call it that.

Treason

False War in Iraq

Hurting the economy

Bush is a Fascist

Judging things on religion.

Please remind me of other issues if I forgot.

 

As to the treason claim, I don?t think is has much bearing (Dagobahn Eagle?s post)

 

The US Constitution; Article 3, Section. 3.

 

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

As far as I know bush has not been giving aid and comfort to the enemy (terrorists in our case) I stand on this, and welcome come backs.

 

War in Iraq. We, the coalition That is, DID find WMD?s in Iraq.

 

 

MORE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND IN IRAQ

Posted on 07/01/2004 1:07:27 PM

Source: Polish Press Agency

Polish Secretary of Defense Jerzy Szmajdzinski told about it US Secretary Rumsfeld during NATO summit in Istanbul. Sec Rumsfeld quoted him in radio interview late Wednesday - Pentagon informed Thursday. Official communiqué of Polish Ministry expected soon...

The wire dated July 7th / 20.24 hours (Polish time)

Military Intelligence found chemical weapon in Iraq. There are several missiles containing chemical weapons - said Jerzy Szmajdzinski, Polish Secretary of Defense.

Secretary confirmed information given by Sec. Donald Rumsfeld during his radio interview. When asked why Poles got to know about from American Secretary he answered that "we wanted to wait until US Army will investigate the case and says what type of gas is in". According to Szmajdzinski there are certainly missiles with chemical weapon. He said that Polish soldiers found weapons around two weeks ago.

Official communiqué of Polish Ministry of Defense

Ministry of Defense is informing...

Warsaw - At the beginning of June soldiers of Polish Military Intelligence found two GRAD missiles, which contained suspicious substance.

Later during special operations at the end of June the same team found several more GRAD missiles and other 82 mm missiles.

Americans experts concluded that missiles contain cyclosarin (gas deadlier than sarin). It is probable that this is the same weapon which was used against Kurds in Halabja.

Information was not given earlier due to the confirmation process.

Cite: http://www.freerepublic.com

 

These are Weapons they were not supposed to have, weapons we said they had, and were found, but disregarded my media. I think this makes the war in Iraq justified, not only did we find the WMD?s we said were there but we freed a country of a REAL fascist totalitarian government, if you have any doubts just let me know.

 

Ok, now to Spider AL who said that bush is a Fascist Puppet, I wish to see some evidence on this since I have given Evidence on my rebuttals, as per to my definitions on fascism.

 

As to Bush having shady connections, if you watched ABC before the elections, you would see that they did their best reporting EVER since they bashed both sides for huge spending and shady connections, and I see it as short sighted to just point a finger at the republican party and turn your back to the democrats.

 

Spider AL (or was that SkinWalker?) said that, we, the American people made a mistake in electing bush and that we are just as bad as he is. He also said that foreign relations were bad if you mean that we should have better relation with the UN by saying foreign, then I disagree. The UN is corrupt, and I see no need to get on better terms.

 

Someone said that bush should go on trial for war crimes, but what has he done? If you can blame bush for every solider that chooses to abuse rather than protect, and instead of taking responsibility to their actions, they try to shed the blame up the chain of command.

I am ashamed that the United States army did what they did in Abu-Ghraib but we are doing what we can to correct that error, by putting the people that actually ordered committed the crimes on trial

 

But the UN seems to be committing far worse war crimes in places like Africa (the abuse of the people they are supposed to be protecting) than we have.

 

Kate Holt

BBC news

 

Faela is 13 and her son Joseph is just under six months old.

Sitting on the dusty ground in Bunia's largest camp for Internally Displaced People (IDP), with Joseph in her arms, she talks about how she ensures that she and her son are fed.

"If I go and see the soldiers at night and sleep with them then they sometimes give me food, maybe a banana or a cake," she explains.

"I have to do it with them because there is nobody to care, nobody else to protect Joseph except me. He is all I have and I must look after him."

 

There is more to the article it can be found here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3769469.stm

 

Please pardon any errors and tell me so I can fix them to make this more enjoyable to everyone.

[Darth Andrew]

Originally posted by Joe©

These are Weapons they were not supposed to have, weapons we said they had, and were found, but disregarded my media. I think this makes the war in Iraq justified, not only did we find the WMD?s we said were there but we freed a country of a REAL fascist totalitarian government, if you have any doubts just let me know.

Interesting. I never heard of those, I only heard a report of a shell filled with sarin that insurgents tried to detonate in Iraq on the TV morning show Today. But of course the report was never heard of again....

