POLL: He should be impeached!!!!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Impeach or Not based on the Six Points?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 8 28.6%

  • Total voters
    28
deep said:
top.bushkill.ap.jpg


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?

He must have missed the announcement that Saddam was willing to abdicate the throne.
 
Scarletwine,

Interesting your ready to defend Hizbollah and Humas. Many Israely citizens would look at this in disgust and horror.

"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."

What a lump of $%#@#$%. Several American students were killed last year by Humas supported suicide bombing at a university in Israel.

" 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.""

Yep, this case officer is real intelligent. Their always are "unamed officials" in every presidential administration blowing smoke, the question is, are they real, and if so, are they simply disgrunteled for unrelated reasons. But no, we should believe the X-files type stories of Wolfowitz. If Humas is not a terrorist organization, why do they claim responsibility for terrorist actions? Same with Hizbolah? Why did Iran ship a boat load of weapons to Humas that Israely security interecepted? Are we to believe Humas's claim that they are freedom fighters? I mean the best way to free Palestine is to target and kill Israely teens in Disco's, right? I think not, and I don't consider Hizbolah and Humas to be some type of passive and helpful organizations either.


"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."

Yep, volunteer to serve your country, take down a brutal Taliban regime and Al Quada organization in Afghanistan; remove Saddam, (a dictator that has murdered 1.7 million people, invaded and attacked 4 different countries unprovoked, used WMD more times than any other country in history, devoted massive amount of his nations wealth to the development of WMD) and you get branded an insane warmonger.
 
The question I would have to ask is whether or not Bush has actually committed any illegal acts. "Illegality" is what will make him impeachable. Being unethical and passing off "misinformation" is not the same as "illegal."

I would suggest that those who register their disgust with Bush to actually do something about it come 2004: vote!

Melon
 
Interesting your ready to defend Hizbollah and Humas. Many Israely citizens would look at this in disgust and horror.

I am not defending Hamas nor Hezbollah, just pointing out that Mr. Warmonger is looking for another fight to keep people distracted about the shit economy and his priority of giving his political backers what they want regardless of the consequences.
 
melon said:
I would suggest that those who register their disgust with Bush to actually do something about it come 2004: vote!
Melon

And by the way, I meant to tell you all that a new voting rule is in effect next year...

To decrease poll site congestion, Conservatives vote on Tuesday, and Liberals vote on Wednesday...
 
Scarletwine said:
I am not defending Hamas nor Hezbollah, just pointing out that Mr. Warmonger is looking for another fight to keep people distracted about the shit economy and his priority of giving his political backers what they want regardless of the consequences.

Nice spin. Will it carry a Democrat into the White House?
 
Scarletwine,

So any US president that uses the US military to defend the country and the countries interest is a Warmonger? I remind you that the majority of the American people supported US military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Something anyone running against Bush should remember.
 
"So any US president that uses the US military to defend the country and the countries interest is a Warmonger? I remind you that the majority of the American people supported US military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Something anyone running against Bush should remember."

No only one that pre-emptively attacks a country based on lies. I don't think the country is so supportive now.

He should be impeached if only for his stupidity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/118.html

During a speech last week about his "darned good intelligence" Bush came up with this gem: "We gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him." Now pardon me, but of all the lies that the administration has told during this affair, this particular one is 100% FIRST-CLASS TOP-DRAWER A-ONE BULLSHIT. Since George has obviously forgotten, here's what actually happened - the Iraqis did allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and then they had to pull out because George gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum.

I mean, have I gone mad here? This did actually happen didn't it? But let's face it - the most frightening thing about this latest lie is that I'm left wondering to myself why I know that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq for four whole months before we invaded, and yet the President of the United States doesn't. I mean, this is only the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation we're talking about here. So it would probably be nice if the leader of this country - the commander-in-chief of the military - could clearly remember decisions that he was involved in as far back as, ooh, March. And don't give me this "misspeaking" crap either. How the hell do you misspeak about something this important - something so relevant to your decision to go to war? It's a simple fact for crying out loud! For goodness sake, man, sort yourself out! You're an embarrassment!
 
STING2:
You didn't ask me, but i'd like to tell you my definition of a Warmonger:

It is someone who starts a war also he knows (or has the informations which should lead to the knowledge) that it is not the best option for the country.

And if you remember various quotes in the FYM forum and remember Rand Beers comments a few weeks ago:

Rand Beers quit his job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism eight weeks ago. On Monday, in a provocative interview with the Post, the veteran Washington bureaucrat ? who served on the National Security Council under four presidents ? lashed out at the administration's handling of the war on terrorism and homeland security.

