Is this enough for impeachment?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm guessing this won't last long.

Bush’s support jumps after long decline
Poll shows growing optimism on Iraq, economy

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin

Updated: 8:53 a.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005

President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538012/
 
deep said:
What won't last long?

the outrage at his illegalities?


or


the bump in the polls?

The right has displayed a philosophy that's it's alright to break the law as long as they approve. Approval negates legality.
 
Basically this is an issue of laws being broken, but that the Bush apologists are trying to spin into a dem vs repub issue. If they can make it into an "us vs them" issue, they'll get support. Since the media seems to be mostly Bush-friendly, I don't expect much to come of this.

diamond said:
That we haven't had any terrorists attacks on our soil post 9-11 -01 makes this policy worthwhile.
Could've said the same thing on 9-10-01. :wink:

My concern is that they're spying on political opponents and not terrorists. The fact that they didn't go through the proper channels and get warrants makes it seem like they were worried the warrants would not be approved. Hmmmm...
 
Last edited:
U2democrat said:


Whose district are you in? Moran?

Sen. Warner is hopefully pretty pissed about this but I bet Allen is sucking up to Bush.


Yes, Moran's. :) He and even Warner might be ok, but Allen def. is in Bush's pocket. All the more reason for a phone call. He know his seat is up in 2006.
 
stammer476 said:
The bump, yes.
in the thread about his last address

i said he would get this bump

it is mostly from his base


they will not care so much about this spying
and are happy he is being more forceful and less of a punching bag

his polls can get to around 50-52

but will never approach 60 again

his base will not abandon over this issue
he will keep blurring it as 9-11 related,

and their attitude will be
we have not had any more attacks

and who cares if you got nothing to hide

"mega dittos"
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But if he got a blow job you'd be screaming impeachment...:|

Wow the priorities...:huh:

Funny that you alluded to Clinton. I don't see any difference between Monicagate and whatever you want to call this. Clinton's opponents had already made a judgement against him from day one and they simply looked for anything to bring him down. Bush is in the same situation. I doubt anyone on this board (except maybe Dreadsox) had any love for Bush when he entered office. Now it seems that people here (and elsewhere) are looking for anything to justify that hatred.

If it turns out that Bush did not break any laws, will anyone here let it go? Somehow I doubt it.

As it turned out, Clinton did, in fact, break laws. And if it turns out that Bush did the same, he should pay for it.

I'm just withholding judgement until all of the facts come in. I don't particularly like egg on my face.
 
Last edited:
deep said:
his base will not abandon over this issue
he will keep blurring it as 9-11 related,

and their attitude will be
we have not had any more attacks

and who cares if you got nothing to hide
I'm so old, I remember when it was the conservatives who were suspicious of government. My how times have changed.
 
japes4 said:


I don't see any difference between Monicagate and whatever you want to call this.
You don't see the difference in lying about something that should have remained a private matter and spying?

You really don't see the difference?

Wow

japes4 said:

If it turns out that Bush did not break any laws, will anyone here let it go?


Let what go?
 
japes4 said:
I doubt anyone on this board (except maybe Dreadsox) had any love for Bush when he entered office.

Nope...I was horrified at what his people did to McCain.

I can say that I never once voted for Bush.
 
I have spent most of this Presidency trying to be SOMEWHAT objective. I've tried to stay out of a lot of the debates. At worst, I thought the President was delusional. Definitely not farsighted.
But I'm tired of being polite. Fuck you, Mr. President.
 
cydewaze said:

I'm so old, I remember when it was the conservatives who were suspicious of government. My how times have changed.

:lol: So true.

They also still try and use the "we stand for small government" line.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But if he got a blow job you'd be screaming impeachment...:|


A common re-writing of history, but the impeachment process dealt with lying under oath.

But I digress from our W bashing.... carry on.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


If you don't live well within the status quo, if you think outside the box, if you question anything you are the enemy.

Sounds a like a little too much hyperbole.


An investigation of a PETA event may indeed be warranted given some of the violent acts done by animal rights organizations.

Unless, of course, there is acceptable violence (which we should properly define).
 
Scarletwine said:
I love how some people don't care whether he follows the law. They just blindly take it.

No one is above the law.

Yes, the President must follow the law.


But there has been precious little discussion on the laws that were broken and the facts that substantiate the criminal violations.

We can continue to speak in generalities, but we do not bring any granularity to the issue.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

You don't see the difference in lying about something that should have remained a private matter and spying?

You really don't see the difference?

Wow



Let what go?

Has anything been proven? Have any laws been broken? Are there any indictments? Is there even an investigation yet?

It just seems that Bush's opponents are a little too eager condemn him, not unlike Clinton's opponents.
 
nbcrusader said:


An investigation of a PETA event may indeed be warranted given some of the violent acts done by animal rights organizations.

So I see PETA's the new terrorist cell.:|

Investigate all you want, keep it within the law, and don't blurr it with 9/11.
 
nbcrusader said:



A common re-writing of history, but the impeachment process dealt with lying under oath.

But I digress from our W bashing.... carry on.



nah. i think it's very easy to create the case that questioning someone about their sex life constitutes a perjury trap.

but continue with your derisive comments.
 
nbcrusader said:


Yes, the President must follow the law.


But there has been precious little discussion on the laws that were broken and the facts that substantiate the criminal violations.

We can continue to speak in generalities, but we do not bring any granularity to the issue.

You are right. The investigation hasn't taken place.

But there has already been many who've displayed acceptance of these actions no matter what the end results. Those that have already accepted that breaking the law is something he had to do to protect this country.

I believe this is what Scarletwine was referring to.
 
japes4 said:


Has anything been proven? Have any laws been broken? Are there any indictments? Is there even an investigation yet?

It just seems that Bush's opponents are a little too eager condemn him, not unlike Clinton's opponents.

You can't prove much without an investigation, hopefully that will happen and the truth will follow.

But you can't be so blind as to not see the difference between illegal spying(if true), and trapping someone into perjury.

If this does prove to be true. There was no trap set, there was no need for a trap, Bush set it himself.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You can't prove much without an investigation, hopefully that will happen and the truth will follow.

But you can't be so blind as to not see the difference between illegal spying(if true), and trapping someone into perjury.

If this does prove to be true. There was no trap set, there was no need for a trap, Bush set it himself.

Who forced Clinton to lie under oath?
 
Back
Top Bottom