POLL: He should be impeached!!!!!! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Impeach or Not based on the Six Points?
Yes 20 71.43%
No 8 28.57%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-21-2003, 01:21 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:17 AM
I just went to Kerry's campaign site. If he wins the nomination he gets my vote. Nowadays our primary here in Alabama isn't until June. I think it's stupid. The damn nominees have already been nominated by the time we cast our votes. We used to be part of "Super Tuesday" in March, then some brilliant--NOT--people decided to change it. Ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 03:05 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Rono,

France did support the action after some arm twisting by the Clinton administration. The USA provided 90% of the combat power to free Kosovo of the Serbian military.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:40 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Ahhh yes another thread with the Resolution 1441 derailing.

Anyways.....back to the subject of the thread.

The President I was referring to was President William Jefferson Clinton.

The Six Criteria above were met by William Jefferson Clinton in 1988 when he attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan.


Quote:
I'm outraged. I can't believe the president would try to distract attention from his domestic problems by attacking foreign regimes based on suspect intelligence. He should be impeached!

Actually he already was. I'm referring of course to Bill Clinton, who in 1998 bombed terrorist bases in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and various sites in Iraq in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky mess.

The evidence that the Sudanese plant was actually making nerve gas for Osama bin Laden -- as Clinton claimed -- was subsequently discredited. Yet Democrats rushed to his defense. "We believe the president acted correctly and responsibly," House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said in a joint statement.

It's worth recalling this 5-year-old incident as the controversy over President Bush's radioactive State of the Union speech sputters on.

Politically opportunistic Democrats are invoking preposterous comparisons with Watergate because of the president's statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Democrats smell blood because the administration has admitted that its own findings about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium in Niger were based on forged documents. But it's quite a leap to go from faulty information to charges that the president deliberately lied. The real problem is that intelligence seldom provides certainty; it can only offer hints or clues that policymakers have to interpret as best they can.

That's precisely what Bill Clinton and his national security advisors did in 1998. In August, after Al Qaeda bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, they launched preemptive attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan because they didn't want to risk having poison gas released in the New York City subway. Even though the evidence was hardly conclusive that the Sudanese plant was working for Bin Laden, they decided to err on the side of safety. Based on the same precautionary principle, the administration bombed Iraq a few months later, even though there was no hard proof that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6128
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:59 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Dreadsox,

That was good! Interesting thing is, most of my answers would still be the same. Except for maybe #5 and #6. Clinton lovers here will not be happy. Very cool experiment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:04 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
You should have waited though until nearly everyone had voted to post that it was Clinton you were talking about. It will be interesting to watch the poll swing away from impeachment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:14 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Well i guess 1 - 3 are good reasons for impeachment - no matter which President it is. So if 1-3 are all proven there is a good reason to get rid of a president.
4 isn't a real reason
5 is only a reason if he knew that the sources weren't really reliable
6. i guess every president did - just take a look what they promise when they start the election campaign.

Klaus

p.s. i voted with yes
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:04 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 05:17 AM
just as an FYI, Clinton WAS impeached. The fact that it was sex and not military lying is perhaps more a commentary on the focus of the Republican controlled Congress who impeached him.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:10 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
just as an FYI, Clinton WAS impeached. The fact that it was sex and not military lying is perhaps more a commentary on the focus of the Republican controlled Congress who impeached him.
Clinton did do some military lying as the article stated. He attacked Sudan and spoke to the nation with false intelligence. That was the point.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:11 PM   #24
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Yes, Yes, Yes!
I can't ever vote in polls but YES! Before he starts another freakin war. Today's comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/in...D-PREX.html?hp

Bush Again Accuses Iran and Syria of Harboring Terrorists
By DAVID STOUT


ASHINGTON, July 21 — President Bush today accused Syria and Iran of continuing to "harbor and assist terrorists," and he warned that they would face consequences.

"This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable," Mr. Bush said at a news conference with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy at Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex.

Let's start another war to take the heat off the home team AGAIN!
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:40 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Dreadsox,

"Clinton did do some military lying as the article stated. He attacked Sudan and spoke to the nation with false intelligence. That was the point."

But it was not known that the intelligence used at the time was false or inaccurate. Clinton lied to a federal grand jury about his relationship to an intur. To the best of my knowledge its never been proven that he lied about anything else in regards to the military.

