Don't you mean presidentS? Clinton said they had wmd, and don't forget Gore and Kerry and all the others. Should they be included in the proceedings?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Poll - Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Don't you mean presidentS? Clinton said they had wmd, and don't forget Gore and Kerry and all the others. Should they be included in the proceedings?
The disaster that is the Bush administration is probably reason enough for further investigations and possible impeachment. However, at this late time is it really worth the distraction? Both sides would use it to take attention off of the issues. The left would be going rah rah we need change. The right would be going, look at them wasting time on vengence instead of focusing on national security, or some other issue.
Sometimes when we, even as a Country, allow such stupid things as the Iraq invasion to take place, we have to simply say that we, collectively screwed up royally.
c
Sometimes when we, even as a Country, allow such stupid things as the Iraq invasion to take place, we have to simply say that we, collectively screwed up royally.
c
If you're going to refer to history, then do so accurately. Did Clinton start a pre-emptive, war? Not that I recall. He authorized surgical strikes where the evidence led him. He neither fabricated evidence nor cajoled intelligence analysts into doing so to suit his agenda. Bush tried to connect Saddam and Al Queda. Lies cannot get more bald-faced than that. Does it not bother you at all that your president regards and treats you as a fool?Quote from ilikefox es:
Don't you mean presidentS? Clinton said they had wmd, and don't forget Gore and Kerry and all the others. Should they be included in the proceedings?
Quote from Thunderdog:
If you're going to refer to history, then do so accurately. Did Clinton start a pre-emptive, war? Not that I recall. He authorized surgical strikes where the evidence led him. He neither fabricated evidence nor cajoled intelligence analysts into doing so to suit his agenda. Bush tried to connect Saddam and Al Queda. Lies cannot get more bald-faced than that. Does it not bother you at all that your president regards and treats you as a fool?
The "evidence" led Clinton to a "surgical strike" on an aspirin factory that killed a janitor. Or didn't you recall? Apparently not.
And on and on it goes.... fabricated evidence.... cajoled......
There's one person I know of that is treating people as a fool. Can you figure out who I might be referring to?
A grab-ass escapade undergoes a thorough and pain-staking investigation, but a full and proper assessment of allegedly questionable conduct by the Bush Administration, which initiated a pre-emptive war at considerable human and financial cost, should be brushed aside?! When the details of the alleged questionable conduct was brought to our attention by then Bush Administration insiders?! You're kidding, right?Quote from ilikefox es:
The "evidence" led Clinton to a "surgical strike" on an aspirin factory that killed a janitor. Or didn't you recall? Apparently not.
And on and on it goes.... fabricated evidence.... cajoled......
There's one person I know of that is treating people as a fool. Can you figure out who I might be referring to?
Quote from Thunderdog:
A grab-ass escapade undergoes a thorough and pain-staking investigation, but a full and proper assessment of allegedly questionable conduct by the Bush Administration, which initiated a pre-emptive war at considerable human and financial cost, should be brushed aside?! When the details of the alleged questionable conduct was brought to our attention by then Bush Administration insiders?! You're kidding, right?
You are revising history. An independent counsel was appointed to investigate a range of criminal misconduct by the Clintons and their associates. Whitewater, the McDougals, Rose Law Firm, etc. A trail of corruption followed the Clinton gang from Little Rock to DC. Ken Starr, the unfortunate Independent Counsel, was targeted by James Carville, Lanny Davis and other Clinton thugs for a vicious, unrelenting personal attack designed to obstruct justice and intimidate investigators. Along the way, one Clinton intimate, Vince Foster was found dead in an obscure park close to CIA HQs, and another, "Boss Hawg" himself Webb Hubbell went to prison for corruption. The Monica Lewinsky scandal only emerged very late in the investigation, and the counsel's office perhaps unwisely focused on it to the exclusion of other criminal conduct.
To be fair, in my opinion anyway, Clinton was not convicted of any of those allegations about white water, rose, and all the rest. There were millions spent to try to convict. Vince Foster? Nothing there either. Did the Clintons do some wrong things? Probably. But invoking the old where there's smoke there's fire is still not a legal conviction. The partisan politics makes it so hard to really judge objectively.
I do have to agree with posters who state that the invasion of Iraq was a atomic bomb compared to the slingshot of oval office screwing. Heck, even the Speaker of the House had to resign during the impeachment time frame, but Clinton went through all the impeachment inscathed, with the gigantic exception that he will always be connected to an impeachment. As I've stated before, most Americans think the word impeachment means kicked out of office.
Lying to the Senate was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. Invading Iraq was at least 3000 times worse, again, just in my opinion.
c
I do have to agree with posters who state that the invasion of Iraq was a atomic bomb compared to the slingshot of oval office screwing. Heck, even the Speaker of the House had to resign during the impeachment time frame, but Clinton went through all the impeachment inscathed, with the gigantic exception that he will always be connected to an impeachment. As I've stated before, most Americans think the word impeachment means kicked out of office.
Lying to the Senate was wrong, and he shouldn't have done it. Invading Iraq was at least 3000 times worse, again, just in my opinion.
c
And what was the upshot of those other elements of the investigation insofar as the Clintons were concerned? Let's at least give the same colonoscopy treatment to Bush that was given to Clinton, and see what emerges. There's sufficient noise being made by reasonably credible sources to warrant a closer look at Bush et al. And then let the cards fall where they may.Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
You are revising history. An independent counsel was appointed to investigate a range of criminal misconduct by the Clintons and their associates. Whitewater, the McDougals, Rose Law Firm, etc. A trail of corruption followed the Clinton gang from Little Rock to DC. Ken Starr, the unfortunate Independent Counsel, was targeted by James Carville, Lanny Davis and other Clinton thugs for a vicious, unrelenting personal attack designed to obstruct justice and intimidate investigators. Along the way, one Clinton intimate, Vince Foster was found dead in an obscure park close to CIA HQs, and another, "Boss Hawg" himself Webb Hubbell went to prison for corruption. The Monica Lewinsky scandal only emerged very late in the investigation, and the counsel's office perhaps unwisely focused on it to the exclusion of other criminal conduct.
And speaking of thugs, I wonder how Karl Rove is doing.
Hey everyone. I'd appreciate it if we could leave Bush's father, Clinton, FDR or anyone else out of the thread discussion unless you're making a direct reference to George W. Bush by bringing those other people up.
I would really like to keep focused on the topic of whether George W. Bush should be impeached, and if yes or no, why you do or don't think so.
I find that this is a fascinating thread, so far, given the extreme unpopularity of Bush on a traders/investors forum, and I'd like to continue to learn the various reasons for this response.
I'd do the same for you in your threads, if reminded.
Thanks.
I would really like to keep focused on the topic of whether George W. Bush should be impeached, and if yes or no, why you do or don't think so.
I find that this is a fascinating thread, so far, given the extreme unpopularity of Bush on a traders/investors forum, and I'd like to continue to learn the various reasons for this response.
I'd do the same for you in your threads, if reminded.
Thanks.