So... Bush is a better role model because he hasn't had an affair?

No, I was simply replying to Spider AL's post:

And Clinton could form a coherent sentence, let's not forget that. Oh, and he and his party had a massively positive effect on the American economy.

that made Clinton almost sound like a perfect, prosperity-bringing god wherever he walked.

And this is bad... how?

Okay, imagine your house (United States) is broken into, and your TV has been stolen (WTC bombing). Then a week later, someone steals your car (U.S.S. Cole). Now would you just sit there and complain to your neighbors? (what Clinton administration did) No, you would call the police and maybe even help in the investigation (what should've been done), even if the friends of the burgular (Mid East) hated you for calling the cops and thus eventually busting their buddy. Now it may seem like a silly analogy, but it works.

Oddly reminiscent of a current war in the Middle East, isn't it?

Oh please, Albright wanted any sort of military action (whether big or small) out of the question.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by Darth Andrew

Except the problem with the more religious Denocrats is that if they are more liberal and not moderate, then it is most likely that their religious views are too. For example, they are pushing for same-sex marriages, which many voters don't want not only based on their religious views, but because nature never intended it, so they vote for those against gay marriages, who which are usually Republicans.

 

Like I said, the issues that affect the few are used in order for the elite to maintain their power because they know they can hit home with a "Wedge Issue" like same-sex marriage. The fact of the matter is that there are a very many Democrats who are opposed to the idea as well. There are even a very many Republicans who are open to the idea. But this is a prime example of allowing ideology interfere with critical thinking. Most of those that vote only based on a few "Wedge Issues," don't understand the implications of what their chosen party is really up to. Nor do they care to educate themselves, perhaps for fear of what they might learn or perhaps they feel that "what they don't know won't hurt them," much like the patient that refuses to go to the doctor so they won't be subjected to a negative diagnosis.

 

But, "because nature never intended it?" I'd like to see that one proven, but in another thread, please.

 

Originally Posted by Darth Andrew

Actually, Bush is helping the poor. This chart (towards the bottom of the page) shows that the rich pay a higher tax rate than lower-income Americans. So basically the tax cuts help everybody, and not just the rich.

 

First, that statement assumes that Bush is responsible for the current tax code that results in the higher tax rate you linked to. Are you suggesting that's the case? If not, then I would suggest that it isn't "Bush" that is "helping the poor."

 

Second, according to the Congressional Budget Office (USA 2001), between 1979 and 1997, the income of those in the middle rose from $41,400 to $45,100 –adjusting for inflation. That's a 9% increase. The income of families in the top 1 percent of the earning public rose from $420,200 to $1.016 million –a 140% increase!

 

In the 1950's, corporations paid an average of 25% of the federal tax. In 2000, they paid only 10%. In 2001, they only paid 7%! The IRS used to go after corporate tax evaders with a vengeance, but the Republican Congress during the era of Gingrich criticized the IRS for using "Gestapo Tactics," so they had to change their strategy. Now, they go after the little person. The poor. The people who earn the least. It's been estimated that anyone who files a return using the Earned Income Tax Credit has a 1 in 47 chance in being audited. In 1988, the chance of being audited if you earned over $100,000 was about 1 in 9. In 2001, it was about 1 in 208 (CTJ 2005; Phillips 2002; Renzulli 2002)

 

Don't see the disparity and the correlation of dates? Still think Bush is "helping the poor?" The recent changes in workers' rights with regard to how employers can avoid paying overtime, the increasing cost of health care, the current bill that will eliminate bankruptcy as an option for those that are broke, the drive to reduce a consumer's/victim's ability to recoup losses from a negligent corporation or doctor, etc. are all target at the poor and designed to increase the profit margins of the wealthy.

 

The fact of the matter is that the poor are generally less educated and less likely to make an informed vote if they vote at all, so their ability to influence the rich, white guys that run the Republican Guard Party is minimal.

 

Not that I believe the Democratic Party is necessarily perfect or innocent in all this. Quite the contrary. I'm an independent voter and a free-thinker who is able to critically evaluate the status quo and is willing to dissent, which is an American hallmark –one of the more patriotic things one can do as an American is dissent when the status quo is wrong. They are.

 

Originally Posted by Darth Andrew

Yes, and he also had an affair; isn't that a good role model?

 

And Clinton was also impeached by Congress. There is much to the argument that the evils of Bush far outweigh a fleeting bit of fellatio in the Oval Office.