Scarletwine,

So what do you think of Hezbolah and the supplies from Iran that often ends up in Humas's back pocket in Israel?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 07:21 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:17 AM
So if clinton was just lying in public about his personal sexlife is less relevant to me than lying in election campaigns.
If he used his inteligence information and knew it was false or inaccurate - and therefore killed innocent men just to get the mediafocus away from domestic problems - they should have thrown him out of the office.

The US had better presidents before Mr.Clinton and will hopefully have better presidents after him again.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 07:41 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

So what do you think of Hezbolah and the supplies from Iran that often ends up in Humas's back pocket in Israel? [/B]
I don't think the US has been able to tie the Hezbolah to any terrorist action for more than 10 yrs.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15601
The U.S. has also complained about Syrian, and indeed Iranian, sponsorship of "terrorist" organizations like Hizbollah. Although no one except Israel and Washington define Hizbollah as terrorists, the administration's liberal use of the adjective, "terrorist," is geared toward a domestic audience - a strategy that worked very well in the case of Iraq.

Some telling quotes:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11938
Osama: The Pentagon’s Battle With Powell Heats Up

By Jason Vest, Village Voice
November 20, 2001

And updating to the Wolfowitz Cabal the Reagan-era view of then CIA director William Casey that all terrorist groups were interconnected via the Soviet, the links between Saddam, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and just about every other Middle East Islamist group are clear—thus necessitating the speedy deployment of bombs, and possibly even troops, to Iraq as well as Syria and Lebanon.

At a meeting in the White House Situation Room last month, Feith was so impassioned on this point that he took to banging his fist on the table, saying it was essential that the historically Hezbollah-controlled Sheikh Abdullah barracks north of Beirut be bombed. Others interviewed by the Voice report that there have been "epic shouting matches" in White House meetings over the issue of war expansion, and personnel at both Foggy Bottom and Langley have found their patience increasingly tried by the Wolfowitz Cabal. Indeed, despite the CIA's cowboy image, the Agency's old Afghan and Middle East hands marvel at what they consider lunacy. "The Agency as an institution would never offer up a view of these people, but if you ask individuals, they think these guys are more than a little nuts," says a veteran of the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

Adds another longtime case officer: "I think there's a common view in the intelligence community that if we're really serious about dismantling Osama bin Laden's network, intelligence is key, and for that, we necessarily have to work with our allies to get the best intelligence we possibly can, which is going to take time and cooperation. Powell's done a good job of putting a coalition together and keeping it together—he recognizes the reality that any coalition will break apart in a nanosecond if there's a call to go after Iraq. And going after Hamas or Hezbollah would be a terrible mistake—neither has broad-based support in Palestine, neither is an exclusively terrorist organization, neither is attacking Americans, and if we do go after them, they'll start targeting Americans. Attack those places and there will be consequences that we simply will not be able to deal with. But Perle and Wolfowitz are absolutists, and they're stupid."

According to both Pentagon and intelligence sources, in mid September the Project for the New American Century—a hawkish private policy group whose membership overlaps with the official Defense Policy Board—sent President Bush a letter after a two-day conference, declaring that failure to promptly remove Saddam would constitute a "decisive surrender in the war against terrorism." Ominously, it also held that if Syria and Iran refused to drop all support for Hezbollah, "the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism."

This is once again "Peace thru War" initiatives of Perle and Rummy & Wolfy being brought back as the next step. Jan. 2005 may be to late to stop these insane warmongers.


I'd venture to say that Saudi is a much more likely source of support, with much more $ than the Hezbolah.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 07:43 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 10:17 AM
I was well aware that Clinton fulfilled most if not all of the criteria provided, and I do not disagree with his subsequent impeachment.

My 'complaint' is that not every American president, or indeed, not every politician, gets what they deserve. I do not argue that Clinton's impeachment was just, my only wish is to see Bush impeached, as well.

Dreadsox, that 'was' good. Not to mention sly.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 08:21 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Liberians dumped mangled, bloodied bodies today outside the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia to vent their anger at the U.S., some of them saying, "If you had intervened, this would not be happening."
What the hell is goin' on here?

Bush said he would send in U. S. soldiers only after the dictator, Charles Taylor left.

Why did he not say the same thing about Iraq?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 08:27 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony

Dreadsox, that 'was' good. Not to mention sly.

Ant.
I have a good writer.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com