Should Bush Be Impeached?

[Char Ell]

Actually, that might not be somewhat good logical reasoning. While I am against impeachment, the object of discussion is: "Should the House of Represnatives Impeach Bush?" We are questioning the desicion of the House to not Impeach Bush, so stating that since the House does not impeach Bush, we should not impeach Bush...is somewhat fallicous. Begging the question. But, I do agree with you that the Democrats are making a good desicion.

Oy Scopester! I do believe you misinterpreted my statement. I see nothing fallacious (I believe that is the word you meant to use) or logically unsound about my argument as my argument was not Bush should not be impeached because the House isn't impeaching him.

 

Dagobahn Eagle provided a list of all the laws that Bush has allegedly broken. My argument was simply that these allegations are apparently without much merit. If otherwise then we would see a lot more action in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives towards impeaching President Bush as I believe we all know they would love to find something to impeach Bush for. Instead all we see is Representative Kucinich, an aspiring 2008 presidential candidate and therefore IMO with questionable motives, working towards this end. And actually I was wrong about that as Kucinich is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney, not President Bush.

[SilentScope001]

Dagobahn Eagle provided a list of all the laws that Bush has allegedly broken. My argument was simply that these allegations are apparently without much merit. If otherwise then we would see a lot more action in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives towards impeaching President Bush as I believe we all know they would love to find something to impeach Bush for. Instead all we see is Representative Kucinich, an aspiring 2008 presidential candidate and therefore IMO with questionable motives, working towards this end. And actually I was wrong about that as Kucinich is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney, not President Bush.

 

Ah, here we go. Instead of arguing that Bush should not be impeached because they are not impeaching Bush, it is rather that the causes have no merit because he is not impeached. My bad. And yes, I do agree.

 

EDIT: Got done reading through the Impeachment. The charges that Chency lied, I feel, has not been proven quite effectively, since it is all cicrumstanal evidence, and the charges that Chency is being bombastic towards Iran...well...that's going to lose a lot of support of the anti-Iranian crowd. It's not going to pass though, because the Democrats are not backing it...and due to that Iranian clause. Many Americans who would love to sign a bill bringing Bush to trial would reconsider after reading the Iranian clause.

 

If I was going to impeach Mr. Chency, and I would not, I need to actually find a link between Chency and lying. Since such a link can't be found, I would merely have to "create" it. Cite an anymous whisteblower who said, "I talked to Chency and Chency said, 'Listen. I know there is no evidence that Saddam Hussien has nuclear weapons. I don't care. Saddam has them, and we have to stop him before the mushroom cloud is formed.'" There. Sounds IC enough, good justification, and enough to horrify people. And, the best part is, Chency can't deny the allegations, because the whistleblower's name is classified. Everyone trust a whistleblower, so with that, I think that would be enough evidence to rally the majority of the Democrats to bring Chency to trial.

 

Ethical? Sure. Bush lied, we went to war. Democrats lie, we get to bring Bush to trial.

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah, but they don't have the 2/3 majority to override the veto. They barely had a majority to get it passed in the first place.

 

It also had a lot of completely unrelated crap/pork added to it, just to make that more interesting.

 

 

They had pork in the form of aid to Katrina victims and stuff like that as a way to bribe/blackmail people into voting for it and actually telling them that the aid will not be offered again in a seperate bill. Isn't bribery an impeachable offense, guess there is more to go after the Democrats for legally than the there is to go after the President.

[SilentScope001]

They had pork in the form of aid to Katrina victims and stuff like that as a way to bribe/blackmail people into voting for it and actually telling them that the aid will not be offered again in a seperate bill. Isn't bribery an impeachable offense, guess there is more to go after the Democrats for legally than the there is to go after the President.

 

Of course not. Bribery/pork barrel projects is needed in the USA. Without it, how can small states get the money they need? Plus, only composes 1% of the US budget, so a bit of waste is fine. (Bush would have signed such pork, if say, it would basically support him...remember, one's pork is another person's Very Important Project)

 

Not to mention, if Pork Barrel is an impeachable offense, we'll have to impeach every single Congressman, Republican, or Democrat. While that may be quite fun to watch the ensuring confusion, I don't think that would be necessary.