 

But as to the comparison of Bush with Clinton, that really shouldn't be an issue. It matters not. Clinton is not the President, Bush is. Bush has acted as a traitor to the American people. He should be impeached.

 

@ Joe

 

Traitor - 1. One who betrays any person that trusts him, or any duty entrusted to him; a betrayer. In early use often, and still traditionally, applied to Judas Iscariot. 2. spec. One who is false to his allegiance to his sovereign or to the government of his country. (Oxford English Dictionary -2nd edition 1989).

 

I'm not arguing the point of special "treason" as defined by the Constitution, but rather, I'm arguing that Bush has acted as a traitor in that he betrayed the trust of the American people, slightly over half of which elected him, and he, therefore, should be impeached. I have no disillusions that an impeachment hearing would be remotely probable in a House/Senate/Judiciary dominated by the party of the current American regime.

 

I simply hypothesize that George W. Bush has acted in a manner that is traitorous to the American people and that his behavior warrants impeachment, regardless of whether or not it would actually occur. I believe the evidence is significant and that it can be tested to support the hypothesis and cannot be sufficiently falsified.

 

With regard to WMDs allegedly found by the Polish military:

 

wouldn't one need to utilize critical thinking and apply a bit of science to the problem?

 

The first consideration would be the effective shelf life of Cyclohexyl methylphosphonofluoridate (cyclosarin), even in it's binary form of methyphosphonyldifluoride / cyclohexanol. In either the former or the latter configurations, the compound is unstable and must be maintained at optimum conditions in order to retain a significant shelf life. I don't have access to the specific data on shelf life of either of these, but I do recall a figure of 3 years for the former at optimum conditions and a few years longer for the binary configurations.

 

The point of critical thinking applies when one also considers that the ability to manufacture the compounds was removed from Iraq's hands in 1991 with the destruction of several key installations. This isn't something that one cooks in a "meth lab" operation. Apply the math, and you'll see that the 82mm rounds that the Polish military found were unlikely to have been active chemical rounds if they were at all at some point in the past. Moreover, I recall many instances of testing various things in Kuwait and Iraq in Desert Storm in which false positives were given to our test equipment. I remember these quite clearly because I spent several hours in MOPP 4 with full chemical/biological gear on because of it.

 

Perhaps this would be the reason why the Bush administration never made a big deal of finally locating WMDs? That would also be an application of critical thinking, by the way. Also, "82mm" is a give-away to anyone familiar with artillery and mortars. 82mm is typically used in mortar ammunition, not missiles, though I could be ignorant to a Russian version or two of the round. Mortar rounds are handled differently than the type of round that would contain chemical munitions because of the volatility of the nerve agent. You wouldn't want your mortar man carrying individual rounds that might leak and expose the squad. Nor could he carry a large, sealed container.

 

 

 

References:

 

CTJ (2005). various reports here. Center for Tax Justice.

 

USA (2001). Historical Effective Tax Rates, 1979-1997 Congressional Budget Office.

 

Phillips, Kevin (2002). Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. New York: Broadway Books.

 

Renzulli, Diane (2002). Capitol Offenders: How Private Interests Govern Our States. Washington: Public Integrity Books.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I agree calling Bush's regime a facsist regime is going a little over the top. Are they elitist, though? You bet.

 

As for Clinton not "examin[ing] if any countries were involved [in the WTC bombing]", it sounds like he does to me:

 

Just this morning I spoke with FBI Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who was involved and why this happened.

Putting the FBI on the case sounds to me like doing what you can to find out who's behind the bombing, no?

 

As for Bush's regime's efforts in the war on terrorism, I find them lacking at best.

 

• It took him two whole months to get into Afghanistan. Bin Laden had more than enough time to get away.
  
• He mostly ignored Saudi-Arabia, even though they were largelly responsible for 9/11 itself:
  

  “The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.

• Later, after invading Afghanistan, he said that he "did not spend too much time on [bin Laden] and was not worried about him". For a person dedicated to hunting down the criminals behind 9/11, this sounds very forgiving.
  
• He did not give increased funds to border patrols. Rather, budgets were cut and many officers were laid off:

  "Budget cuts that laid off 129 Oregon State Police officers earlier this year have left a single trooper to cover the 1,400-square-mile territory and 100 miles of state roads around this city on Oregon's central coast." "Layoffs Leave Oregon Trooper Alone in Big Coastal Territory," Seattle Times, October 6, 2003.
  

  Credit to the States for keeping us safe from terrorists:rolleyes:.
  
