Poll - Should Bush Be Impeached?

Should President Bush Be Impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 62.9%

  • No

    Votes: 62 69.7%

  • I'm Not Sure

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Total voters
    89
So what are you really saying, Pabst?

Are you saying we achieved an objective standard in Iraq, and if you make that claim, do you honestly believe to know or have confidence of what is to happen when we withdraw?

Are you really not agreeing with me that we could have accomplished a lot more by pouring the resources we did into Iraq into Afghanistan, instead, which is increasingly unstable?

Are you really claiming that 4000+ killed and 30,000+ wounded American soldiers, not to mention the many civilians killed in Iraq as 'collateral damage' is anything less than a travesty, given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Are you saying that a financial cost of 1 to 3 trillion dollars, depending on whose estimates you care to rely on (a trillion here, a few trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money...), piled on to the backs of our kids in this country was money well spent?

I never know what you're trying to say. Maybe you don't either.
 
"If you don't realize that the Iraq War will enter the history books as one of the most counterproductive, asset draining, demoralizing and destabilizing wars the U.S. has engaged in..."
=======================

I know why, because Nancy said so.

"President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday."

I thought her comments very disrespectfull. In the corporate world she would have been out on her ass, with good reason. Lead, follow or get out of the way. She's third in line, I'd take a bullet for the prez or vice prez to keep her out.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

...If you don't realize that the Iraq War will enter the history books as one of the most counterproductive, asset draining, demoralizing and destabilizing wars the U.S. has engaged in by now...
More...
Not to mention that the reconstruction of post-war Iraq is in danger of becoming "the biggest corruption scandal in history," Transparency International has warned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4353491.stm
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I'm not pro-war but it's statements like yours that drive me crazy.

"One of the most...."

Compared to what? This is a "war" that has cost only 4000 American lives and accounts for around 2% of the Federal budget. This isn't even the biggest war being fought on the planet right now let alone some major historical event. More people die in Sudan each week than have died in 5 and a half years in Iraq.

Are you going to compare the cost and loss of life in Iraq to Vietnam? Or Korea?
How about 90% less deaths in Iraq vs. Nam (in a U.S. that's 50% more populated to boot). How about Nam costing 12% a year in GDP. Let's not even talk about WWll where almost half a percent of America perished. Not to mention this war was fought with VOLUNTEERS.

Your sentiments are why I call us Whiner Nation. Half your posts are some sort of bitching.

Saddam attacked Kuwait. We kicked his ass. He surrendered. He signed an agreement with the U.N. stating no support of International Terrorism. Seven years later he was funding Hamas suicide bombers. The anti-Israel U.N. (Syria was a member of the U.N. Security Council at the time) told Israel to take a hike, so we did what the spineless U.N. refused to do. We got together with THIRTY other countries and got rid of Saddam. Now according to all reports Iraq is on the road back. Their oil production is the highest in history, their own troops are quelling unrest and for all practical purposes the "war" is over. No thanks to people like you.

If you think Afghanistan is "winnable" without a draft then fine. Go enlist. How did the USSR do over there?
More...
Pabst, if the rationale for invading Iraq was so compelling, then why was there an alleged massaging and skewing of intelligence to support that invasion? Would not the unadulterated evidence stand on its own merits? Let's not arbitrarily jump to any conclusions one way or the other. That's why an investigation into the matter would be downright nifty. Especially since a fair number of allegations have been raised. Shouldn't Bush loyalists believe that a full and proper investigation would vindicate him?
 
Quote from nutmeg:

"If you don't realize that the Iraq War will enter the history books as one of the most counterproductive, asset draining, demoralizing and destabilizing wars the U.S. has engaged in..."
=======================

I know why, because Nancy said so.

"President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday."

I thought her comments very disrespectfull. In the corporate world she would have been out on her ass, with good reason. Lead, follow or get out of the way. She's third in line, I'd take a bullet for the prez or vice prez to keep her out.
More...

Why are you discussing Nancy Pelosi, and generalities at that?

The opinions I hold about the Iraq War were arrived at independently, considering ALL sources available to me, which includes domestic and foreign media. Hell, I even watch Fox News purposefully, just so that I can get a pulse on what Roger Ailes talking points are, and how far detached from reality they really are.

I assure you that I adopt no other person's views, and substitute them as my own. That doesn't mean I haven't found others that have spoken or written in such a logical manner that I am inclined to agree with them, or even be persuaded by the force of their argument.