[GarfieldJL]

Blackmailing someone into voting for something that they are staunchly opposed by stating that their State isn't going to get needed aid otherwise and it will be used against them in the 08 election is blackmail.

 

 

Furthermore, are those charges from MoveOn.org, cause MoveOn.org is not a valid source due to extreme bias. In fact one could argue the bulk of the mainstream media has a credibility problem. Based on a study conducted by UCLA, as well as the books Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg.

 

Then there is the book Unlimited Access concerning the Clinton White House, there are a lot of things that have been going on that the media is conveintly not reporting about because it doesn't promote their left-wing agenda.

 

Btw, the reason the media was so skittish for a while is not out of support for the president, rather it was the fact TIMEs had its head handed to it when it wrote an article condoning the behavior of a man that bombed police stations in the 1960s and it was distributed on September 11, 2001.

 

Then there is Rathergate which occurred in 04. And the picturegate during the Lebanon/Israeli conflict, so excuse me for finding your charges rather hard to believe, cause in my mind a lot of the media has lost all credibility, excluding Fox News which actually is pretty close to center.

 

On a side note Bush and Kerry went to the same University, and Bush got better grades than Kerry did. So if Bush is as dumb as a box of rocks, does that make Kerry braindead?

[Windu Chi]

Yes, but during impeachment proceedings one needs to prove that the president purposefully lied. It doesn't seem to me that anyone has solid proof on this one and understanding somewhat the nature of how things work in Washington D.C. I think it rather unlikely such proof will be found.

Well, I think that it is obvious he has lied to get us in a blood thirsty war with no end.

No, bio weapons, no chemical weapons, no nuclear weapons and no al-Qaida connection in Iraq.

He and his useless administration completely lied to us !

 

 

 

The question at hand is whether or not President George W. Bush should be impeached. I don't think there is enough solid evidence available to warrant impeachment proceedings, in spite of the concerted efforts of many impassioned anti-Bush people to come up with grounds for kicking Bush out of office.

 

Then you're lost if you believe there is no soild evidence.

Are you kidding me, no soild evidence.

C'mon, cutmeister!

[Pavlos]

I still can't believe that the president of the USA can veto things... it hardly seems democratic. Isn't the president simply the first among equals (as is the case in many other representative democracies, including the UK)? I don't understand this king-like power a president takes on when he is sworn into office.

[tk102]

Isn't the president simply the first among equals (as is the case in many other representative democracies, including the UK)? I don't understand this king-like power a president takes on when he is sworn into office.

No, the Executive is separate branch in the U.S. government whereas the U.K. Prime Minister is head of the Legislative branch. As such, the veto power of the Executive is the primary check to the powers of the Legislative. The power of impeachment that we're discussing here is one of the Legislative checks to Executive powers.

[Prime]

Well, I think that it is obvious he has lied to get us in a blood thirsty war with no end.

No, bio weapons, no chemical weapons, no nuclear weapons and no al-Qaida connection in Iraq.

He and his useless administration completely lied to us !

 

Then you're lost if you believe there is no soild evidence.

Are you kidding me, no soild evidence.

C'mon, cutmeister!

Prove it. Can you?

 

If not, making these kinds of statements isn't helping the debate any.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

OK, first and foremost: Again, I know Bush'll never be impeached. My goal, therefore, when saying he should be is to convince people to stop supporting him.

 

To commit a fraud, you must lie. From what I can tell, Bush was honestly mistaken.

Three words: Downing Street Memo.

 

Bush is the commander-in-chief, and he got full premission from Congress to invade Iraq, so everything is fine.

No. The US has violated International Law by launching a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation without UN clearance.

 

Look at it this way: You are a free citizen, I presume, of the USA. Yet you have to abide by your nation's laws. Likewise, the US is a sovereign nation, but still needs to abide by International Law.