• The USA "PATRIOT":rolleyes: ACT: Don't get me started. There are some fundamental rights a citizen has, such as not having his house searched by cops who don't bring a warrant. The "PATRIOT" ACT not only throws this out the window, it also takes away the police's responsibility to even tell you they searched your home.
   
  Then there's the ability to search your medical and financial and library records
  How on Earth is an overview of people's library record going to help us catch terrorists?

[El Sitherino]

Originally Posted by Darth Andrew

Yes, and he also had an affair; isn't that a good role model?

 

Bush has gotten multiple DUI's, had a cocaine addiction, had problems with many other drugs. Me, I'd rather take the guy that got blown than the guy that did/does blow.

[Joe©]

As to the Clinton is a good role model, I does not matter, both Bush and Clinton have admitted to using cocaine, Bush got a DWI and Clinton cheated on his wife. End of story.

 

Bush spent two months to get into Afghanistan, gee. Nothing he did could make you happy; you know why he was not worried about Bin Laden? Because we sent his whole lot to high heaven.

 

But, treason, this is big deal, to impeach a president for treason because of a bad economy. I know the national economy is not in good shape, but what I do know is about once a week I here good news about it?s recovery, that is undisputable fact, things are getting better.

 

But as we know ALL political parties are elitist, there are very few on both sides that work their way to the top. So again it is short sighted to just say that conservatives are elitist.

 

And Clinton did not do anything much after the WTC bombings, if he had then 8 months after bush was inaugurated, we might not have lost 3,000 lives, you can point fingers all the conservatives you want, but the fact of the matter is that the terrorists were in the US for a long time before the attack on 9/11, getting ready.

I don?t think that Clinton should be blamed or anything, I just want the argument to drop, because what was done is done and can?t be fixed, and I might add, that was their move (the terrorists) to make, not ours.

 

If you want to say that my Evidence is bad just let me know, and I will find some more, it is pretty easy, because we DID find WMDs in Iraq so there are articles out there, and do we know that all of there chemical processing labs were destroyed? The inspectors did not help, they would call installations the day before and notify them of their arrival to check things out. More than enough time to move any contraband.

 

"After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein conducted a systematic concealment operation to disrupt the mission of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), whose mandate was to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). ..."

 

Remainder of Joe's copy/paste can be found at this url: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/ccc-050103.htm

 

Joe, I don't know if that's where you got it, but that's where I saw it first a couple of years ago. Let's try to bear in mind Fair Use and Copyright and attribute sources appropriately, eh? -- SkinWalker

 

I hope this helps. Anyways I think that was everything?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You know why he was not worried about Bin Laden? Because we sent his whole lot to high heaven.

Far from it. Most of Al-Q'aida is still operational in cells in Afghanistan, neighbouring countries, and around the world.

[Darth Andrew]

Doesn't sound like that to me.

In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to dismantle al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda's infrastructure in the country was destroyed and their military commander, Muhammed Atef, was killed. Abu Zubaydah, another top operative, was captured in Pakistan. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, however, escaped and are presumed alive.

Found here. Of course this doesn't mean Al-Qaeda is gone, but their influence in Afghanistan is well below the levels of they had before the invasion. Yes, they still have other cells around the world, though.

[SkinWalker]

But, treason, this is big deal, to impeach a president for treason because of a bad economy. I know the national economy is not in good shape, but what I do know is about once a week I here good news about it?s recovery, that is undisputable fact, things are getting better.

 

Economic evidence for betraying the American people isn't all there is, as I'll add in a later post. But saying that you hear news of the economy getting better is an "undisputable fact" is only indisputable in the fact that it is anecdotal. A casual look at the increasing deficit easily counters that, though I won't dismiss the notion that some aspects of the economy are better than in 2001 and 2002. The question is this: is the rate of improvement what it should be, or could it have been better under a President that actually cared about and did not betray the general populace?

 

So again it is short sighted to just say that conservatives are elitist.

 

Just in case you were referring to any comments I may have posted to date, I refer you to my post just previous to this one.

 

If you want to say that my Evidence is bad just let me know, and I will find some more, it is pretty easy, because we DID find WMDs in Iraq so there are articles out there,

 

I've yet to see any evidence at all regarding WMDs found in Iraq. The Polish military find was not apparently corroborated by the American officials nor was any quantity associated with the alleged nerve agent. The only thing that can be established is that a unit of Coalition Forces had one or more chemical agent test kits read a positive that may or may not have been a false postive.