Beers charged the administration "wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure. ? The longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

He said the administration was "underestimating the enemy" and had failed to address the root causes of terrorism. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded," Beers told the newspaper.

and

While he has worked for three Republican presidents, Beers is a registered Democrat. He says he joined the Kerry campaign because he decided the Massachusetts senator offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues of the presidential candidates.

He says he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" as he did that the Bush administration's policies need to be changed.

On other issues, Beers told the Post the U.S. had abandoned the war in Afghanistan without destroying al Qaeda, only dispersing terrorists around the country. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said.

If Rand Beers (former counterterrorism adviser which worked under 4 presidents, 3 of them republicans) is right, i would call the current US government Warmongers.

oliveu2cm: :lol:

Klaus
 
Scarletwine,

He did miss-speak, but its obvious that you can't get passed your opposition to Bush to see that.

Iraq was required to give up its WMD per multiple UN resolutions and a Ceacefire. There was nothing pre-emtive about the operation in that sense. In fact, considering 12 years of Saddams games, it was late.

But who cares if Saddam was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Who cares about enforcement of these resolutions. Who cares about disarmament of Saddam's regime and making the Persian Gulf safe and secure. Who cares about preventing another 1.7 million people from dying from Saddam's reign. George Bush launched a war and thats evil and to hell with the important reasons behind it.
 
Klaus,

Although Beers is wrong in what he asserts, he did not label the administration warmongers like yourself. Hitler was a warmonger. Saddam is a warmonger.
 
Sting: that's right, i didn't want to sound like he called them warmongers, i gave you my definition and then i added a quote from somebody with more insight in the administration then you or me - and i mentioned "if that is true (they start the war even if they know it makes the situation in their country worse) I would call them warmongers"
 
Last edited:
80sU2isBest said:


And by the way, I meant to tell you all that a new voting rule is in effect next year...

To decrease poll site congestion, Conservatives vote on Tuesday, and Liberals vote on Wednesday...

No no...you have it all wrong. It goes left then right, not the opposite way. You guys have Wednesday. :sexywink:

Melon
 
Dreadsox: I knew immediately where you were coming from. That's why I didn't vote. I reconized the rhetoric, because I saw it for years before thousands of people were killed, right before my eyes. My first thought was God NO! not again. An impeachment proceedings for 16 words would be the equivelent of years of nothing but drivel from the networks and yes, quite frankly, fodder for everyone running for President. Don't tie up the peoples attention on frigging words. I don't care what "words" were spoken, I only care what happens from this point on. Yes, It should be looked at, but this country needs to focus on what the big picture is. Bush is there, not for long maybe. and as hard as it is to say, we're stuck with him. I don't want to go thru another impeachment, it would do more harm than good. Especially since the world didn't care about Clinton's shenanagins in the first place. I truly hate this tit-for-tat mentality and will not support anyone who plays into it. Is it serious?, yes. Do I want impeachment, NO! under no circumstance's. At this point, I only know who I don't want to be President next time around, and that include's dem's & this republican.
 
sue4u2 said:
Dreadsox: I knew immediately where you were coming from. That's why I didn't vote. I reconized the rhetoric, because I saw it for years before thousands of people were killed, right before my eyes. My first thought was God NO! not again. An impeachment proceedings for 16 words would be the equivelent of years of nothing but drivel from the networks and yes, quite frankly, fodder for everyone running for President.

I am sorry about what you saw. I put out no rhetoric. I was trying to make a point. I am not for impeachment over these 16 words...I really feel it is hypocritical of politicians to have issued statements supporting Clinton's bombing of the people in Sudan, and the same Politician's now are calling for an investigation.

:wave:
 
Please, by no stretch of any imagination was I saying you were in favor of impeachment- and didn't mean to imply you were quoting rhetoric. However, I still, have heard all this before, and think an investigation (not impeachment) is in order, just for the sake of national security. I mean really, if we have no trust worthy intelligence in the US and GDB for President, then something must be done - Immediately, we are in very serious trouble.
(oh - just for the record, I got it)
 
Last edited:
sue4u2 said:
Please, by no stretch of any imagination was I saying you were in favor of impeachment- and didn't mean to imply you were quoting rhetoric. However, I still, have heard all this before, and think an investigation (not impeachment) is in order, just for the sake of national security. I mean really, if we have no trust worthy intelligence in the US and GDB for President, then something must be done - Immediately, we are in very serious trouble.

No problem. We are VERY much on the same page. I think an inquiry is in order. However, from my readings on the topic, the intelligence community was almost blind with zero intelligence coming from the ground in Iraq since 1988.

I am still suspicious that the weapons are in Syria or are out of the country with someone else.

Investigation is necessary!!!
 
[Q]"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." [/Q]

Mr. Clinton....hat's off to you!
 
Dreadsox said:
[Q]"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." [/Q]

Mr. Clinton....hat's off to you!

he never was as petty as his attackers
 
Back
Top Bottom