 

That the US got permission from itself to invade Iraq means absolutely nothing. Using the same reasoning, I can say it was totally OK for North Korea to invade South Korea, or for Japan to pre-emptively bomb Pearl Harbour. In both cases, I'm certain that the leaders of North Korea and Japan, respectively, filed the necessary paperwork and got the required clearances from within to take action. Doesn't change the fact that they broke International Law.

 

CIA and FBI are able to determine definition of tortue.

Whoopie-doo.

 

Many things that are not considered tortue, like keeping people locked up in a cell for a very, very long time...does seem like tortue.

It is torture, pal. It has a very destructive effect on your mental and physical health, just like methods widely accepted as torture, such as electrodes attached to your testicles. But then again, maybe that's not torture either, despite the horrific pain it induces. Maybe it just seems like it.

 

All this does is state that torture is wrong, but if those in power determines what torture actually is...you got nothing.

So North Korea is totally within its rights to mercilessly beat up its detainees because they don't recognize it as torture? The Tienanmen massacre was perfectly fine as the People's Republic of China didn't call it a massacre? If a criminal does not recognize that what he does is a crime, he's not committing a crime? What a lovely philosophy.

 

Abu Gariah is the only place where tortue actually was committed.

Add Guantánamo to the list of known places where torture was and possibly still is committed.

 

But, it is not linked to Bush, and it is likely an isolated incident by very troubled youths.

'It was an isolated incident committed by rogues further down the ranks, and those responsible have been punished'. How very original. It's not as if every single organization and government, from the small-town mafia to the hot shot superpower uses that excuse when caught with its pants down.

 

Maybe it isn't...but since this is in question, your case isn't airtight.

Not only is there ample proof Bush and his cronies were behind the torture in various detention camps, he and said cronies have publicly defended torture as a vital weapon against terrorism.

 

That Act bans all "grave vioaltions" of the Genva Convention...however...Bush deterimines what the Gevena Convention means.

The Geneva Conventions are not some obscure bronze age scripture that you can warp and twist to fit your agenda. They are laid down by the Red Cross, who have a perfectly clear idea of what their conventions mean. When you're subject to a law or treaty, Heck, any written agreement, you can't just suddenly decide 'nah, I don't care if we signed and agreed with it and stated we were fully aware of what it meant - I don't like it anymore, so let's just go ahead and say it means this instead'.

 

Oh, and can other nations do this, too? Can Iran declare that it interprets the 'Conventions as a go-ahead to torture? Would it be within its right to beat the captured sailors half to death because they 'interpreted the scriptures of Geneva' different from the Red Cross?

 

Agree or disagree, but this is what Bush says, therefore, Bush did not violate these laws.

Are you saying that because the criminal says he hasn't committed a crime, no crime has been committed? Do you believe that yourself? Do you honestly want your nation to be run that way?

 

Can I break into a person's house and escape prison because I've just decided that breaking into someone's house is not burglary? Can I suddenly decide what every law I disagree with means? Of course not.

 

As above. Bush says that it is not tortue, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is not tortue.

You're starting to scare me.

 

1) Prove to me that there were acts in the military that were illegal.

Didn't you just admit that the Abu Grahib torture took place?

 

I could easily add more, though. What about the use of white phosphorous over Fallujah?

 

2) Prove to me Bush was behind those acts.

See very last paragraph of this post.

 

I'd agree with you on this. But this is not a problem with Bush, this is a problem with the FBI and the CIA heads.

Of course. I cannot imagine that Bush and his cronies have done the slightest bit to support this, especially as they have condoned the practice publicly. Of course they wouldn't.

 

The only way that I can see bush getting impeached is if he flew a kite within Washigton, D.C. limits. Since it is illegal to fly kites in Washigtion, D.C. a person can then declare that since he broke the law, he should be Impeached.

Oh, so now he's suddenly lost his ability to rewrite laws? He can't just say 'oh, I don't consider this thing a kite, so no harm done'?