Why can't you respond to specific issues regarding George W. Bush?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
 
The opinions I hold about the Iraq War were arrived at independently,

====================

I only quoted Pelosi because it seems to be consensus. Everyone arrives at their own conclusions differently and yours is valid.

The divisivness isn't going to accomplishing much, Bush is gone soon.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

Pabst, if the rationale for invading Iraq was so compelling, then why was there an alleged massaging and skewing of intelligence to support that invasion? Would not the unadulterated evidence stand on its own merits? Let's not arbitrarily jump to any conclusions one way or the other. That's why an investigation into the matter would be downright nifty. Especially since a fair number of allegations have been raised. Shouldn't Bush loyalists believe that a full and proper investigation would vindicate him?
More...

You don't get it do you? There isn't going to be any 'investigation". Did Senate Majority Leader Reid vote for the war? Of course he did. As did the last leader Daschle. Do you think those name Democrats who voted for war want to give depositions on who they consulted before their vote? Do you think AIPAC is going to allow that inquiry? I mean get off the friggin kool-aid. They would've impeached Bush in 2004 if they didn't see it as a losing issue. Beside there's nothing impeachable about anything Bush did anyways. Like I say or what anyone with a brain knows-the Democrats have their OWN sources in the Pentagon. There's nothing "special" about what Bush knows. Military has to testify and appear at committee hearings all the time. Ignorant liberal bloggers are in this never never world of clandestine reports ect. Then again these are the same folks who think instead of drilling or firing up nuke plants we can just set up windmills and put in a few solar panels.
 
hmmmm....

Pabst, that's some pretty cynical stuff you just wrote.

If you really believe that, what's the difference between Gore and Bush, or McCain and Obama?

I mean, they're different in name only, right, because the puppeteers behind the scenes stay the same?
 
What I'm saying is Iraq is not a big fucking deal. Is that a hard concept? No, 800 Americans dying per year is NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Capeche? it's the murder rate in Chicago. And the war won't cost 1-3 trillion. I know 50x more about the budget than you do (not a slam but I'm a Treasury trader turned one time Congressional candidate so i had to look it all up). The war has cost 550bil. MAYBE at the end of the day it'll approach 1 billion but that seems unlikely. It's virtually over. In 2008 dollars? Chump change compared to EVERY OTHER WAR we've ever fought. Anyone who thinks Iraq is some WATERSHED event in American history is a loser whiner. It makes me WANT to see some ass kicking war where we lose something like 9 million people. THEN you can tell me about the horror.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There may be a time in the next several years when people will long for the quiet days of the Bush years.

That being said yea I think it was a stupid war. But I'm an isolationist. I doubt YOU are. You're the kind of guy who'll be giddy when Obama kills some Iranians. Then you can drink some kool-aid and tell us how he went after the REAL enemy.:p



Quote from ByLoSellHi:

So what are you really saying, Pabst?

Are you saying we achieved an objective standard in Iraq, and if you make that claim, do you honestly believe to know or have confidence of what is to happen when we withdraw?

Are you really not agreeing with me that we could have accomplished a lot more by pouring the resources we did into Iraq into Afghanistan, instead, which is increasingly unstable?

Are you really claiming that 4000+ killed and 30,000+ wounded American soldiers, not to mention the many civilians killed in Iraq as 'collateral damage' is anything less than a travesty, given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Are you saying that a financial cost of 1 to 3 trillion dollars, depending on whose estimates you care to rely on (a trillion here, a few trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money...), piled on to the backs of our kids in this country was money well spent?

I never know what you're trying to say. Maybe you don't either.
More...
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

hmmmm....

Pabst, that's some pretty cynical stuff you just wrote.

If you really believe that, what's the difference between Gore and Bush, or McCain and Obama?

I mean, they're different in name only, right, because the puppeteers behind the scenes stay the same?
More...

Clinton, Bush, Gore offered no difference. I'd put Kerry and Obama on the same plane. Half on board. McCain out of all them is the MOST isolationist. I see him as an IKE. People forget but he was lukewarm about the war at inception and I just think he's less disingenuous than Obama about it all.
If the economy tanks Obama will do something rash militarily. If unemployment soars he'll view a draft as a stimulus package for young workers. That's how these things start. Do you think if the Dow had been 14,000 in 02/03 we would've fought Saddam. No way. Bank on a draft though. Done deal by 2111.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top