 

Until such time as a quantity can be empirically associated with the claim, there is no reason to believe that WMDs were located.

 

and do we know that all of there chemical processing labs were destroyed?

 

You'd think that by now the American forces would have come across something. Its reasonable to assume that there are no WMDs or WMD manufacturing capabilities that remained in Iraq after 2002.

 

Your quoted text from the paper that 888 wrote was interesting, but also interesting is his stance in 2004 when he wrote, "...and in January 2004 even official Washington questioned whether Iraq had WMDs (Al-Marashi 2004).

 

Ironically, I think that's the very same paper that British Intelligence was accused of plagiarizing by copying whole, unedited portions of it straight from the internet (Dorbolo 2004). Not that it matters, but the source I read that was an interesting read.

 

The inspectors did not help, they would call installations the day before and notify them of their arrival to check things out. More than enough time to move any contraband.

 

I haven't heard that inspectors contacted the Iraqi officials a day prior to visiting sites. That's a pretty substantial claim and should have a substantial source, eh? But I do have a transcript of an interview with Scott Ritter, one of the inspectors who states:

Originally stated by Scott Ritter

when inspectors showed up at a facility after 1996, and I led the bulk of these inspections that ran into the confrontations, a lot of people would assume that, when the Iraqis obstructed the work of the inspectors, it's because they were hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not so. 98% of the inspections run by the weapons inspection team from 1996 through 1998 got the full cooperation of the Iraqi government. A very small percentage, primarily the ones I led, were obstructed. Why? Because we were going to sites that were affiliated with Presidential security, Presidential palaces, and intelligence services. The Iraqis obstructed us not because they were hiding weapons. I'm here to tell you, as the person who planned these inspections; we never thought weapons were there. We were looking for the potential of documentation that might help us clear up outstanding questions as to what the final disposition of material was.

Ritter goes on to imply he, as a former intelligence officer with the Marine Corps and the team of inspectors that was comprised of CIA officials, was feared by the Iraqis as gathering targetting intel for bombers and cruise missiles. Thus, they blocked access to some sites where Hussein and family may have had access (Ritter 2003).

 

 

References

 

Al-Marashi, Ibrahim (2004). An Insider's Assessment of Media Punditry and "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Transnational Broadcasting Studies, Cairo: Adham Center for Television Journalism Pulications. Found on the web at: http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring04/marashi.htm

 

Dorbolo, Jon (2004). 21st Century Plagerism. Credible Disturbance. Found on the web at: http://disrupter.org/dorbolo/21st_century_plagiarism.html

 

Ritter, Scott (2003). International Press Conference. Trapcock Peace Center July 9, 2003 interview. Found on the web at: http://www.traprockpeace.org/ritter09july03.html

[Spider AL]

Darth Andrew:

Yes, and he also had an affair; isn't that a good role model?

Bahaha. It's a typical comment from people like yourself that Clinton was either equally bad as Bush (or worse than Bush...) because he had a fling with some bird.

 

Oh what utter drivel. It hardly ever deserves a response, but we keep trundling this one out, just because it's become a habit: Making out with a woman who is not your wife is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as taking a country to war for monetary reasons, as utilising falsehoods to further said war, as mishandling the economy one is responsible for, or as bad as bringing in futile, fascist legislation to deepen governmental control over the poor old average citizen. All of which Bush is guilty of.

 

Yes yes, I know, you don't want to believe that he's guilty of any of those things... but people's self-delusional tendencies aren't my problem.

 

usually every decade has a recession, and the Clinton administration was between the two.

Pfah. And the goal of good government is to cushion the nation against such possible recessions- or preferably avoid one altogether. Your government has failed to do either of those things, because the economic stability of the nation is a secondary concern to them. Lining their own pockets being the primary.

 

And for Clinton being respected around the world, that's because when we were attacked multiple times, he did pretty much nothing so not to disrupt tensions around the globe. When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993

 

...

 

Now even though the conspiritors were arrested and sentenced, shouldn't he have taken more action?

Can you HEAR yourself?

 

"even though the conspiritors were arrested and sentenced, shouldn't he have taken more action?"

 

What would you have liked him to do? Put on a red headband and blown them and their nation of origin up with a bazooka? You've just described a measured, lawful response to a crime by a fairly effective president.

 

Let us not forget that Bush has NOT attacked the country responsible for birthing and funding the majority of the 9/11 attackers. So how can you draw favourable comparisons in this way? It doesn't make any sense.