 

Ah, here we go. Instead of arguing that Bush should not be impeached because they are not impeaching Bush, it is rather that the causes have no merit because he is not impeached. My bad. And yes, I do agree.

You don't believe this yourself. He wasn't punished, so he can't have been guilty? What on Earth?

 

Expanding on the question of torture, I advise you to read this thread in its entirety. Bush's guilt is made abundantly clear by many posters, as is the fact that torture is a horrific crime more fitting to a Middle Eastern theocracy than a modern Western Republic.

[Jae Onasi]

Take a deep breath, folks, and think about how you're saying things before you hit the 'post reply' button. We don't need to be sarcastic and caustic in our responses to each other.

 

@DE--if the Dems had significant solid proof, there would be an impeachment. Right now there are allegations that have no substantial, definitive proof. Regarding the UN resolutions, once Saddam violated all the UN resolutions, all bets were off. We didn't need specific further UN authorization to attack, it was already built into previous resolutions--if Saddam violated those, we had the authority to attack. Saddam did have WMDs--he used several nerve gas and chemical agents to wipe out several Kurdish villages. I'm sure he didn't use up his only stock against the Kurds.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

@DE--if the Dems had significant solid proof, there would be an impeachment

The Democrats do not have sufficient power to impeach Bush. I thought we made that clear earlier in the thread.

 

Right now there are allegations that have no substantial, definitive proof.

Waitaminute... so you can invade a country based on heresay ('Saddam probably has WMDs!'), but your opponents need solid evidence?

 

There is evidence of torture, lying about Iraq, and illegal spying using the PATRIOT ACT. Or to put it another way - there's more evidence Bush is worthy of impeachment than there ever was of Iraq possessing a WMD arsenal.

 

Regarding the UN resolutions, once Saddam violated all the UN resolutions, all bets were off. We didn't need specific further UN authorization to attack, it was already built into previous resolutions--if Saddam violated those, we had the authority to attack.

The UN made it perfectly clear that the Coalition was not allowed to invade Iraq. The invasion was a violation of UN decisions and thus not legal.

 

Saddam did have WMDs--he used several nerve gas and chemical agents to wipe out several Kurdish villages. I'm sure he didn't use up his only stock against the Kurds.

Doesn't matter. The agents had a very short shelf life and thus can not have existed by 2003. You know how ice cream tends to melt in room temperature, so that even if you don't eat it, it goes away? Sarin and the other gases are a lot like that. Use them quickly or they become useless.

 

No WMDs were ever found. Three years have passed, and still none have been found. What is more, the Dubya administration deliberately overstated the WMD threat to justify its invasion.

[Pavlos]

No, the Executive is separate branch in the U.S. government whereas the U.K. Prime Minister is head of the Legislative branch. As such, the veto power of the Executive is the primary check to the powers of the Legislative. The power of impeachment that we're discussing here is one of the Legislative checks to Executive powers.

 

I only brought it up because someone mentioned vetoing something that had already gone through the house of representatives and I thought I'd just pop in and ask a question about it.

 

Edit: I see that both bodies are equally in check. I'm still adverse to the idea of a president saying no to the elected representatives, though - even if they do have the power of impeachment.

[mimartin]

I voted no. Not because I like or believe a word my President says, but because I don't see where he has violated a law (that can be proven).

 

I disagreed with the Republican Congress for trying to impeach President Clinton for political reasons and I’d disagree just as strongly with this Democratic Congress for trying the same thing. Even if there was proof that he violated a law, illegal wiretapping, for instants, there isn’t the time to get him out of office before his term is up. All it would do is waste more tax money.

 

If Congress really wants to stop the war, then don’t pass the spending bill or send it to him again without the pork, but with the same requirement to pull out.

 

I’m against the war, but I’m for the troops. I can not believe they still don’t have the equipment needed to protect themselves. I hope Congress passes a bill, without playing politics, and the bill does what is in the best interest for our young men and women in harms way. I really don’t care what my President wants; they need to do what’s best for the troops and the people of Iraq.

 

I agree that the American people, Congress and the rest of the world was misinformed by the administrations augments for invading Iraq. They did a really good job using terminology to protect their butts. Making up new words that mean whatever they say the word means. That is why it is impossible to show where they lied or misled, but we all know the truth. It is funny they call President Bill Clinton, Slick Willie, but he has nothing on this one.

 

The American people had a chance to get rid of him and choose to keep him, now for the good and the bad he’s our President. At least until January 2009.

 

The UN made it perfectly clear that the Coalition was not allowed to invade Iraq. The invasion was a violation of UN decisions and thus not legal.

 

How does not getting the approval of the UN make it illegal. For that matter, what authority does the UN have to make it legal to invade another Nation? Can they make it legal to invade a Nation that is not part of the UN?

 

I don’t see the UN and don’t want the UN to be the world’s authority. I was under the impression that the UN was formed to prevent wars, not authorize them.

 

I don’t see the UN of much use anymore and I really don’t see them as a place for action. I don’t want to wait for their discussions and debates before they try to solve the world’s problems. I’m sure there are a lot of people in Darfur that will agree with that.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, DE the war in Iraq, much like in Korea of the 50's, never officially ended in anything other than a ceasefire. Upon Iraq violating the conditions of said cease-fire, the war continues. Simple. Further, wasn't aware that UN was now the One World Government with legal authority (never mind it's utterly complete lack of ability) to punish any government that "violates" its "authority". Wonder where it was at Tiennamen or any of the other hotspots in the world (Rwanda, say). The UN is little more than a corrupt organization that countries mystifyingly wrap around themselves to assert moral authrity where none really truly exists. I'm guessing that it's just a cynical manipulation used by whomever does it (including the US) to achieve a policy end.

[Jae Onasi]

Edit: I see that both bodies are equally in check. I'm still adverse to the idea of a president saying no to the elected representatives, though - even if they do have the power of impeachment.

 

Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority, so the Pres doesn't have unlimited power.

 

@DE--I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong--I'm saying there's not enough _good_ proof to _convict_ him, since it's 'innocent til proven guilty' here rather than 'guilty til proven innocent' like in those countries whose legal systems are derived from Napoleonic Code.

 

It's entirely possible that Bush believed the horrible intelligence he got from the field. Since that introduces 'reasonable doubt' into the equation, it'd be impossible to convict him on that particular issue, which is the one Congress would have the best chance of getting him on.

[Char Ell]

OK, first and foremost: Again, I know Bush'll never be impeached.

I don't consider Bush being impeached as being completely out of the realm of possibility. Far from it. Something solid and clearly defined that the general public can latch onto would be all that it would take. The situation with former President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair demonstrated how this can happen.

The Democrats do not have sufficient power to impeach Bush. I thought we made that clear earlier in the thread.

I personally would rephrase this as the Democrats do not have sufficient evidence to impeach President Bush. If they did have the evidence then they would have the power to impeach him.

Look at it this way: You are a free citizen, I presume, of the USA. Yet you have to abide by your nation's laws. Likewise, the US is a sovereign nation, but still needs to abide by International Law.

A subject for a different thread I believe. International law has no bearing on whether President Bush should be impeached as the President of the United States of America is sworn to uphold and protect the United States Constitution, not international law.

Waitaminute... so you can invade a country based on heresay ('Saddam probably has WMDs!'), but your opponents need solid evidence?

Apples to oranges comparison. I believe Jae Onasi is stating there isn't sufficient evidence to impeach Bush. You retort with the U.S.A. using questionable intelligence as its basis for invading Iraq. Two different circumstances that are invalid for comparison. The issue at hand is whether Bush should be impeached, not America's grounds for invasion of Iraq.

[GarfieldJL]

I don't consider Bush being impeached as being completely out of the realm of possibility. Far from it. Something solid and clearly defined that the general public can latch onto would be all that it would take. The situation with former President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair demonstrated how this can happen.