 

 

So obviously the Clinton administration did nothing so thay wouldn't look bad in the Mideast.

WHAT? Albright cautions against random attacks and you feel that this is in some way "sucking up" to the middle east?

 

Ergh. Every time I get into these discussions I am utterly FLUMMOXED that my opposition can be so utterly devoid of a logic-gland. I can't take much more, my brain will explode.

 

Spider AL, not only do I take that as an insult, but I also think that is an insult to the Jewish religion.

Then you're touchy and oversensitive. The fact that you and your contemporaries are operating not on a basis of reason and logic but instead on judaistic dogma... is not an insult. It's an assertion based on simple facts and observation of your behaviour and viewpoints.

 

If you find the idea that all your opinions are based on judaistic dogma (which they are) to be uncomfortable, then I say YOU'RE the one who holds an irrationally-arrived-at dislike of the Jewish religion.

 

I do hope you take that back.

Hope's a good thing. Maybe the best of things. You can keep on hoping.

 

Joe©:

 

Okay let?s start with a few definitions. Hm?

 

Fascist ? A political philosophy, movement, or regime, that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Webster?s Dictionary

This describes the current American government pretty accurately, with one exception: Bush isn't a dictator, he's not effective enough. His puppetmasters fill that role.

 

Think on this: America exalts its nation above all others. It exalts its ideology above all others. It is governed by an autocratic regime responsible for severe curtailment of standard rights and civil liberties. It is responsible for economic terrorism against much of the US populace. It fits in with the definition VERY well indeed.

 

And in case you weren't aware, many top American political analysts share my view that the current American administration is responsible for the current spiral towards irredeemable fascism that America's undergoing at the current time.

 

These are Weapons they were not supposed to have, weapons we said they had, and were found, but disregarded my media. I think this makes the war in Iraq justified, not only did we find the WMD?

Your source is an outdated piece of wartime propaganda, your OWN government eventually stated after testing that the warheads you cite did NOT contain any effective payloads whatsoever.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

 

No WMDs were discovered in Iraq.

 

Period.

 

What chance have I to show you the truth when you blind yourself? None.

 

Ok, now to Spider AL who said that bush is a Fascist Puppet, I wish to see some evidence on this since I have given Evidence on my rebuttals, as per to my definitions on fascism.

If you were unable to note that your definition supported my case rather than yours, nothing I could now say would have any impact on you at all, I'll warrant.

 

You say "show me!" I say, look for yourself.

[Rogue15]

over half the damn country wanted him in.......

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Rogue15

over half the damn country wanted him in.......

 

In light of the evidence of Bush's incompetence, does that imply that just over half (it was just over half, btw) of the country was guillible or ignorant or both?

[toms]

Originally posted by Spider AL

And in case you weren't aware, many top American political analysts share my view that the current American administration is responsible for the current spiral towards irredeemable fascism that America's undergoing at the current time. [/b]

 

indeed:

 

Star Wars is a wakeup call to Americans about the erosion of democratic freedoms under George W. Bush, George Lucas said yesterday.

 

Lucas, at a Cannes film festival press conference yesterday, said he first wrote the framework of Star Wars in 1971 when reacting to then-U.S. president Richard Nixon and the events of the Vietnam War. But the story still has relevance today, he said, and is part of a pattern he has noticed in history.

 

"I didn't think it was going to get quite this close," he said of the parallels between the Nixon era and the Bush presidency, which has been sacrificing freedoms in the interests of national security.

 

"It is just one of those re-occuring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is . . . The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable."

 

In the latest film, the Palpatine character takes over as ruler of the universe with the co-operation of the other politicians.

 

"Because this is the back story (of the Star Wars saga), one of the main features of the back story was to tell how the Republic became the Empire," Lucas said.

 

"At the time I did that, it was during the Vietnam War and the Nixon era. The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over, but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?"

 

Lucas cited the Roman empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the revolution and Hitler's rise in Germany as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators.

 

"They all seem to happen in the same way with the same issues: Threats from the outside; they need more control; and a democratic body not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling."

 

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Darth Palpatine: "I love democracy. The powers you have given me, I will put down once this crisis is over."

 

Darth Rumsfeld: "Our great nation is threatened from the outside. We need temporary freedoms to fend off the threat from these terrorists."

 

Those three last paragraphs ring especially true to my ears.

[El Sitherino]

Can we quit with the relating Star Wars with the current political atmosphere?

 

Seriously, it's annoying.