Actually Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath before a Federal Grand Jury. Also at this point, it wouldn't surprise me that evidence used to impeach Bush would later turn out to be bogus like the forged documents that CBS used to try to get it so Bush would lose the 04 election.

 

I personally would rephrase this as the Democrats do not have sufficient evidence to impeach President Bush. If they did have the evidence then they would have the power to impeach him.

 

It's more of they lack votes, in my opinion the Democrats have such an irrational hatred of Bush they'd impeach him even though there isn't a legitimate reason.

 

A subject for a different thread I believe. International law has no bearing on whether President Bush should be impeached as the President of the United States of America is sworn to uphold and protect the United States Constitution, not international law.

 

I'd go further and state that the UN has demonstrated it is riddled with so much corruption it is laughable that we should even trust it.

 

Apples to oranges comparison. I believe Jae Onasi is stating there isn't sufficient evidence to impeach Bush. You retort with the U.S.A. using questionable intelligence as its basis for invading Iraq. Two different circumstances that are invalid for comparison. The issue at hand is whether Bush should be impeached, not America's grounds for invasion of Iraq.

 

To expand further, acting on intelligence that turns out later to be false is not an impeachable offense, it is more of something that needs to be addressed in the CIA, not the President. Further, I would say that could be considered Clinton's fault for gutting our military and the CIA.

[SilentScope001]

Actually Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath before a Federal Grand Jury. Also at this point, it wouldn't surprise me that evidence used to impeach Bush would later turn out to be bogus like the forged documents that CBS used to try to get it so Bush would lose the 04 election

 

Clinton DID NOT LIE.

 

When he said that he did not do [something Perverse], he really mean he did not do [something Perverse]. He really meant that he did [something Else Pervese], that is a little different from [something Perverse], but not totally. Therefore, Clinton never lied.

 

(And, no I'm not going to fill in the blanks. Both acts are equally perverse, and anyone who followed the crisis may know what I am talking about. I guess you could PM me so I can fill it in for you...)

 

And Clinton getting impeached because he lied about [something Perverse]? I can understand the trust issue, but it just sounds so werid to impeach someone on that issue. Impeaching Clinton on corruption is far more better than impeaching Clinton on this issue. I would rather like a President who lie about [something Perverse]...I really don't need to know something like that.

 

It's more of they lack votes, in my opinion the Democrats have such an irrational hatred of Bush they'd impeach him even though there isn't a legitimate reason.

 

I concur. So do Republicans and their hatred of Clinton that they are willing to impeach him even though there isn't a really legitimate reason. Both political parties has their faults.

 

Well, not so much that the Democrats has an irrational hatred of Bush. Their hatred is totally rational, and that if they unite, they do have votes. It's the Far Left who call for Impeachment, and they do not have the votes from the majority of the Democrats. However, the Democrats control the House of Represenatives, they can impeach Bush just like the Republicans impeached Clinton. But, it would all be a political mess, which no real point.

 

I'd go further and state that the UN has demonstrated it is riddled with so much corruption it is laughable that we should even trust it.

 

Nah. It's corrupt, but so is every other government on the planet. The UN is useful because it reveals what the World thinks of us. If the World hates us, the UN says so directly in our face. This sort of feedback helps us in gauging how much the World is ready to lynch the United States of America, which I feel, is so very useful.

 

Plus, it also allows for a forum where you get to talk to other governments, and get them to agree to certain stuff. Working with the UN to pass resolutions in general is somewhat silly since resolutions are mere paper, but making sly deals with other nations within the body is not silly. It is, in fact, skillful diplomacy. Even the resolutions' vote act as a gauge for how much the United States of America is loved...or hated. I think such a gague is necessary, otherwise the USA might grow a bit too arrogant, and arrogance can lead to downfall.

[Jae Onasi]

@DE--if the Dems had significant solid proof, there would be an impeachment

The Democrats do not have sufficient power to impeach Bush. I thought we made that clear earlier in the thread.

If they had sufficient _good_ proof that would stand up to legal scrutiny, the Republicans would have to side with the Dems or risk a scandal. The other thought in the back of their minds is if Bush is impeached and resigns, Cheney becomes President.

 

Right now there are allegations that have no substantial, definitive proof.

Waitaminute... so you can invade a country based on heresay ('Saddam probably has WMDs!'), but your opponents need solid evidence?

I'm with cutmeister--what does making a decision based on bad intelligence have to do with the legal requirements of proof for impeachment? There is no solid proof linking Bush _directly_ to anything impeachable. You'd have to prove that he lied about WMDs instead of simply being mistaken--that argument will never stand up in court. You'd have to prove that he _directly_ told people to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib. You'll never find that kind of proof.

 

There is evidence of torture, lying about Iraq, and illegal spying using the PATRIOT ACT. Or to put it another way - there's more evidence Bush is worthy of impeachment than there ever was of Iraq possessing a WMD arsenal.

None of which can be linked directly to Bush himself, and that's the key point. We can't be 100% sure that he was lying about Iraq when he might have been given bad intel and based bad decisions on that.

 

Regarding the UN resolutions, once Saddam violated all the UN resolutions, all bets were off. We didn't need specific further UN authorization to attack, it was already built into previous resolutions--if Saddam violated those, we had the authority to attack.

The UN made it perfectly clear that the Coalition was not allowed to invade Iraq. The invasion was a violation of UN decisions and thus not legal.

I don't buy it. Saddam violated a zillion resolutions, and our ceasefire was contingent on Saddam complying those resolutions, which were all decided in the UN. Any later UN 'decisions' were put in place because the UN leaders were terrified that they'd be implicated in the oil-for-food scandal, and France didn't want to lose a ton of telecom money. The UN under Annan was riddled with corruption, and none of the powers-that-be wanted that Iraq-related corruption coming to light.

 

Saddam did have WMDs--he used several nerve gas and chemical agents to wipe out several Kurdish villages. I'm sure he didn't use up his only stock against the Kurds.

Doesn't matter. The agents had a very short shelf life and thus can not have existed by 2003. You know how ice cream tends to melt in room temperature, so that even if you don't eat it, it goes away? Sarin and the other gases are a lot like that. Use them quickly or they become useless.

 

Not all agents degrade that quickly--some remain active for a very long time. Even if those particular agents did degrade, the factories that produced those gases didn't disappear. Saddam had the demonstrated capacity to create and use chemical agents, and demonstrated capacity to send missiles with those agents flying around parts of the Middle East.

 

No WMDs were ever found. Three years have passed, and still none have been found. What is more, the Dubya administration deliberately overstated the WMD threat to justify its invasion.

 

That's irrelevant to whether _Bush himself_ deliberately overstated it or if he was given bad intel.

The WMDs could be buried anywhere--the country's huge. Do you think WMDs could be hidden somewhere in the boonies of Texas and not be found? I do, and Iraq has twice the area of Texas and plenty of remote areas to hide things. Furthermore, some things may have been shipped over the border into Syria, and it's not like we can go search there.

 

I don't know if Bush lied or just believed bad info--it's impossible to tell, and it would be impossible for anyone to convict him because of that. It's impossible to prove that he _directly_ ordered torture or was the one _directly_ involved in any of the myriad other allegations you quote.

 

Any court is going to ask if he himself gave orders for torture, or intentionally lied. If he says he didn't, and they can't find any direct proof linking him to those crimes, then the prosecuter's screwed. In terms of the actual legal proceeding, it doesn't matter if he did it or not, it matters if you can _prove_ he did it or not, and until they have that kind of definitive proof, no impeachment will ever happen.

[mimartin]

Actually Clinton was impeached for lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury. Also at this point, it wouldn't surprise me that evidence used to impeach Bush would later turn out to be bogus like the forged documents that CBS used to try to get it so Bush would lose the 04 election.

 

Clinton was impeached for one reason politics, pure and simple it was for political reasons. They went after him for Whitewater and once they couldn’t find anything they went after what they could find.

 

If the Democrats in Congress go after Bush they will be playing the same game the Republican Congress played against Clinton and it will just be politics.

 

I agree the CBS was wrong for airing information about the forged documents. I do not agree that they were trying to make Bush lose the election. If the documents were real then it would have been news. CBS is guilty of not checking the facts and rushing to judgment. News organizations depend on trust and this misjudgment cost them that trust and creditability. Something they must have to do business and I do not believe they’d risk just to cost Bush a few votes. If Bush would of just released his complete military records this would of all been moot anyways.

 

To expand further, acting on intelligence that turns out later to be false is not an impeachable offense, it is more of something that needs to be addressed in the CIA, not the President. Further, I would say that could be considered Clinton's fault for gutting our military and the CIA.

 

That’s it blame the last guy for the failings under the control of the current administration. Whatever happened to the Buck stops here? If Bush thought that the CIA was in such deep trouble why did he keep a Clinton appointee on? For that matter, why did he trust the data so completely if the CIA was such a shell of it former self? I hope he trusted it completely to stake the lives of so many young people on it.

 

The so called gutting of the CIA and the military was due to a lack of vision and not the fault of Clinton or the first President Bush. The end of the Cold War brought what everyone called the Peace Dividend and American was happy to take full advantage of it. Until 911, I for one never envisioned someone using our own infrastructure against us in such a way. I will not blame anyone for not foreseeing such an event. If someone did, I personally, would not want them in my government with such a deviant mind.

 

Personally my problem with Americans going into Iraq stems from the job not being complete in Afghanistan. I didn’t like the idea of putting troops on two different fronts at the same time. I didn’t see where Iraq was much of a treat even with Weapons of Mass Destructions (another made up phrase used for propaganda). The only reason I could see going into Iraq was for the oil, but I didn’t believe my government would do such a thing.

 

Do you think WMDs could be hidden somewhere in the boonies of Texas and not be found?

Who’s been talking? I mean… of course not. I have to go do some gardening now.

[GarfieldJL]

So you say perjury isn't a crime, seriously people go to prison for years for committing perjury. If Clinton had admitted about the affair it would have made him look bad, but he couldn't be impeached over it. Face it Clinton lied before a federal grand jury under oath and commited perjury. Do you want me to go out and find the transcripts to prove he lied under oath.

[Nancy Allen``]

Please. Show us.

[GarfieldJL]

Please. Show us.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_did_not_have_sexual_relations_with_that_woman

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

 

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[9]

 

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

 

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [10]

 

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [11]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment

 

The vote was practically entirely on party lines.

[mimartin]

So you say perjury isn't a crime, seriously people go to prison for years for committing perjury. If Clinton had admitted about the affair it would have made him look bad, but he couldn't be impeached over it. Face it Clinton lied before a federal grand jury under oath and commited perjury. Do you want me to go out and find the transcripts to prove he lied under oath.

 

I didn’t say perjury was not a crime. I still believe the impeachment of Clinton was about one thing polities. I still don’t understand why a grand jury was asking about his sex life. The sex life between two consistenting adults is none of Kenneth Star’s or any one else’s business. Personally I was taught by my parents not to kiss and tell. So if I go in front of a grand jury and they ask about my sex life I will commit perjury too.

 

I’m not saying Clinton did not lie or cheat on his wife. I’m also not saying Clinton lied for noble reasons; he lied to protect his power. My reason for believing it is entirely political is still the question, why did they ask a question about his sex life to begin with? What did it have to do with Whitewater? The Republican where practicing a witch hunt on Clinton. What amazes me is with the type of scrutiny his entire life was under and the amount of money that was wasted looking at every aspect of his life is that they didn’t find out anything to impeach him for other than his inability to keep his pants up.

 

Of course he could of just quote “Presidential Privilege” and not of answered the grand juries questions like some Presidents would do and have done.

 

The vote was practically entirely on party lines.

 

More proof that is was all about politics.